Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43

Thread: Americans Still Blame Bush More Than Obama for Bad Economy

  1. #21
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,503
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4493768]Your answer is confusing. Earlier you said that the Bush Tax cut was for the 1%. Then here you say Obama had to extend the tax cuts for the people my ideology (absurd statement BTW) tend to forget? With the power of the Presidency, House and Senate why not cancel the cuts completely or cancel part of them if that is great for the economy?

    Next you claim that "the Bush tax cuts show the largest redistribution of wealth shifted about 20% year after year creating the largest gap in the history of our nation". The statement is confusing so I'd like for you to clarify. Since tax cuts are by definition the opposite of redistribution of wealth I assume you want to correct that part of the sentence. Now the Bush Tax Cut actually made the tax code more progressive by removing a large portion of the "bottom 50%" from having to pay any taxes at all.

    We know the numbers. In 1980 the top 10% paid 40% of the income tax burden. Today do to shifts in the tax code the top 10% pays 70% of the income tax burden. I'm not sure how those numbers jive with your theories. Finally the main reason that statistics show a gap in income is because of the crappy economy. The liberals in goevrnment have blocked entrapraneuers through regulation. They have blocked attempts at energy expansion through the EPA's repeated obstruction. They have blocked attempts at expansion of domestic manufacturing through an NLRB filled with union cronies. When Boeing wanted to open a new multi-billion dollar plant the NLRB blocked them and sued them. In the end they blackmailed Boeing in to giving a generous new contract to workers at the Oregon plant. Then when the Keystone Pipeline project was proposed which would have brought with it jobs and energy security the President blocked it to appease his environmentalist donors. Even though everyone agrees that the project brings jobs and energy security. When government stands in the way of progress you get a crappy economy. That shrinks the middle class.

    Taxing rich people is a distraction. Rich people already shoulder most of the tax burden. We can slam them some more but it wont solve anything. Obama's big "Buffet Rule" raises 4 billion a year in new revenue. So essentially rich people already on average pay around 30% or so in federal income taxes. I make a nice upper middle income salary and my effective rate is around 20%. So rich folk pay more then I do. Again please explain where you get your claime as they seem to contradict reality.

    I had another question for you. In your post you say that Bush/Paulson/Bernake trio created the TARP program which essentially saved our economy from collapse during the housing crisis. Yet I noted that Obama claims on the stump that he saved the economy. Of course the reality is that Paulson led the charge that saved the economy which started under Bush continued under Obama. Which one was it, the Bush administration that created and executed the TARP program or Obama that continued it? You should watch the HBO special "Too Big to Fail" authored by Democrat Andrew Ross Sorkin for the answers.[/QUOTE]

    Its pretty clear and You're splitting hairs and blaming Hollywood and that's ok as its part of the plan for the sheep. I pay pay attention and connect the dots myself. I don't need Hollywood, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc to tell me how to "interpret" information and know that Republicans and Democrats are all full of horse $hit.
    Last edited by dmitexxi; 06-17-2012 at 04:28 PM.

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,067
    George Washington was a tool.

    Thomas Jefferson was a tool.

    JFK was a tool.

    Reagan was a tool.

    Bush Sr. was a tool.

    Clinton was a tool.

    Bush Jr. was a tool.

    Obama is a tool.

    Same as it ever was.





    You "political party" a**hats are the crap that festers at the bottom of a fishtank. Keep convincing yourselves that you actually matter to anything.

  3. #23
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,503
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4493894]George Washington was a tool.

    Thomas Jefferson was a tool.

    JFK was a tool.

    Reagan was a tool.

    Bush Sr. was a tool.

    Clinton was a tool.

    Bush Jr. was a tool.

    Obama is a tool.

    Same as it ever was.





    You "political party" a**hats are the crap that festers at the bottom of a fishtank. Keep convincing yourselves that you actually matter to anything.[/QUOTE]

    Exactly. They don't realize they are really this

    [IMG]http://countrysideanimalhospital.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/highres_33955341.jpg[/IMG]

    They also probably don't believe/realize religion is yet another tool utilized

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=dmitexxi;4493887]Its pretty clear and You're splitting hairs and blaming Hollywood and that's ok as its part of the plan for the sheep. I pay pay attention and connect the dots myself. I don't need Hollywood, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc to tell me how to "interpret" information and know that Republicans and Democrats are all full of horse $hit.[/QUOTE]

    I didn't mention Hollywood in my post. I had some questions about claims you were making that conflict with reality.

