Obama, the Liar-In-Chief

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

His intention, I believe, is to create the "meaning," perception, that he is actually a tax cutter, not a typical tax and spender. That he is fiscally conservative, even more than Eisenhower, or Reagan.

I beleive his point is that there is a choice between his policies and Mitts. He would close loopholes, slightly raise the rate on the top 1%, and keep middle and lower class taxes low. Romney would slash rates on the top 1%, who are already paying historically low rates. I am pretty sure he isn't trying to say he is more fiscally conservative than Reagan.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I beleive his point is that there is a choice between his policies and Mitts. He would close loopholes, slightly raise the rate on the top 1%, and keep middle and lower class taxes low. Romney would slash rates on the top 1%, who are already paying historically low rates. I am pretty sure he isn't trying to say he is more fiscally conservative than Reagan.

"He would..." is a pretty loaded statement considering that aside from health care, he hasn't done a whole lot domestically to benefit the American people that he said he would do.

Again, aside from health care, his *actions* pretty much make him just George W. Bush 2.0.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

"He would..." is a pretty loaded statement considering that aside from health care, he hasn't done a whole lot domestically to benefit the American people that he said he would do.

Again, aside from health care, his *actions* pretty much make him just George W. Bush 2.0.

He mostly has faced a Republican majority who's mantra is "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by zimmy

He mostly has faced a Republican majority who's mantra is "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

For a President that campaigned on getting rid of the aisle and making sure both sides work together, he did a pretty good job early on of putting up a solid brick wall separating -Ds from -Rs.

Also, you're ignoring the Executive Orders he has made that aren't dependent on approval by that Republican majority.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

He mostly has faced a Republican majority ."

I don't know what kind of math you're doing. For two entire years, Obama had a Democrat majority in the House, and a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. For far more than 50% of his term, the Republicans literally could do nothing to stop him from doing anything he wanted.

As you said, let's start by working in reality...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't know what kind of math you're doing. For two entire years, Obama had a Democrat majority in the House, and a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. For far more than 50% of his term, the Republicans literally could do nothing to stop him from doing anything he wanted.

As you said, let's start by working in reality...

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Here is a time line for you: President Obama DID NOT control Congress for Two Years! | The Pragmatic Pundit

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;952687Again, aside from health care, his *actions* pretty much make him just George W. Bush 2.0.[/QUOTE]

Come on...

First and foremost, George Bush is credited with saving the lives of more than one million Africans, thanks to a massive AIDS initiative that he spearheaded (called EPFAR). In a fair world, he gets the Nobel Peace Prize for that. Obama will never do anything that comes close to that.

Bush also created a massive security infastructure from scratch, and in short order. Every single security expert said we would get attacked again, and IMHO opinion he did a decent job keeping us safe.

Obama gets credit (deservedly so) for his aggressive actions in some areas of the war on terror, but all he really did was leave the Bush mechanisms in place, and reap the rewards.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Come on...

First and foremost, George Bush is credited with saving the lives of more than one million Africans, thanks to a massive AIDS initiative that he spearheaded (called EPFAR). In a fair world, he gets the Nobel Peace Prize for that. Obama will never do anything that comes close to that.

Bush also created a massive security infastructure from scratch, and in short order. Every single security expert said we would get attacked again, and IMHO opinion he did a decent job keeping us safe.

Obama gets credit (deservedly so) for his aggressive actions in some areas of the war on terror, but all he really did was leave the Bush mechanisms in place, and reap the rewards.

The first yields no benefit to the American people. I'm sorry but saving 1 million people in Africa from AIDS just means that they're now going to die from famine, war or some other disease. With the number of homeless children and vets that we have in this country, the billions sent overseas for other countries' people is a major sticking point for me.

In the second, it could be argued that Bush's "security infrastructure", along with his Patriot Act could be argued to be the pinnacle point in which we started down the rabbit hole of a totalitarian-like government where once inalienable rights are blatantly infringed upon and every citizen is treated as a terrorist.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by zimmy

He mostly has faced a Republican majority who's mantra is "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you said Obama has been faced with a "Republican majority" for two years, and that's not true. The Republicans have not even come close to a majority in the Senate since he took office, and have only had a majority in the house for the last 20 months...

I never said anything about a republican majority for two years. And the point of my post was that it was not a free for all for the Democrats for his first two years. That is a complete distortion of reality. They had a filibuster proof majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010. A bit more than four months. 20 months to 4 might be "mostly", not counting all the other time before that where filibuter in the senate could stop his agenda.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The first yields no benefit to the American people. I'm sorry but saving 1 million people in Africa from AIDS just means that they're now going to die from famine, war or some other disease. With the number of homeless children and vets that we have in this country, the billions sent overseas for other countries' people is a major sticking point for me.

In the second, it could be argued that Bush's "security infrastructure", along with his Patriot Act could be argued to be the pinnacle point in which we started down the rabbit hole of a totalitarian-like government where once inalienable rights are blatantly infringed upon and every citizen is treated as a terrorist.

"The first yields no benefit to the American people. "

I'll respectfully disagree, as the yield to this American is quite astounding.

"the billions sent overseas for other countries' people is a major sticking point for me."

You make a good point there. All I can say to that is this...many problems here (like poverty and homelessness) can not be solved by throwing money at tham. Many people are not poor due to a lack of money, they are poor because of laziness or menatl disease or addiction. Can't cure that with money. But you absolutely can save the life of an African baby, born with AIDS, with money.

But as usual, you make a logical point about solving our own problems first. There is some validity to that.

"down the rabbit hole of a totalitarian-like government where once inalienable rights are blatantly infringed upon and every citizen is treated as a terrorist"

I'll respectfully disagree again. IMHO, the world changed on 09/11, and we can respond to the new threat or we can ignore it. I have never felt like I was being treated like a terrorist. I don't see any large-scale elimination of inalienable rights. I don't see that I have an inalienable right to bring a shampoo bottle on a plane, I can just as easily buy it when I get there.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"down the rabbit hole of a totalitarian-like government where once inalienable rights are blatantly infringed upon and every citizen is treated as a terrorist"

I'll respectfully disagree again. IMHO, the world changed on 09/11, and we can respond to the new threat or we can ignore it. I have never felt like I was being treated like a terrorist. I don't see any large-scale elimination of inalienable rights. I don't see that I have an inalienable right to bring a shampoo bottle on a plane, I can just as easily buy it when I get there.

You don't have the inalienable right to bring a shampoo bottle on a plane because the plane is not your property. Supposedly, the plane belongs to the airline company, and it has a right to say what you can bring onto its planes. That is the company's inalienable right to its property. It acts constitutionally when, on its uncoerced volition, it prohibits the shampoo bottle. When, however, it is coerced to do so by the government, the government, in effect, owns that piece of its property, and is denying, in that respect, its inalienable right and ownership of that property. The overreaching government in this case will say that it is acting under the now ubiqitous commerce clause. Originalists would say that the commerce clause was intended to promote commercial cooperation among the States, but not a tool for the central government to own commerce. The clause was not intended to allow the central government to become a commercial entity, nor one which would usurp the commercial powers of private entities. A progressive would say that the Constitution has evolved, and, indeed, the Federal Government does have, as a necessity, unlimited powers under various clauses.

Property and the right to it is precisely one of the original principles that progressives intend to remake. The progressive shift of property is from the individual, as originally intended, to the public, which, of course, is expressed in, and by, the government. For the public good, individual ownership of property must be limited to "reasonable" and "fair" or "equitable" bounds. Property was orignally one of the main tenets of the Founders Declaration of Independence. The pursuit of happiness was a more generalized version of the pursuit and ownership of property.

And this attack on property, and inalienable rights, started down, as JohnnyD says, the rabbit hole of a totalitarian like government long before Bush. And it is parroted as a benevolent exercise by various speeches of Obama, such as his you-didn't-build-it speech. It is government, directly, or through its regulatory directions of the people, that did it. We build publicly more and more, and own as individuals, less and less, through the regulatory schemes of a benevolent gvt. that directs our efforts toward the public good, not the selfish private.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You don't have the inalienable right to bring a shampoo bottle on a plane because the plane is not your property. Supposedly, the plane belongs to the airline company, and it has a right to say what you can bring onto its planes. That is the company's inalienable right to its property. It acts constitutionally when, on its uncoerced volition, it prohibits the shampoo bottle. When, however, it is coerced to do so by the government, the government, in effect, owns that piece of its property, and is denying, in that respect, its inalienable right and ownership of that property. The overreaching government in this case will say that it is acting under the now ubiqitous commerce clause. Originalists would say that the commerce clause was intended to promote commercial cooperation among the States, but not a tool for the central government to own commerce. The clause was not intended to allow the central government to become a commercial entity, nor one which would usurp the commercial powers of private entities. A progressive would say that the Constitution has evolved, and, indeed, the Federal Government does have, as a necessity, unlimited powers under various clauses.

Property and the right to it is precisely one of the original principles that progressives intend to remake. The progressive shift of property is from the individual, as originally intended, to the public, which, of course, is expressed in, and by, the government. For the public good, individual ownership of property must be limited to "reasonable" and "fair" or "equitable" bounds. Property was orignally one of the main tenets of the Founders Declaration of Independence. The pursuit of happiness was a more generalized version of the pursuit and ownership of property.

And this attack on property, and inalienable rights, started down, as JohnnyD says, the rabbit hole of a totalitarian like government long before Bush. And it is parroted as a benevolent exercise by various speeches of Obama, such as his you-didn't-build-it speech. It is government, directly, or through its regulatory directions of the people, that did it. We build publicly more and more, and own as individuals, less and less, through the regulatory schemes of a benevolent gvt. that directs our efforts toward the public good, not the selfish private.

"That is the company's inalienable right to its property..."

The airline doesn't own the space above my house where it flies the plane. Therefore, I have no problem with the feds telling airlines that they have to take precautions before they take to the skies. If an airline doesn't ant to put security measures into place, that endangers all of us.

"Property and the right to it is precisely one of the original principles that progressives intend to remake."

Agreed 100%. I just don't feel like the post 09/11 security measures have reduced my freedoms by any measurable amount.

I see a lot of things that scare me out there, most of them economic in nature, because I'm a numbers guy. But not many safety measures that are part of the war on terror, worry me. I only worry that we aren't going far enough in the name of political correctness.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Come on...

First and foremost, George Bush is credited with saving the lives of more than one million Africans, thanks to a massive AIDS initiative that he spearheaded (called EPFAR). In a fair world, he gets the Nobel Peace Prize for that. Obama will never do anything that comes close to that.

Some might say pushing and signing a bill that will ensure health care for millions of people comes somewhat close to that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Some might say pushing and signing a bill that will ensure health care for millions of people comes somewhat close to that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hope he tries to run on that one

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),[1] informally referred to as Obamacare,[2] is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

January 24, 2012
More Americans Uninsured in 2011

However, more adults aged 18 to 26 now covered

by Elizabeth Mendes

This is the first article in an in-depth series on the state of health insurance coverage in America. Future articles will explore trends in types of health insurance coverage and uninsured rates across states.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- More American adults lacked health insurance coverage last year than in any year since Gallup and Healthways started tracking it in 2008. The uninsured rate has been increasing since 2008, climbing to 17.1% in 2011.


at least we're covering more "children" ages 18-26...good place to start or reinforce the road to government dependence oh wait....we're actually forcing insurance companies to accept them as children so that they can stay on mommy and daddy's policy....

Young Adults Seem to Benefit From New Healthcare Law

U.S. adults aged 18 to 25 -- who are now allowed to stay on their parents' plans until age 26 because of a provision of the 2010 healthcare law -- are less likely to be uninsured than in previous years. The percentage of uninsured declined further in 2011 to 24.5%, from 27.6% in 2010 and 28.2% in 2009. Although this group is still among the most likely to be uninsured, it is the only group Gallup tracks that has seen a significant decline in the percentage uninsured in 2011.


should have made it 36.....then the numbers would be really inmpressive

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

hope he tries to run on that one

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),[1] informally referred to as Obamacare,[2] is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

January 24, 2012
More Americans Uninsured in 2011

However, more adults aged 18 to 26 now covered

by Elizabeth Mendes

This is the first article in an in-depth series on the state of health insurance coverage in America. Future articles will explore trends in types of health insurance coverage and uninsured rates across states.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- More American adults lacked health insurance coverage last year than in any year since Gallup and Healthways started tracking it in 2008. The uninsured rate has been increasing since 2008, climbing to 17.1% in 2011.
Most of the law isnt in effect. You wanted to point out that one of the few parts that went into effect has lowered the uninsured rate?


at least we're covering more "children" ages 18-26...good place to start or reinforce the road to government dependence oh wait....we're actually forcing insurance companies to accept them as children so that they can stay on mommy and daddy's policy....

Young Adults Seem to Benefit From New Healthcare Law

U.S. adults aged 18 to 25 -- who are now allowed to stay on their parents' plans until age 26 because of a provision of the 2010 healthcare law -- are less likely to be uninsured than in previous years. The percentage of uninsured declined further in 2011 to 24.5%, from 27.6% in 2010 and 28.2% in 2009. Although this group is still among the most likely to be uninsured, it is the only group Gallup tracks that has seen a significant decline in the percentage uninsured in 2011.


should have made it 36.....then the numbers would be really inmpressive

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most of the law isnt in effect. You wanted to point out that one of the few parts that went into effect has lowered the uninsured rate?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most of the law isnt in effect. You wanted to point out that one of the few parts that went into effect has lowered the uninsured rate?

I could be wrong but I'd be willing to bet that most of those 18-26 year olds would prefer a job to a free ride on their parents health insurance policy and a room in their basement

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Some might say pushing and signing a bill that will ensure health care for millions of people comes somewhat close to that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some might say that...but as of now, it hasn't happened yet. Bush saved those lives, past tense. Obamacare has lofty goals, which are nowhere near accomplished yet. Time will tell if Obamacare does what he said it would do, but we know for a fact what Bush did. And Bush's feat remains mostly anonymous because of deranged hatred.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

"He would..." is a pretty loaded statement considering that aside from health care, he hasn't done a whole lot domestically to benefit the American people that he said he would do.

Again, aside from health care, his *actions* pretty much make him just George W. Bush 2.0.

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are Promise Kept

Most cons would complain he has done too much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are Promise Kept

Most cons would complain he has done too much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You got me, Brown came in when he did, at which point there were 59 Democrats. However...

Does the 59 Democrats include independent Joe Lieberman of CT, a radical left-winger (on everything except the Iraq War) who caucused with the Democrats?

Also, the person who wrote that timeline made a mistake that was probably self-serving. You don't need 60 votes to pass a bill, you need 60 to avoid fillibuster. Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010, after Scott Brown was elected.

I'm not going to say that Republicans haven't prevented him from doing anything, of course they have. But he can't blame them for every single thing he tried to do but failed. During the time he had ultimate control, what did he do? Not very much. Can't blame that on the GOP, right?

But you did catch me putting my foot in my mouth...but so did you, you said Obama has been faced with a "Republican majority" for two years, and that's not true. The Republicans have not even come close to a majority in the Senate since he took office, and have only had a majority in the house for the last 20 months...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I beleive his point is that there is a choice between his policies and Mitts. He would close loopholes, slightly raise the rate on the top 1%, and keep middle and lower class taxes low. Romney would slash rates on the top 1%, who are already paying historically low rates. I am pretty sure he isn't trying to say he is more fiscally conservative than Reagan.

Then why bring in comparisons with Eisenhower and Reagan. Did he compare Mitt's policies to Eisenhower and Reagan? I just read the quote not the context from which it's taken, so don't know. As you must know by now since it's been mentioned here several times and there are articles on the subject, the "rates" under Eisenhower and others up to Reagan were more fiction than fact in terms of what was actually paid. In many cases, what was actually paid was far less than what is paid today. So the "rates" being historically low is a meaningless point.

Mentioning and comparing himself to Eisenhower and Reagan, who have become more widely admired by the public and historians now than in the past, is obviously a slant to make himself appear other than what he is. And it makes Eisenhower and Reagan look other than what they were. I mentioned Reagan's tremendous cuts in rates all-around. And though Obama compares "his" rates favorably to those other two, they are not even his rates, but Bush's, who also cut rates all-around. I mentioned that Obama has already raised some taxes and rates other than income, and that unlike his predecessors, his tax rate "vector" is up, not down.

As far as Mitt's policies, they might well be a corrective to the burden of previous rates that under different, market oriented, policies than Obama, would "stimulate" the economy more than throwing federal money at it.

Again, is this the great difference that we are voting for in Nov.?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Then why bring in comparisons with Eisenhower and Reagan.

He brings it up because there is a loud group of people trying to spin the perception that we have tax rates like Belgium. They are not. The conversation needs to be based around reality.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

He brings it up because there is a loud group of people trying to spin the perception that we have tax rates like Belgium. They are not. The conversation needs to be based around reality.

Not yet, they aren't like Belgium's rates. But unless we make serious changes to entitlement programs, Belgium is going to be looking pretty good. That's future reality.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

He brings it up because there is a loud group of people trying to spin the perception that we have tax rates like Belgium. They are not. The conversation needs to be based around reality.

I am not familiar with this loud group claiming that we have tax rates like Belgium. That is so obviously wrong that it would hardly be worth trying to rebut by bringing up Reagan and Eisenhower. For one, Belgium has a VAT tax. Some (many?) here feel we are headed for such a tax here. Then we would be more like Belgium.

Also, the argument that U.S. corporations pay far less than our high corporate tax rate, as if that makes their tax burden less than foreign companies, is misleading. Some do pay an effective amount below the rate, but some pay close to it. On average, according to a N.Y. Times business section article on May 2, 2011, U.S. companies pay about 25% of their profits in corporate taxes. They pay state and local corp. taxes, as well, that many foreign companies don't pay. What they actually pay in federal taxes, according to the article is a few percentage points higher than those in most other major industrial countries. Nor does the article specify whether the comparison is to what most foreign companies actually pay, or if it is to their tax "rates." Most foreign countries also allow for many exemptions so that when we compare American "effective" rates to foreign tax "rates" it leaves out what foreign effective rates are.

As for our corporations shipping money offshore (transferring profits to countries with lower or non-existent rates) only happens because those countries DO have lower rates.

Again, is this what this coming election is about?