Obama Our Leader

[matt wade]

No my allegations are not false. Isn't Annenberg the group that was funding some of O'bama's ward healing in Chicago? So why would I believe anything they put out.

Factcheck.org is a very balanced source. It is even handed and just presents the facts.

 

[LeBuick]

Real leadership would have put responsibility for the initial crisis at the feet of government social re-engineering where it lays, calmed America's concerns rather than spread fear, reduced the subsequent on-going impact from reduced spending because of lost confidence, and encouraged American's to work out their problems including owning up to their bad debts without submitting to such excessive government spending.

Or he could tell the people the truth (instead of the economy is sound while they loose their jobs, houses and sleep on the streets) and he could pass a massive stimulus package to help the economy rebound.

Remember, your plan was on the ballot and went down in flames last Nov 4th...

 

[LeBuick]

No, historically cutting taxes has raised income. It even did that recently. The problem is too much spending. If the government would quit spending, they could live on a lot less money. If they would lower taxes, they would have more money in most cases.

Wrong, Reagan cut taxes his first year then ended up having to raise them in his second. Bush cut taxes and look what happened to the deficit. You can't cut taxes and reduce the deficit unless you eliminate all other spending. And since that won't happen...

During the campaign he promised tax cuts to 95% of Americans (which was a stupid promise to begin with), but 95% of Americans are not in the middle class.

Wrong again, he said 95% would not see an increase in their taxes. To be more specific he said only the top 5% who make more than $250,000 annual income would see an increase. It was the Republican's who kept twisting at what level he would give a tax break.

 

[Revmitchell]

Wrong, Reagan cut taxes his first year then ended up having to raise them in his second.

"Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982" did temporarily raise some taxes, but overall, Reagan was a major tax cutter. Factcheck.org is playing games. No reasonable person would argue that Reagan raised taxes overall. He agreed to raise certain taxes that had only been cut for one year in 1982, such as doing away with accelerated depreciation of assets, which had only been on the books for one year. Reagan did this because Democrats promised to cut spending by $3 for every $1 of tax cuts Reagan did away with. Factcheck draws a correlation between government revenue brought in the next year after a tax law passes as being caused by the tax law. Actually government revenue increases and decreases because of thousands of things, not just one tax law passed the year before. In other words, just because 'A' happens, and then 'B' happens, does not mean that 'A' caused 'B'. Ronald Reagan did not raise taxes more than any other President, he lowered them a great deal.

The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.

Patrick Tyrrell
Research Coordinator
Center for Data Analysis
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue NE
Washington DC 20002

 

[LeBuick]

Rev, you're talking about the 1982 bill which is when he raised taxes back up. I was referring to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 when he cut taxes too much which is why we needed the 1982 tax bill. The 1981 tax bill didn't leave Government enough money to run and would have blown the deficit sky high.

As it was, even with raising taxes in 1982, Reagan quadrupled the national debt in his 8 years. Under Reagan, the national debt went from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Now if a fiscal responsible conservative like Reagan raised the deficit $2.3 trillion certainly we can give a tax and spend democrat $800 Billion.

 

[Revmitchell]

Rev, you're talking about the 1982 bill which is when he raised taxes back up. I was referring to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 when he cut taxes too much which is why we needed the 1982 tax bill. The 1981 tax bill didn't leave Government enough money to run and would have blown the deficit sky high.

You need to reread the research again.

 

[LeBuick]

You need to reread the research again.

I'll give you a visual Rev, this way you can see who raises the national debt...

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

 

[Revmitchell]

I'll give you a visual Rev, this way you can see who raises the national debt...

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

Obama is the finest example of this currently. No need to look anywhere else.

 

[LeBuick]

Found the old article I was looking for...

http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html

Where have we seen this deranged fiscal strategy before? Remember Ronald Reagan and Supply Side Economics? In the early 1980s, Reagan promised the nation that if we lowered tax rates on the wealthy, the economy would grow so much the federal budget would be balanced "within three years, maybe even two."

The results, we now know, were a disaster. In 1982, the first full year after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy actually shrank 2.2%, the worst performance since the Great Depression. And the effect on the federal budget was catastrophic.

Jimmy Carter's last budget deficit was $77 billion. Reagan's first deficit was $128 billion. His second deficit exploded to $208 billion. By the time the "Reagan Revolution" was over, George H.W. Bush was running an annual deficit of $290 billion per year.