  5. #25
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,503
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4494005]I didn't mention Hollywood in my post. I had some questions about claims you were making that conflict with reality.[/QUOTE]

    You're referencing stupid silly movies. That's the problem with you blind sheep righties always redirectIng. All my claims are there for you to research, I'm done spoon feeding you.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=dmitexxi;4494013]You're referencing stupid silly movies. That's the problem with you blind sheep righties always redirectIng. All my claims are there for you to research, I'm done spoon feeding you.[/QUOTE]

    He asked how Bush's tax cuts were given with the ultra-rich in mind, but Obama had to extend them to help the middle class. You might feel it's a stupid question, but it's a legitimate one nonetheless.

    Unfortunately, all you seem fixated on is Hollywood, even though all I could find is a MINOR reference he makes to an HBO documentary written by a Democrat -- some may agree with your "stupid silly movies" characterization, but I highly doubt that was his intent.

    If you don't have an answer, just admit it. But for all the nonsense that goes on in this forum, it would be nice if legitimate discourse was actually encouraged . . .

  7. #27
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,503
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4494039]He asked how Bush's tax cuts were given with the ultra-rich in mind, but Obama had to extend them to help the middle class. You might feel it's a stupid question, but it's a legitimate one nonetheless.

    Unfortunately, all you seem fixated on is Hollywood, even though all I could find is a MINOR reference he makes to an HBO documentary written by a Democrat -- some may agree with your "stupid silly movies" characterization, but I highly doubt that was his intent.

    If you don't have an answer, just admit it. But for all the nonsense that goes on in this forum, it would be nice if legitimate discourse was actually encouraged . . .[/QUOTE]

    Let's first agree with the following economic principle; that during a time of recession one of fiscal policy tools available is cutting taxes to stimulate GDP by increased consumer spending. Unfortunatly GDP growth during the bush administration was an anemic 2%. Regan who had a TERRRIBLE recession had GDP growth of 3.5 while dealing with the cold war. Ford and Nixon even had 3% growth. Made makes his 2% even more pathetic is that he used a second fiscal tool increased government spending (2 wars, bigger government with Homeland security, etc)

    The issue with his tax cut was it was disproportionate as I will illustrate below:

    Top .1%: 8.2%
    Top 1%: 7.3%
    99-95%: 3%
    90-95%: 1.9%
    80-90%: 2.4%

    This translates to the approx tax savings per bracket

    Top .1%: 240k
    Top 1%: 70k
    99-95%: 6k
    90-95%: 1k
    80-90%: $480

    On why it was extended he overlooks how patriotic Republicans threatened they would block all legislation in the lame-duck session of congress until all the cuts were extended through 2012, Obama in turn got unemployment extended for 12 months.

    At this point with the economy still fragile, and with the Euro falling apart raising taxes at any level would be catastrophic.

    Also his comment on bush/Paulson/bernake shows he doesn't know how our system works because fiscal and monetary policy must not influence one another, that was a GROSS abuse of power.

    Now I'll wait for the typical mind numbing rhetoric response from whom ever their preferred mouth piece is and i will most likely ignore moving forward.
    Last edited by dmitexxi; 06-17-2012 at 11:32 PM.

  8. #28
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,607
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4493894]George Washington was a tool.

    Thomas Jefferson was a tool.

    JFK was a tool.

    Reagan was a tool.

    Bush Sr. was a tool.

    Clinton was a tool.

    Bush Jr. was a tool.

    Obama is a tool.

    Same as it ever was.





    You "political party" a**hats are the crap that festers at the bottom of a fishtank. Keep convincing yourselves that you actually matter to anything.[/QUOTE]

    Sure I matter.
    Without taxpayer $ you don't have an income.
    Stop sponging off of me like a drug-addled derelict and get a real job.

    George Washington was a tool. :coocoo:
    If you count using rolled up dollar bills for snorting, yes...
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-18-2012 at 07:44 AM.

  9. #29
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,607
    [QUOTE=dmitexxi;4494073]Let's first agree with the following economic principle; that during a time of recession one of fiscal policy tools available is cutting taxes to stimulate GDP by increased consumer spending. Unfortunatly GDP growth during the bush administration was an anemic 2%. Regan who had a TERRRIBLE recession had GDP growth of 3.5 while dealing with the cold war. Ford and Nixon even had 3% growth. Made makes his 2% even more pathetic is that he used a second fiscal tool increased government spending (2 wars, bigger government with Homeland security, etc)

    The issue with his tax cut was it was disproportionate as I will illustrate below:

    Top .1%: 8.2%
    Top 1%: 7.3%
    99-95%: 3%
    90-95%: 1.9%
    80-90%: 2.4%

    This translates to the approx tax savings per bracket

    Top .1%: 240k
    Top 1%: 70k
    99-95%: 6k
    90-95%: 1k
    80-90%: $480

    On why it was extended he overlooks how patriotic Republicans threatened they would block all legislation in the lame-duck session of congress until all the cuts were extended through 2012, Obama in turn got unemployment extended for 12 months.

    At this point with the economy still fragile, and with the Euro falling apart raising taxes at any level would be catastrophic.

    Also his comment on bush/Paulson/bernake shows he doesn't know how our system works because fiscal and monetary policy must not influence one another, that was a GROSS abuse of power.

    Now I'll wait for the typical mind numbing rhetoric response from whom ever their preferred mouth piece is and i will most likely ignore moving forward.[/QUOTE]

    I'd welcome an explanation about how fiscal and monetary policy must not influence one another.

    Paulbots and rap. Not sure how they go together but there it is.
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-18-2012 at 08:02 AM.

  10. #30
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,503
    [QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4494145]I'd welcome an explanation about how fiscal and monetary policy must not influence one another.[/QUOTE]

    Let me rephrase that as it needs refinement, and I'll start by saying that I'm of the belief that Federal Reserve Bank should cease to exist; but given the current structure Fiscal and monetary policies should only focus on a goal. The federal reserve should not haven been dictating/cheerleading/fear mongering the Billions of dollars for the tarp program which comes out taxpayers pockets like you and I.

    Their sole purpose should have been to make The cost of borrowing money cheap and accessible, and not influence what the federal government does with their revenue from OUR tax dollars. Now if your ok with an group of non publicly elected officials intervention on fiscal responsibility and private markets, that sounds like something else to me.
    Last edited by dmitexxi; 06-18-2012 at 08:35 AM.

  11. #31
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,675
    [QUOTE=Buster;4493350]And you believe people will logically deduce that we should elect a man who will return us to the Bush administrationís economic policies?[/QUOTE]

    LOOK! Its Talking Point Parrot! Want an Axlerod cracker, Polly? :rolleyes:

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=dmitexxi;4494013]You're referencing stupid silly movies. That's the problem with you blind sheep righties always redirectIng. All my claims are there for you to research, I'm done spoon feeding you.[/QUOTE]

    I will amend. When I hear people complaining about the TARP I already know that those people have no clue about the dire situation we were in at that moment. I suggest you READ Andrew Ross Sorkin's book Too Big to Fail. The book goes through the progression of the crisis and points out the choices that were being made at the time. Hank Paulson very well may have saved our banking system with the moves he made. The vast majority of those funds, particularly in the original incarnation of TARP before Obama got his hands on it, was returned in full.

    I pointed that out to help you by correcting your ignorance. If you educate yourself it can only help you understand how our economy works.

