Welcome to Obamaville

[guido911]

Saw this report out of Colorado about a homeless tent city with a sign out front "Welcome to Obamaville":

http://www.kjct8.com/global/video/popup/pop_playerLaunch.asp?vt1=v&clipFormat=flv&clipId1=4374680&at1=News&h1=Obamaville

Quite obviously whoever paid for the sign did not know it was Bush's fault these people are homeless.

[USRufnex]

So, I'm sure you blamed Reagan for the recession and double digit unemployment in his first two years in office.
If you didn't, then that makes you a hypocrite.  

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/21/us/reaganville-folds-up-after-4-month-protest.html

The 1982 Recession
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande06.html

When, in August 1981, Reagan signed his Recovery Act into law at Rancho del Cielo, his Santa Barbara ranch, he promised to find additional cuts to balance the budget, which had a projected deficit of $80 billion -- the largest, to that date, in U.S. history. That fall, the economy took a turn for the worse. To fight inflation, running at a rate of 14 percent per year, the Federal Reserve Board had increased interest rates. Recession was the inevitable result. Blue-collar workers who had largely supported Reagan were hard hit, as many lost their jobs.

The United States was experiencing its worst recession since the Depression, with conditions frighteningly reminiscent of those 50 years earlier. By November 1982, unemployment reached, nine million, the highest rate since the Depression; 17,000 businesses failed, the second highest number since 1933; farmers lost their land; and many sick, elderly, and poor became homeless.

The country lived through the recession for a full year before Reagan finally admitted publicly that the economy was in trouble. His budget cuts, which hurt the poor, and his tax cuts, which favored the rich, combined with the hardships of a recession, spawned the belief that Reagan was insensitive to his people's needs. (Although it was a 25% across-the-board tax cut, those people in the higher income brackets benefited the most.)

As economic hardship hit American homes, Reagan's approval rating hit rock bottom. In January 1983, it was estimated at a dismal 35 percent. Having failed in his promise to deliver economic prosperity, Reagan's reelection in 1984 seemed unlikely.

With a failing economy, hopes for a balanced budget vanished. Even David Stockman, Reagan's Budget Director and an advocate of supply side economics, fearing future deficits "as high as $200 billion," urged the president to cut taxes.

While Reagan finally agreed to a moderate tax increase on businesses, he steadfastly refused to raise income taxes or cut defense spending, despite a growing negative sentiment toward the buildup. In January 1983, with his approval rating at an all-time low, the economy slowly began to right itself. Unemployment, as high as ten percent in 1982, had improved enough by 1984 for his popularity to be restored

[Red Arrow]

(Although it was a 25% across-the-board tax cut, those people in the higher income brackets benefited the most.)

No big surprise there.  The upper income brackets still paid more in taxes than the lower income brackets, except those rich enough to find the loopholes.

$10,000 -25% = $7500

$2000 - 25% = $1500

I suppose there are some who think everyone should have (in my example) received a $2500 tax cut.

[USRufnex]

Then you agree with Dick Cheney's assertion that "deficits don't matter?"
Or do they only matter when Dems are in office?

When George W. Bush won the electoral college to become president in 2000, he told us he was reducing taxes because the country was running a surplus-- "It's YOUR money, you should keep it" was his rallying cry..... then after 9/11 we invaded Afganistan and then invaded Iraq..... yet the Bush administration wanted to make the Bush tax cuts "permanent."  

I believe our MSM has been so manipulated by anti-tax thinktanks (Hoover and Cato) over the past couple of decades that traditional Republican conservatives who believe in paying down the deficit only get their voices heard when Dems are in power.  And when Dems are in power, because of these anti-tax thinktanks, their only politically  palatable options are to tax the wealthy, no matter what the FACTS ARE when it comes to total tax burden for all of us....

Reagan raised taxes on me during a recession, and froze the minimum wage..... where is the "liberal" media to remind us of these inconvenient truths?

Myth: The recession of 1982 was Carter's fault.
Fact: That recession occurred in the second year of Reagan's term, following tax cuts and deregulation.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-recession1982.htm

[Red Arrow]

Reagan raised taxes on me during a recession, and froze the minimum wage..... where is the "liberal" media to remind us of these inconvenient truths?

My guess is that your taxable income went  up because you lost your college grant and had to find a job with taxable income.  My taxes went up under Reagan too. My income went from less than $5000/yr to 5 figures because I graduated from college and got a job.

