Baracks self assesment

OverMyHead wrote: JoeinNY wrote: Someone remind me why the "deficit hawk" republican candidates are all advocating not only making permanent all the bush tax cuts but also major additional tax cuts for the ultra wealthy in thier economic plans? Probably because the same report has unemployment rising again above 9% and staying over 7% Through 2016, and that it says economic growth will hover at an anemic 2% through the same period, Or it could be the the CBO has a history of being optimistic with forecasts that it revises later, or that the CBO 's accuracy rivals my local weather guys snow fall predictions. I do not see 4 more years of unemployment at or near current rates as acceptable for 4 more years, I see it as proof of Obama's failed policy.

Have you signed up yet to be one of Newts 13,000 moon colonizers yet?
Ron Paul said it best when he said he would send the other three to the moon! I am in favor of letting the voters do that, it's much cheaper.

I love to visit here and get the minority opinion of the radical right!

OverMyHead wrote: JoeinNY wrote: Someone remind me why the "deficit hawk" republican candidates are all advocating not only making permanent all the bush tax cuts but also major additional tax cuts for the ultra wealthy in thier economic plans? Probably because the same report has unemployment rising again above 9% and staying over 7% Through 2016, and that it says economic growth will hover at an anemic 2% through the same period, Or it could be the the CBO has a history of being optimistic with forecasts that it revises later, or that the CBO 's accuracy rivals my local weather guys snow fall predictions. I do not see 4 more years of unemployment at or near current rates as acceptable for 4 more years, I see it as proof of Obama's failed policy.

So you are saying if we cut taxes even more, the revenue should go up?

More like "going to hell in a hand basket", so lets make it happen faster and make the rich richer first. We tried to help the wealthy in this country, and it didn't work then and I cannot see how it will this time.

Please tell me how it will help. I really want to know because with what you are telling us, we would not be here if it wasn't for Obama even though we were in a tighter spot before Obama and with the tax cuts in place.

Dave (OMH).....What in the wide, wide world of sports is going on here? Looks like you are Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn    Our friends on the left side of the aisle are coming out of the woodwork after you. I honestly didn't think there were so many of them around here.

I hope they don't come out of the woodwork like this next November.

Four more years of Obama

Carry on sir! You are holding your own.

Its a compliment. You are a great debater! Four against one, and you are still winning!

ononewheel wrote: So you are saying if we cut taxes even more, the revenue should go up? More like "going to hell in a hand basket", so lets make it happen faster and make the rich richer first. We tried to help the wealthy in this country, and it didn't work then and I cannot see how it will this time. Please tell me how it will help. I really want to know because with what you are telling us, we would not be here if it wasn't for Obama even though we were in a tighter spot before Obama and with the tax cuts in place.

Yes Seth,Have you ever heard of the Laffer curve? when taxes are 0% you collect 0. When they are 100% you collect????? Zero. But how can that be 100% of everyone's earnings would be huge right? Except no one would work because taxes are punitive. When you lower taxes you lower the punishment and increase the reward and so more people go out and work and you make it up on volume. Why is it Barack did not repeal the tax cuts when he got into office? He had the House and Senate. he promised when campaigning that he would. When he took office he said that you can not raise taxes in a down economy. What is different now, unemployment is higher than when he took office, growth is stagnant. He just needed time for us to get used to the "New Normal" to continue his agenda. Tell me how I will end up making more money if you take some from my boss? That fundamentally does not make a bit of sense. We did much better when people worried about getting things for themselves rather than worrying about what someone else has and should give them.

I look at the model that lead to this country becoming the greatest nation in the history of the earth, and I compare it to a Greece. I see where we have been and what is happening since we started changing the model. I see what works and what does not, and prefer to follow the model that works.

Of course we need energy. Oil companies are just like all other corporations that are publicly held. Their responsibility is to make the largest profit possible. Regulation is necessary to balance their interests.
Oil is traded on a global market. The fact that it comes through a pipe from Canada really does not effect our usage or the price. I have not been turned down at a gas station, airport, or marina since 1973. They will sell me all I want.