Yearly deficits, of course, add up to national debt. When Reagan took office, the national debt stood at $994 billion. When Bush left office, it had reached $4.3 trillion. In other words, the national debt had taken 200 years to reach $1 trillion. Reagan's Supply Side experiment quadrupled it in the next 12 years.

Is there anything to compare this to? When Bill Clinton took office he intentionally reversed the Supply Side formula, raising taxes on the wealthy and reducing them on the lowest wage earners. Supply Side true believers predicted the arrival of the Apocalypse. Bob Dole said the stock market would collapse. Newt Gingrich said the world would fall into another Great Depression.

What actually happened?

Between 1992 and 2000, the U.S. economy produced the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 18 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years.

Real interest rates fell by over 40% producing the greatest housing boom ever. Overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations. Most impressively, Clinton reversed the mammoth deficits of the Supply Side years, turning them into surpluses. He used these surpluses to begin paying down the national debt.

By virtually every meaningful measure-employment, growth, inflation, interest rates, investment, deficits and debt-the economy performed better once the Supply Side experiment was terminated and replaced with a more honest economic policy where we actually pay our bills as we go.

This might all be ancient history if the spectre of Supply Side economics had not reared its ugly head again once Bush II took office. In selling his $1.6 trillion tax cut-half of which went to the wealthiest 1% of Americans-Bush promised in 2001 that it would produce 800,000 new jobs. In fact, the economy has lost 2.7 million jobs since Bush took office, again, the worst economic performance since the Great Depression.

The effects of Bush's tax cut on the deficit and debt are exactly what we would expect having seen Reagan's results-only worse. Bush inherited from Clinton a fiscal surplus of $127 billion. In his first year he turned that into a deficit of $158 billion. In this, his second year, he will run a deficit of over $400 billion-a swing to the worse of over $600 billion in only two years.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Wrong, Reagan cut taxes his first year then ended up having to raise them in his second. Bush cut taxes and look what happened to the deficit.

Neither cut spending. That's the problem.

You can't cut taxes and reduce the deficit unless you eliminate all other spending. And since that won't happen...

No, you can cut spending by eliminating entitlement and waste and do fine. The problem is that no one has the courage to cut spending, including you apparently.

Wrong again, he said 95% would not see an increase in their taxes. To be more specific he said only the top 5% who make more than $250,000 annual income would see an increase. It was the Republican's who kept twisting at what level he would give a tax break.

That was after he got caught and realized that 95% of American don't pay taxes. He's slick, and you bought it.

 

[matt wade]

That was after he got caught and realized that 95% of American don't pay taxes. He's slick, and you bought it.

I hope you don't actually think that is true.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

 

[Revmitchell]

Wrong again, he said 95% would not see an increase in their taxes. To be more specific he said only the top 5% who make more than $250,000 annual income would see an increase. It was the Republican's who kept twisting at what level he would give a tax break.

Either you did not watch one single speech made by Obama or you are just not telling the truth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUomLMA3vVQ&feature=PlayList&p=D98BE0B34A455ED5&playnext=1&index=35

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb1vleMSgs4


And by the way small business owners are making 250,000 which he wants to jam with higher taxes. He fails to be honest there.

 

[rbell]

Remember, your plan was on the ballot and went down in flames last Nov 4th...

Funny. One side of your mouth mentions "bipartisanship," and then the other says this. Oh well, 40% of the country doesn't matter.

As it was, even with raising taxes in 1982, Reagan quadrupled the national debt in his 8 years. Under Reagan, the national debt went from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Now if a fiscal responsible conservative like Reagan raised the deficit $2.3 trillion certainly we can give a tax and spend democrat $800 Billion...

You ever heard of the "Soviet Union?" Are you familiar with the term "Cold War?"

It's one thing to run up a deficit to protect our country and rebuild our emasculated military. It's another to authorize money to be spent on golf courses, casinos, and government programs in the name of "economic stimulus."

But like you said...hey, "we" lost, so it really doesn't matter what we think, does it? We should just sit back and accept whatever comes our way, right? We should not voice our opinions, should we? (especially if someone deems it "untrue." The first amendment wouldn't apply then).

 

[Pastor Larry]

I hope you don't actually think that is true.

I said that unclearly. The point is that he cant give a tax cut to 95% of Americans because there are many in that 95% who pay no taxes.