[guido911]

..... where is the "liberal" media to remind us of these inconvenient truths?

They are busy not reminding you that Obama got his nearly $1 TRILLION stimulus bill that he promised if passed unemployment would not exceed 8%. Remember that Mr. History? Now he is talking about another stimulus which implicitly infers that the first one failed. Still won't matter to you since your bottom-feeding rear end will not be paying for it.

[nathanm]

They are busy not reminding you that Obama got his nearly $1 TRILLION stimulus bill that he promised if passed unemployment would not exceed 8%. Remember that Mr. History? Now he is talking about another stimulus which implicitly infers that the first one failed. Still won't matter to you since your bottom-feeding rear end will not be paying for it.

It wouldn't have, if the stimulus hadn't been a watered down piece of junk. More stimulus was required as far more money was destroyed in the collapse than was dumped into the economy by the government.

[guido911]

It wouldn't have, if the stimulus hadn't been a watered down piece of junk. More stimulus was required as far more money was destroyed in the collapse than was dumped into the economy by the government.

So you, too, agree that the first stimulus failed. Nearly a trillion dollars down the sh!tter. You blame the failure on the stimulus being "watered down" (whose fault was that). It's not that millions and millions of stimulus money went to: map rabbit crap, study sex lives of college women, bug research, a turtle tunnel, and on and on and on.


In other news, it appears the dem-controlled congress wants to raise the debt ceiling $1.8 trillion dollars. Fortunately we know President Obama will stop that from happening based on statements he made while he was a senator when repubs controlled congress (because Obama has no history of saying one thing and doing another--oh wait):

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060316-5#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20060316-5.xmlElementm27m0m0m

[Breadburner]

Same as Hooverville.....

[nathanm]

So you, too, agree that the first stimulus failed. Nearly a trillion dollars down the sh!tter. You blame the failure on the stimulus being "watered down" (whose fault was that). It's not that millions and millions of stimulus money went to: map rabbit crap, study sex lives of college women, bug research, a turtle tunnel, and on and on and on.

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

First off, the stimulus didn't "fail," it had quite a lot of impact. (nor is it finished)

Secondly, something you don't get is that it what it's spent on isn't really very important. Keeping researchers at work is just as important as keeping everyone else at work. Spend the money, it gets into the economy. Even a trillion bucks worth of hookers and blow would do the job, although quite suboptimally, since it's better if it goes to infrastructure and the like to continue employing people in the US, preferably the productive taxpaying people in the US. (There's a better 'force multiplier,' if you will, in productive work than there is in buying things on the black market, but both contribute to the economy)

Lastly, your attempt at casting Obama as against his own opinion is nothing more than an attempt at false equivalence between taking on large debts during good economic times for wars and taking on large debts during an economic downturn to save the country from a depression. One is like drawing on your HELOC to buy hookers, blow, and a $10,000 TV (or file a lawsuit against your neighbor because you don't like his tree..whatever). The other is like drawing on a HELOC to insulate your house and fix your leaky roof. Two completely different things when it comes to being responsible with your money.

[YoungTulsan]

Not to say that I agree or disagree with associating a conglomeration of homeless folks with President Obama, but wouldn't the obvious thing to call them be "Barry-O's"?

[guido911]

First off, the stimulus didn't "fail," it had quite a lot of impact. (nor is it finished)

Oh the stimulus sure had "quite an impact" all right. Our grandchildren will be paying for those scientists mapping rat poop or studying sexual behaviors of college freshman women and the other BS pork projects masquerading as stimulus. It also impacted the unemployment figures, since stimulus passed the economy lost nearly 3.5 million jobs. Yeah, the stimulus bill has been successful.  Love this video which pretty much sums up my position:

You are operating under the impression that by simply giving money to certain people in the form of salary, regardless of what they do to earn it, that the economy is stimulated.  Never mind that people must take that money and actually spend it somewhere (which is not happening), but the money is a product of taking money from someone else through taxation and out of the economy. Sounds like your idea of stimulus is wealth redistribution.

As to your final point, your attempt to cover Obama's rear end over his anticipated support of raising the debt ceiling an almost $2 trillion in light of his statements as a senator that raising debt ceilings evidences poor leadership, is so strained and contrived that it cannot be taken seriously. Really, raising the debt ceiling for alleged altruistic reasons (to save us from a depression) demonstrates good leadership but raising the debt ceiling to fight the stupid war on terror demonstrates poor leadership. Okay, go with that.

[nathanm]

Oh the stimulus sure had "quite an impact" all right. Our grandchildren will be paying for those scientists mapping rat poop or studying sexual behaviors of college freshman women and the other BS pork projects masquerading as stimulus. It also impacted the unemployment figures, since stimulus passed the economy lost nearly 3.5 million jobs. Yeah, the stimulus bill has been successful.  Love this video which pretty much sums up my position:

You are operating under the impression that by simply giving money to certain people in the form of salary, regardless of what they do to earn it, that the economy is stimulated.  Never mind that people must take that money and actually spend it somewhere (which is not happening), but the money is a product of taking money from someone else through taxation and out of the economy. Sounds like your idea of stimulus is wealth redistribution.

As to your final point, your attempt to cover Obama's rear end over his anticipated support of raising the debt ceiling an almost $2 trillion in light of his statements as a senator that raising debt ceilings evidences poor leadership, is so strained and contrived that it cannot be taken seriously. Really, raising the debt ceiling for alleged altruistic reasons (to save us from a depression) demonstrates good leadership but raising the debt ceiling to fight the stupid war on terror demonstrates poor leadership. Okay, go with that.

There are responsible ways to spend money and irresponsible ways to spend money. I don't think you're seriously trying to argue that isn't the case. Your values regarding what is a responsible use of money and Obama's may not agree, but that's irrelevant. To me (and possibly Obama, I don't know the man), a war funded by debt is irresponsible. Reducing the damage done by an economic collapse is a responsible use of money. So to me, Obama's position is quite consistent and rational.  (And probably to him, too)

His 'truthfulness' or whatever should be judged by his own view on the subject, not yours. If his views don't align with yours, that doesn't mean he was being untruthful, it means he disagrees with you.

And yes, by paying someone money, the economy is stimulated. If they hoard the money, it is less stimulated than if they do not, of course. That's why spending on infrastructure projects is one of the better uses. We get stuff that will be with us 20 or 50 or however many years and we give money to people who are more likely to spend it.

I don't know what's so hard about making the logical connection between spending money and retained jobs. Pretty simple: Spent money = increased demand = increased workforce needs = less unemployment. That's pretty much a fact. Where there is room for debate is how much increased spending increases employment. (above the baseline..we'd probably be at 13 or 14% unemployment if not for the stimulus)

[rwarn17588]

Really, raising the debt ceiling for alleged altruistic reasons (to save us from a depression) demonstrates good leadership but raising the debt ceiling to fight the stupid war on terror demonstrates poor leadership. Okay, go with that.

Man, that is lame.

Are you even trying to troll effectively anymore?

[Conan71]

There are responsible ways to spend money and irresponsible ways to spend money. I don't think you're seriously trying to argue that isn't the case. Your values regarding what is a responsible use of money and Obama's may not agree, but that's irrelevant. To me (and possibly Obama, I don't know the man), a war funded by debt is irresponsible. Reducing the damage done by an economic collapse is a responsible use of money. So to me, Obama's position is quite consistent and rational.  (And probably to him, too)

His 'truthfulness' or whatever should be judged by his own view on the subject, not yours. If his views don't align with yours, that doesn't mean he was being untruthful, it means he disagrees with you.

And yes, by paying someone money, the economy is stimulated. If they hoard the money, it is less stimulated than if they do not, of course. That's why spending on infrastructure projects is one of the better uses. We get stuff that will be with us 20 or 50 or however many years and we give money to people who are more likely to spend it.

I don't know what's so hard about making the logical connection between spending money and retained jobs. Pretty simple: Spent money = increased demand = increased workforce needs = less unemployment. That's pretty much a fact. Where there is room for debate is how much increased spending increases employment. (above the baseline..we'd probably be at 13 or 14% unemployment if not for the stimulus)

So what do you do, refuse to fight back until we have enough cash to fight a war?  Which conflict has the United States ever been in that had a predictable end date and fixed projected costs so we could know how much to save up for.  We'd be speaking Japanese in the western 1/2 of the U.S. and German in the eastern half if we didn't fund WWII by debt.  I think we are all pretty much in agreement that invading Iraq was a costly mess.  Let's move along from there and ask then, why if President Obama is so fiscally responsible, did he just authorize sending another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.  We certainly don't have the cash on hand to do that without raising debt.

You are way over-simplifying how a stimulus is supposed to work.  By all accounts, this has in no way lived up to the promise that was sold to us originally.