How will a pipeline create jobs. If we use a finite amount of fuel now, will we use more after the pipeline is finished? Where do these new jobs come from after the initial construction? We are already transporting, refining, and distributing, all of the oil we care to burn right now. The XL pipeline jobs will only displace jobs currently held by people employed in the oil transportation / refining industry. The only way it can create jobs is if it reduces the efficiency of the oil transportation / refining / retailing industry to the point where it requires more manpower to process the the quantity of oil the nation currently uses.

We can collectively make a huge difference in oil and enery use and the balance of trade without any major sacrifices. Buy a car that provides the best mileage while still meeting your needs. My "daily driver" gets 35mpg. It's not right for everyone, but it suits me well. If you truck guys want a big truck get the best mileage model. Most of us could use a couple less gallons a week if we try. You've heard all this before.
I enjoy boating and other fossil fuel sports, and I use more oil than most Americans, as most of us here probably do. I don't want to ban boats, ground GA airplanes, or restrict individual oil use. It's the little things that make a difference. Changes don't happen overnight, but you have to take a step to make anything happen.

john b wrote:    If we use a finite amount of fuel now, will we use more after the pipeline is finished? Where do these new jobs come from after the initial construction?

Solindra?

I was hoping my crack about Rhodesia would spark some debate(pg 2). It's a great bit of history.

Daaaamn Dave, I thought your philosophy was start a war, more soldiers, they have cars to, this is what stimulates the economy, are you allright? not all right, but are you ok?

OverMyHead wrote: BuffaloBFN wrote: It's Solyndra...and... Actually its nothing now but a hole in the ground where we threw over half a billion dollars.

Wellllll, actually.....its still a huge,$500Bil brand spanking new building that was built with gold plated toilets and ivory light switches to build over-priced, non-competitively priced solar panels in which the company had no idea what they were doing. But, hey, its only the tax payers money, so what the heck.

Government picking "winners" again.

There's been a couple of other "Green Energy" companies that have gone bust since then too.

Lets see how do we sum up the current faux news indoctrinated rules of debate… is it first poke fun of the cited sources because they use things like accepted and proven economic theories, and math to come up with their projections and then cherry pick one small portion of the cited report that has nothing to do with the original argument and then use it as the only source of your next non related strawman even though you just said they were a useless source.   

      Or do you cherry pick, obfuscate, and then refute.. I always forget these things… I guess I better watch newt debate a few more times. I could just listen to oreilly or rush, but I have a week stomach.
       
      One doesn’t need to dispute the idea of a laffer curves existence to refute the straw man of zero tax rates equaling zero income or 100 percent tax rates equaling zero income… yes such a thing exists so um you must be right less taxes is better?

     But wait what happened to there being a spending problem? Already given up on that? What about the fact that those slowish growth numbers being forecast by the CBO being a result not of the increase in taxes needed to bring down the deficit but by the lack of government investment do to all the cutting that has gone on under Obamas watch?       
      
    But wait we are supposed to worry about the cuts in defense spending and the effect that will have on the economy? So do we or do we not have an all encompassing spending problem?   Is it the most important issue… if so we do nothing we continue to cut spending and we allow the failed bush tax policy to retire and we take our slow and steady growth as it is forecast.   Certainly that is better than the contraction and meltdown left to us by the last silver spoon republicant that came through?
       
      So let’s say you have abandoned that train of thought and it is not about spending now and it is once again about the Laffer curve effect that was brought out by both Reagan and Bush jr.   You would have us believe this curve is shaped like a two humped camel? (One sweet spot at the clinton numbers to the right of reagans final nubmers and one to the left of reagans starting numbers)

     Back when Reagan made the argument there was not a lot of historic data to correlate the theory to the actual workings of the modern American economy. So while it was recogonized that such a curve certainly existed it was argueable as to what point on the curve we were at and where it would in fact reach the “sweet spot” where you could decrease marginal income tax rates and yet see increased income.   Reagan took us from way out on the right to way out on the left. That provided us with some pretty good data. But it was only two points.. certainly we now knew where the sweet spot was not.. the rising deficits were proof of that. Reagan saw that proof and moved from the far leftmost point (lowest marginal tax rates) nowhere near to the ultra rightmost point that he started on (highest marginal tax rates) but inched more to the right by raising taxes off of his lows back to the range.   When he did income increased and economic activity did not slow.. this fits the theory and the models pretty good. Now maybe he had gone past the sweet spot and that it was between the early Reagan marginal rates and the late Reagan marginal rates, or maybe he was still on the left hand side of the curve and he could raise rates again.. that was something that could be argued by both sides without either being so wrong as to be laughable.   
     