 

[Dr. Timo]

change

We're in for some big time changes that will hit home with the Church and Christian ministries!!! He may be our leader but thank God that he's sovereign!!!:jesus:

 

[LeBuick]

Either you did not watch one single speech made by Obama or you are just not telling the truth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUomLMA3vVQ&feature=PlayList&p=D98BE0B34A455ED5&playnext=1&index=35

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb1vleMSgs4


And by the way small business owners are making 250,000 which he wants to jam with higher taxes. He fails to be honest there.

Thanks for the clips from the non-biased Fox news, the station who CLAIMS to give both sides equal time (yea right). Let's use these clips so I can break this down and show you why I said PL statement was wrong and I am right by saying 95% would not see an increase in their taxes is an accurate statement.

Let's get the quotes...

From the first clip...

1. I will help pay for this by asking folks making more than $250K/yr [mysterious and abrupt snip there (that is $250K and up to pay more)]

2. As president, I will cut taxes for every WORKING family making less than $200K/yr (ie... tax cuts begin at $200K/yr).

3. It should go to middle class people, people making less than $150K/yr (gaff machine Joe Biden so don't blame Obama).

4. Bill Richards said $120K and below (again, not Obama giving this number so don't blame him)

He said in the second clip...

1. I will eliminate capitol gains taxes on small businesses and start up's (there goes your small business warning).

2. I will cut taxes for 95% of WORKING families (keep this number in mind)

3. He then asked everyone who makes less than $250K/yr to raise their hands, he said I am speaking to you. You will not see your taxes RAISED one single dime under my administration (didn't say cut, said will not raise).

4. 95% will see your taxes go down (again, 95% will see tax cut)

Now let's open up the facts by breaking down the countries incomes...

Please see this link of 2007 salary statistics. If you look closely at column 1 labeled Households you will see that only 3.7% of American households make more than $200K/yr. So this demographic says that 96.3% of American households make less than $200K/yr.

If you add .2% to this demographic, you will see that only 3.9% of American households make more than $150,000 to $199,999. This means 96.1% of American households make LESS than $150K/yr.

According to Obama's promise, if he cuts taxes at $150K/yr and below he is cutting taxes for 96.1% of American's which when rounding makes 95% a fairly accurate statement. Even if he cut taxes at $200K/yr he is still accurately rounding by by using the number 95%. In both cases it actually more than 95% (either 96.1% or 96.3%) that would receive the tax cut but 96.1% doesn't sound as good in a campaign speech.

Also note the Families column which is 4.8% and 5% respectively. Is that more accurate and better?

You see, where the GOP went wrong was trying to split the hairs of $200k/yr and $250K/yr without listening. They were trying so hard to catch him in a lie that they weren't listening to what he was saying. Yes, he kept using two different figures but if you listen closely he consistently said for earners $250K/yr and above taxes would go up vs. earners $200K/yr and below taxes would go down which means $200k/yr to $250K/yr would remain unchanged.

The other thing this clip points out is America (Joe Biden and Bill Richards) really don't know what middle class is...

 

[LeBuick]

Funny. One side of your mouth mentions "bipartisanship," and then the other says this. Oh well, 40% of the country doesn't matter..

I never said 40% doesn't matter, what I said is if the 40% want to meet the 60% at the table of discussion and come to a compromise then the 60% is more than willing to listen. However, when the 40% come to the table with an attitude of it's my way or you won't get my support, then I think they need to be reminded of who won and who has the 60%.

I would think you should be more upset with your representation for coming to the table with that attitude than to be upset with the 60% for giving the same response you would have gave. Bipartisanship doesn't mean I will do it your way, it only implies I will listen and consider to your views. Now when I listen to your views, considered them with an open mind and decided no then that is the answer and bipartisanship has been achieved. It is not the reaction of the GOP who grabbed the mic's, yelled louder saying they wouldn't listen. Oh they listened and heard, they just didn't agree (big difference).

 

[LeBuick]

I said that unclearly. The point is that he cant give a tax cut to 95% of Americans because there are many in that 95% who pay no taxes.

Yet he repeated used the word WORKING. 95% of WORKING...

 

[Revmitchell]

Thanks for the clips from the non-biased Fox news, the station who CLAIMS to give both sides equal time (yea right).

The news source is irrelevant especially since it was video of Obama himself. But nice ad hominem.

Let's use these clips so I can break this down and show you why I said PL statement was wrong and I am right by saying 95% would not see an increase in their taxes is an accurate statement.

You can't. Obama used the word tax cuts. All your word wrangling will not change that.

 

[dragonfly]

Obama is the finest example of this currently. No need to look anywhere else.

Translation: I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts.