What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama 6(...66)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Why should the Feds be collecting taxes from your fellow Minnesotans then redistributing the same back to MN for bridge repairs on a state road in Eden Prairie?

Your state DOT takes care of the roads and bridges, your municipality takes care of the water and as you have sufficiently stated in the past, the Feds have no business in education and unfunded mandates - so why defer to them now? Why can't our states take care of this on our own and collect and distribute tax $ more efficiently?

Because our Republican Governor ****ed away all the money and refused to raise taxes in order to bring in more money. (he had no problem with fees though but he never quite figured out that without taxes you have nothing to spend) The State is broke thanks to the Spendhappy Minnesota Republican Party. And before you make comment, it was the Bush Regime that told TPaw to run for Governor (he was all set to announce his bid for Senator and was called on his way to the press conference and "asked" to change his mind) and it is the current GOP that is falling all over itself to try and get him into higher office.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

That's like saying, if the South won the Civil War, you'd be president now. A false premise always yields a true result.

You have no idea what Academy Award Winner Gore would have done, you can only guess. We know what Pres. Bush43 did, because he was in the big chair.

True enough, I don't know. However, given the admin he'd served in's track record, I believe his push to keep deficits in check more than the guy who won.

On a different note, great article in Time about Obama media strategy....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling 'Em Out: The White House Takes on the Press
By Michael Scherer Thursday, Oct. 08, 2009

Obama aides say they can't rely on reporters to referee public debates.
There was never a single moment when White House staff decided the major media outlets were falling down on the job. There were instead several such moments.

For press secretary Robert Gibbs, the realization came in early September, when the New York Times ran a front-page story about the bubbling parental outrage over President Obama's plan to address schoolchildren — even though the benign contents of the speech were not yet public. "You had to be like, 'Wait a minute,'" says Gibbs. "This thing has become a three-ring circus."

For deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer, the more hyperbolic attacks on health-care reform this summer, which were often covered as a "controversy," flipped an internal switch. "When you are having a debate about whether or not you want to kill people's grandmother," he explains, "the normal rules of engagement don't apply."

And for his boss, Anita Dunn, the aha moment came when the Washington Post ran a second op-ed from a Republican politician decrying the "32" alleged czars appointed by the Obama Administration. Nine of those so-called czars, it turned out, were subject to Senate confirmation, making them decidedly unlike the Russian monarchs. "The idea — that the Washington Post didn't even question it," Dunn says, still marveling at the decision.

All the criticism, both fair and misleading, took a toll, regularly knocking the White House off message. So a new White House strategy has emerged: rather than just giving reporters ammunition to "fact-check" Obama's many critics, the White House decided it would become a player, issuing biting attacks on those pundits, politicians and outlets that make what the White House believes to be misleading or simply false claims, like the assertion that health-care reform would establish new "sex clinics" in schools. Obama, fresh from his vacation on Martha's Vineyard, cheered on the effort, telling his aides he wanted to "call 'em out."

The take-no-prisoners turn has come as a surprise to some in the press, considering the largely favorable coverage that candidate Obama received last fall and given the President's vows to lower the rhetorical temperature in Washington and not pay attention to cable hyperbole. Instead, the White House blog now issues regular denunciations of the Administration's critics, including a recent post that announced "Fox lies" and suggested that the cable network was unpatriotic for criticizing Obama's 2016 Olympics effort.

White House officials offer no apologies. "The best analogy is probably baseball," says Gibbs. "The only way to get somebody to stop crowding the plate is to throw a fastball at them. They move."

The general in this war is Dunn, 51, a veteran campaign strategist who arrived at the White House in May. She has been a force in Democratic campaigns since the late 1980s and helmed Obama's rapid-response operation during his run. At the White House, she has become a devoted consumer of conservative-media reports and a fierce critic of Fox News, leading the Administration's effort to block officials, including Obama, from appearing on the network. "It's opinion journalism masquerading as news," Dunn says. "They are boosting their audience. But that doesn't mean we are going to sit back." Fox News's head of news, Michael Clemente, counters that the White House criticism unfairly conflates the network's reporters and its pundits, like Glenn Beck, whom he likens to "the op-ed page of a newspaper."

As a mother — who plans to transition to a new job later this year in order to spend more time with her 13-year-old son — Dunn is a rarity in the almost all-boys club that is Obama's inner circle. But her impact on the White House has been unmistakable. Since her arrival, the communications operation has been tightly refocused, with greater emphasis on planning ahead to shape the news cycle and controlling staff contacts with the press. In daily internal meetings, she points out where to strike back or admit error.

It is not hard to awaken her fiercer instincts. "Here in the White House, you are reluctant to feel like you have to go to that place," she says. "But we have to be more aggressive rather than just sit back and defend ourselves, because they will say anything. They will take any small thing and distort it." In other words, after eight months at the White House, the days of nonpartisan harmony are long gone — it's Us against Them. And the Obama Administration is playing to win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Rover

42's track record????

Does that mean that AAW Gore would have been chasing interns? Would Tipper now be SecState?? :)

How did we get from 44 to 42?
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

As Lewis Caroll would say: curioser and curioser.

Let's see if I have this right: BHO, for whom the legacy media did and continue to do an unprecedented group grope, is worried about bad press? And intends to "fight back?" Oh, Lord, please deliver me from this piffle.

Instead of girding his loins for battle with Roger Ailes, maybe he could, you know, be a little tougher on say: Chavez, Castro, Syria, Iran, North Korea et al.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Rover can yammer all day long about his man-crush on the democratic party, but the only reason Clinton and the GOP controlled Congress was successful at controlling spending was due to each other, just as W and both parties in Congress were detrimental to each other.

...which, of course, explains today's problem. We have a spendthrift prez and spendthrift Congress that are putting the previous 4 congresses to shame.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Yeah but whats funny is the Congress seems to think they should be the ones making the decisions and for some reason BHO is allowing it. They are more detrimental to his administration than anything. I would give my left eye to have him give a speech telling Congress to **** and get on board or get the hell out of the way. They are going to need his coattails in 4 years (assuming he doesn't blow up something huge) and he should remind them of that.

Only the Dems could screw this up this bad this way. The GOP might have screwed up, but they would at least all be working together to do it. The Dems seem to want to have 50 different ways to screw up everything and then argue over whose method was better. This is what we are left with in the two major parties...it is beyond sad.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

First, no massive gimmicky tax cut which left a big hole in the budget.

Um.....Federal tax revenues (both individual and total) increased from 2003 to 2007. You may now return to your regularly scheduled diatribe, facts be dammmned.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

You have no idea what Academy Award Winner Gore would have done, you can only guess. We know what Pres. Bush43 did, because he was in the big chair.

Based on the sabermetric concept of Wins Above Replacement (WAR). Bush was an unprecedented disaster. Anybody else, including you, would have produced better results. If it will make you happy not to challenge the Republican Uber Alles principle, a McCain 2000 presidency would have produced better results.

Also, if we're going to say you can never evaluate past events against hypotheticals, that means every time you say "it was a good thing that the Republicans adopted A rather than B" or "it was a bad thing that the Dems adopted X rather than Y," you're blue-skying it, because according to your line of argument there is no way to compare a historical event against a non-historical idea.

I guess Reagan was no better than Mondale.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Um.....Federal tax revenues (both individual and total) increased from 2003 to 2007.

False comparison. The question is whether 2007 federal tax revenues would have been higher with the tax cuts or not with the tax cuts, and we've just been told in another post that we're not allowed to make that comparison.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Um.....Federal tax revenues (both individual and total) increased from 2003 to 2007. You may now return to your regularly scheduled diatribe, facts be dammmned.

Ummm...federal tax revenues did not keep up with spending, unlike in the later part of the 90's when it did.

If Bush wanted to go on a spending spree, the least he could have done is paid for it instead of cutting revenues while raising spending.

I hope you've hired somebody to manage your money if you can't figure that concept out. :D :eek: :D
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Ummm...federal tax revenues did not keep up with spending, unlike in the later part of the 90's when it did.

If Bush wanted to go on a spending spree, the least he could have done is paid for it instead of cutting revenues while raising spending.

I hope you've hired somebody to manage your money if you can't figure that concept out. :D :eek: :D

"Ummm..." you missed the point. The claim was that Bush raised revenues via tax cuts, not lowered them. It has something to do with some guy named Laffer.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

"Ummm..." you missed the point. The claim was that Bush raised revenues via tax cuts, not lowered them. It has something to do with some guy named Laffer.

Ummm.... half the Laffer Curve is raising taxes increases revenues up to the local maximum. Since we're at historically low levels of federal income tax, we're probably well below the tipping point.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

....the least he could have done is paid for it instead of cutting revenues while raising spending.

That could be said for nearly every president since the late 1700's.

Even "balanced budgets" with Clinton/Gingrich weren't really "balanced" because we were still paying interest on the debt, thus increasing the debt, thus deficit spending.

You're such a DNC fanboy.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

That could be said for nearly every president since the late 1700's.

Even "balanced budgets" with Clinton/Gingrich weren't really "balanced" because we were still paying interest on the debt, thus increasing the debt, thus deficit spending.

You know, you might want to take credit when the GOP does something right rather than cut yourself down simply to argue.

The budget for those one or two years was/were truly balanced, even including interest.

The only way the budget wasn't balanced was if you considered social security to be a "trust fund" and not a simple transfer of wealth from the working class to the elderly (since a trust fund would have outstanding debt obligations needing to be funded, while a wealth transfer is simply shifting money from one group to the other with no future obligations incurred).

And the government has paid off its debts before. Post Civil War and Post WWII saw massive decreases in federal debt as the gov't, gasp, paid off most of the war debt.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Ummm.... half the Laffer Curve is raising taxes increases revenues up to the local maximum. Since we're at historically low levels of federal income tax, we're probably well below the tipping point.

Would that we'd continue to play it safe, then. :)
Point being, "revenue" and "tax rate" are not interchangeable in a straightline manner. Rover said that the evil demon president lowered "revenue", when the term he was searching for was "freedom-crippling tax burden".
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Ummm.... half the Laffer Curve is raising taxes increases revenues up to the local maximum. Since we're at historically low levels of federal income tax, we're probably well below the tipping point.

Without actual data (which we'll never be able to get in a controlled environment), we're only speculating where the tipping point of the laffer curve is, or even that there's only one tipping point. It (or them) is not necessarily at the halfway point.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

That could be said for nearly every president since the late 1700's.

Even "balanced budgets" with Clinton/Gingrich weren't really "balanced" because we were still paying interest on the debt, thus increasing the debt, thus deficit spending.

You're such a DNC fanboy.

What the F are you talking about? The country wasn't not paying its debt interest and therefore adding it to the principle. It was balancing the books including debt servicing and paying down the highest interest debt to get it off the books. Thanks for making yourself look stupider using your own words. :D :D :D
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Without actual data (which we'll never be able to get in a controlled environment), we're only speculating where the tipping point of the laffer curve is, or even that there's only one tipping point. It (or them) is not necessarily at the halfway point.

What halfway point? Do you mean 50%? I wasn't suggesting that was the tipping point.

I agree it's speculation, which means of course Reagan was speculating in lowering tax rates, and we'll never know whether that worked because there's no controlled environment.

It makes intuitive sense to me that each additional dollar of income should have some slightly larger delta of tax percentage added to it as each successive dollar is "easier" to earn than the previous and the practical disadvantage of taxes is their supposed de-incentivication for higher income earners to work hard. The whole idea of tax brackets (although necessary in an innumerate country) is unfortunate in that it creates those artificial "cliffs" at the borders -- the ideal tax system would be expressed as a very gradually climbing function. It is patently ridiculous to me that the $250,000th, millionth, and ten millionth dollar a man earns is subject to the same percentage tax.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 6(...66)

You have a short memory and like to dwell in the past.



IOW, "I have no faith in individuals or the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people".

Hard to be entrepreneurial when you're broke and out of work.

Sure wish all those entrepreneurial companies would stop chitcanning their workforce, and start spending some money to get this economy moving.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top