    The first bush started a war screwing up the data set, he needed to raise tax rates to pay for it.. but he also messed up the market by throwing in government demand, shocks to the oil supply etc.. .his data can be thrown out (but it would favor my arguments if we didn’t).
       
     Clinton (or his economists) made the argument that the sweet spot on the curve was still farther out on the right.   He therefore moved the highest marginal rates more to the right.. not way out to where they were under carter or anything but to the right where common sense lead him to believe that really rich guys wont stop working just because on the part of their yearly income over a very high threshold they are taxed at say 38%.   Common sense I say because common sense tells us that keeping 620,000 of the second million one makes is better than not making a second million at all just to keep the governments hands off the 380,000 they would tax.. but I digress.

      The theory, math, and Clinton proved correct. Income rose, the economy worked, growth was rampant and we were looking at surpluses that could be used to pay down the balance on the credit card that Reagan and Bush had left behind (hey at least Reagan had won the cold war).
     
      Next came junior… he argued that woah hold the phone what we really needed to do what lower taxes to the left of not only Reagans last levels but on investments to the left of Reagans first levels. To be damned that common sense and any economist who used math said that wouldn’t work. What the heck guys we got the money, and you know we will just make those tax cuts temporary.. but don’t worry you won’t believe the growth that will ensue. Even though the projections all show they will increase the debt to monstrous uncontrollable levels that is just common sense and math talking… don’t be confused by that- you can feel that lower taxes is better in your souls.. just give me a shot.
     
     Ok we bought in, hook line and sinker. Quasi understandable if you are going to make an error you should make the error on the side of people getting to keep more of their money.. but it didn’t work. At all… it did exactly what the economic theory that had been correlated with data from Reagan and Clinton (and common sense) predicted. Thank god we were only going to try them out for a limited amount of time and then let them sunset.

Now ,
“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — [pauses] — shame on you. Fool me — [pauses] — You can't get fooled again”

So I for one don’t take kindly to the supposed conservatives ignoring the legacy of Reagan, history, math, proven theories, and common sense and trying to get us to double down on Jr’s policies.

Junior left us with few choices… slow growth while we work to reduce our deficit and rebuild a real demand driven efficient economy through private means ( we cant afford to invest in public ones, like a space program) is about the best you can hope for when your flakey wife spent the last 8 years putting a second mortgage on the house and running up the balance on the credit cards.   Asking that Obama would already have us going out three nights a week and back to buying snowmobiles and inboard ski boats after 3 years is a little silly don’t ya think?   We are closer to being back in school taking one class at a time as we can afford it.. now a more liberal way would say just borrow the money and go to law school right way and we could recover quicker but that is not what has been proposed.

The more “conservative” way… lets quit our day jobs and keep living off the credit cards but don’t worry we will be the life of the party and rich people will love us and invite us to hang out with them on their yachts --- that will work, for those elected anyway.   The rest of us will be left on the dock when the yacht party sails away with the mega rich and the republican leaders on its way to china.

So what silly little oil line, solyndra, trival nonsense am I supposed to be watching in your left hand while your right hand is taking the wallet out of my pocket and reaching for my credit cards to buy the Champaign for the yacht to china?   

     And he didnt turn down the pipeline, he made them go back and do some work to find a route that hasn't already been rejected by the states involved and would therefore get caught up in court for years before eventually changed. The actual group pushing for the pipeline was dubfounded when the nutcakes in the house started pushing for artificial timelines as they knew that they couldnt go forward with the only plan they have at this point and needed more time to reroute.. I even heard that from the project managers mouth.. on fox no less.   

Pick a story and stick to it.. or better yet go start recruiting for 5 years from now someone with a clue, the only guys that can pass the current republican primary purity test don't have a chance.

OverMyHead wrote: Yes Seth,Have you ever heard of the Laffer curve? when taxes are 0% you collect 0. When they are 100% you collect????? Zero. But how can that be 100% of everyone's earnings would be huge right? Except no one would work because taxes are punitive. When you lower taxes you lower the punishment and increase the reward and so more people go out and work and you make it up on volume. Why is it Barack did not repeal the tax cuts when he got into office? He had the House and Senate. he promised when campaigning that he would. When he took office he said that you can not raise taxes in a down economy. What is different now, unemployment is higher than when he took office, growth is stagnant. He just needed time for us to get used to the "New Normal" to continue his agenda. Tell me how I will end up making more money if you take some from my boss? That fundamentally does not make a bit of sense. We did much better when people worried about getting things for themselves rather than worrying about what someone else has and should give them.

Dave, it is still going to come down to why it is not working now, nor did under the creator of the tax cuts.   It did not work then, before Obama was in the picture, and it still didn't work when he is. I cannot understand why you think slow movement in the right direction is worse than a quick and long regression which is what happened for the previous years.

I thought your major argument was always "for the good of the country, and not each persons best interest" so why not tax your boss more, after all you claim it isn't about you and how that is going to make you more money?

Aren't you jumping for joy, the funding for Planned Parenthood was brought to into the spotlight and that "wasteful spending", caring for what I know you like, women, and the good parts they have. I say that not to muddy the water, only to highlight what I think is the real issue for you, and it isn't the economy, just your ideology which conflicts the current administration.

Dang, pick the argument and stay with it. You are upset over the gm "bailout", but then claim buy American. You claim we should all worry about our selves but in the same breath you support the same party that wants to ban what folks do in their bedroom and who they poke or lick.

harddock wrote: It strikes me as odd that Obama inherited the economic mess from GW but it isn't until year three that he starts to do anything about it. His adjenda was healthcare, and bailouts. and you talk about crative math but when people stop collecting unemployment because their time ran out Obama claims that there are all new jobs and those people must be working because they are not collecting. There are so many pipe lines criss crossing this country that a map of them looks like a plate of spaghetti and the safest way to move oil is by pipe because if a leak does occur you shut off the nearest valve yet for political reasons this one is no good. Obama has an adjenda, Tax the wealthy, yet let big corperations that have moved mahy jobs pay 0 taxes. Try to rig the workforce to being union only. Promise transparncy and working across the isle but ignoring that concept except when called on it and then blame the republicans. No matter what the subject the democrats are not to blame. No matter what the issue democrats have the better idea. Ther is no grey only black or white. Don't preach to me about Mitt, Newt, Rick or Ron. You have Barrack, Joe, Harry and Nancy.

Thanks for your input.   I am significantly dumber for having read your post and trying not to store that crap.


I'd love to gear your arguments for Mitt, Rick, or Ron, besides the Faux news talking points that you are good at promoting.



I'll hear crickets I suppose.    Let's hear it.    Come on Rick Perry has to have something good. Hummmm.   I'll give you a minute.


( Imagine crickets in the heat of the summer )

And Mitt, nice. Doesn't he make $57k a day. I bet he will think he has the biggest cock if he makes it to November. His name is Willard, and the only putang he ever got was because his wallet was bigger than his bulge in his "just like you" jeans. Bring on the "Obamacare" argument, and how bad that was for MA and the US.   How do you think he will escape that?

Newt, have a good time defending him. His baggage has arrived and it is sitting out by the end of the driveway waiting to be picked up by the trash man.   

Ron Paul, good luck man. He'll need it.   He will need a deck of cards consisting of nothing but diamonds and hearts, because the spades and clubs are will get him.



By the way if you think Obama sat around for three years, I think your ship has sailed.   Listen to Dave, he understands Obama laid the ground work with his "overbearing" government regulations.   

Don't even bother to explain your "union only" comment. That ship is getting ready to sail too, wouldn't you like to have the benefits of a safe, secure, and honest days pay.   

I don't know much about a Laffer curve, but to say people are not working because of high taxes is funny.

I need to borrow those glasses of yours for the summer, all the girls will be beautiful, the beer free, and the GOP debates will be good stuff.

eric lavine wrote: Dave, I really do notice the economy in an upswing

That is good news. I see a lot of mixed signals, The company I work for seems to be picking up some. My side business is very slow, but we serve different markets. The wealthy seem to be tired of waiting and are cautiously spending. The working class are still scared.