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=dmitexxi;4494073]Let's first agree with the following economic principle; that during a time of recession one of fiscal policy tools available is cutting taxes to stimulate GDP by increased consumer spending. Unfortunatly GDP growth during the bush administration was an anemic 2%. Regan who had a TERRRIBLE recession had GDP growth of 3.5 while dealing with the cold war. Ford and Nixon even had 3% growth. Made makes his 2% even more pathetic is that he used a second fiscal tool increased government spending (2 wars, bigger government with Homeland security, etc)

    The issue with his tax cut was it was disproportionate as I will illustrate below:

    Top .1%: 8.2%
    Top 1%: 7.3%
    99-95%: 3%
    90-95%: 1.9%
    80-90%: 2.4%

    This translates to the approx tax savings per bracket

    Top .1%: 240k
    Top 1%: 70k
    99-95%: 6k
    90-95%: 1k
    80-90%: $480

    On why it was extended he overlooks how patriotic Republicans threatened they would block all legislation in the lame-duck session of congress until all the cuts were extended through 2012, Obama in turn got unemployment extended for 12 months.

    At this point with the economy still fragile, and with the Euro falling apart raising taxes at any level would be catastrophic.

    Also his comment on bush/Paulson/bernake shows he doesn't know how our system works because fiscal and monetary policy must not influence one another, that was a GROSS abuse of power.

    Now I'll wait for the typical mind numbing rhetoric response from whom ever their preferred mouth piece is and i will most likely ignore moving forward.[/QUOTE]

    Now to correct this nonesense:

    Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.[5] In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passed legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they were to expire in 2010.

    The lowest tax bracket was reduced by 35%. Also to help lower income families the child tax credit was doubled and the marriage penalty was reduced. The top tax bracket by contrast was reduced by 10%.

    The overall tax reduction of the tax burden was approximately 300Billion per year with 200Billion going to families making under 250K and 100Billion to those making more then 250K.

    Finally to correct your numbers on growth the Bush administration as flawed as they were inherited a .com bubble and also suffered the housing crisis. No one that understands economics can place the blame for either recession on Bush or his administration. There is plenty of blame to go around starting with the the Broadening of the Community Reinvestment Act and the repeal of Glass Steigel. Both of which happened under Clinton.

    Here is a tidbit on the CRA:

    [I][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act[/url]

    Legislative changes 1992
    Although minor amendments were made directly to the Community Reinvestment Act concerning the consideration of minority and female owned institutions & partnerships during evaluations first established in 1991, other portions of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 indirectly affected the CRA practices at the time in requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.[4][/I]

    There is plenty more. Under Clinton the CRA was beefed up to force banks to take on riskier loans or face penalties from the Government. Fannie and Freddie were required to purchase the sub-prime loans as a matter of law.

    The 2% average growth under Bush took in to account the recession he inherited as well as the Housing Crisis that was the culmination of years of poor government policy. Still it certainly would be preferable to the -2%+ growth we have averaged under Obama.

    Personally I have no wish to return to the policies of the Bush administration. They lost their way and abandoned their supposed small government principles. I don't see that happening this time around with the Tea Party policing the GOP.
    Last edited by chiefst2000; 06-18-2012 at 10:16 AM.

  14. #34
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,503
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4494220]Now to correct this nonesense:

    Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.[5] In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passed legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they were to expire in 2010.

    The lowest tax bracket was reduced by 35%. Also to help lower income families the child tax credit was doubled and the marriage penalty was reduced. The top tax bracket by contrast was reduced by 10%.

    The overall tax reduction of the tax burden was approximately 300Billion per year with 200Billion going to families making under 250K and 100Billion to those making more then 250K.

    Finally to correct your numbers on growth the Bush administration as flawed as they were inherited a .com bubble and also suffered the housing crisis. No one that understands economics can place the blame for either recession on Bush or his administration. There is plenty of blame to go around starting with the the Broadening of the Community Reinvestment Act and the repeal of Glass Steigel. Both of which happened under Clinton.

    Here is a tidbit on the CRA:

    [I][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act[/url]

    Legislative changes 1992
    Although minor amendments were made directly to the Community Reinvestment Act concerning the consideration of minority and female owned institutions & partnerships during evaluations first established in 1991, other portions of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 indirectly affected the CRA practices at the time in requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.[4][/I]

    There is plenty more. Under Clinton the CRA was beefed up to force banks to take on riskier loans or face penalties from the Government. Fannie and Freddie were required to purchase the sub-prime loans as a matter of law.

    The 2% average growth under Bush took in to account the recession he inherited as well as the Housing Crisis that was the culmination of years of poor government policy. Still it certainly would be preferable to the -2%+ growth we have averaged under Obama.

    Personally I have no wish to return to the policies of the Bush administration. They lost their way and abandoned their supposed small government principles. I don't see that happening this time around with the Tea Party policing the GOP.[/QUOTE]

    LOL at quoting Wiki

    Even college professors will rip up a paper using wiki as reference.

  15. #35
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,503
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4494209]I will amend. When I hear people complaining about the TARP I already know that those people have no clue about the dire situation we were in at that moment. I suggest you READ Andrew Ross Sorkin's book Too Big to Fail. The book goes through the progression of the crisis and points out the choices that were being made at the time. Hank Paulson very well may have saved our banking system with the moves he made. The vast majority of those funds, particularly in the original incarnation of TARP before Obama got his hands on it, was returned in full.

    I pointed that out to help you by correcting your ignorance. If you educate yourself it can only help you understand how our economy works.[/QUOTE]

    I don't need to read the book, i work in the industry that directly impacted this mess, so the ignorance is yours my friend.

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=dmitexxi;4494256]LOL at quoting Wiki

    Even college professors will rip up a paper using wiki as reference.[/QUOTE]

    I wasn't writing a term paper there just correcting your own unsourced statements. As far as you working in some industry you clearly have no idea of my background. Similarly you have no answers to the corrections of your misstatements. I'm not trying to make you look stupid here. Just to correct you and point you in the direction of the research you should do for yourself if you are truly intellectually curious about the topic at hand.

  17. #37
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,503
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4494272]I wasn't writing a term paper there just correcting your own unsourced statements. As far as you working in some industry you clearly have no idea of my background. Similarly you have no answers to the corrections of your misstatements. I'm not trying to make you look stupid here. Just to correct you and point you in the direction of the research you should do for yourself if you are truly intellectually curious about the topic at hand.[/QUOTE]

    LOL OK dude

    [IMG]http://www.marriedtothesea.com/022310/i-hate-thinking.gif[/IMG]

  18. #38
    [QUOTE=dmitexxi;4494151]Let me rephrase that as it needs refinement, and I'll start by saying that I'm of the belief that Federal Reserve Bank should cease to exist; but given the current structure Fiscal and monetary policies should only focus on a goal. The federal reserve should not haven been dictating/cheerleading/fear mongering the Billions of dollars for the tarp program which comes out taxpayers pockets like you and I.

    Their sole purpose should have been to make The cost of borrowing money cheap and accessible, and not influence what the federal government does with their revenue from OUR tax dollars. Now if your ok with an group of non publicly elected officials intervention on fiscal responsibility and private markets, that sounds like something else to me.[/QUOTE]

    TARP was supported by both the Treasury secretaries of both President Bush and President Obama and passed by Congress. I'm perfectly okay with professors, the head of the Federal reserve and any other economic experts testifying before Congress so they can make an informed policy decision. What's the problem? The Fed didn't pass TARP, Congress did.

    TARP was administered by the Treasury under the President. The Fed simply had a consultation role. The Treasury Secretary had full discretion when it came to where TARP funds went.

    Anyone can influence Congress in fact Congress holds hearing regularly to get the advice of experts on a variety of topics before passing legislation.

  19. #39
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4494209]I will amend. When I hear people complaining about the TARP I already know that those people have no clue about the dire situation we were in at that moment. I suggest you READ Andrew Ross Sorkin's book Too Big to Fail. The book goes through the progression of the crisis and points out the choices that were being made at the time. Hank Paulson very well may have saved our banking system with the moves he made. The vast majority of those funds, particularly in the original incarnation of TARP before Obama got his hands on it, was returned in full.

    I pointed that out to help you by correcting your ignorance. If you educate yourself it can only help you understand how our economy works.[/QUOTE]

    Sorkin's book focuses on Symptoms but when are people going to discuss fixing the root cause?
    We need wholesale reform of the monetary system. Both political parties are married to the status quo. The change we need transcends the 2 party circle jerk we've been stuck in the past 100 years.

  20. #40
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,607
    Invasion of the Paulistinians :rotfl:

    If we converted to the gold standard and Soros tanked it those nuts would say we asked for it

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us