jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:yes but Obama controls the very moon & stars, and wasn't even born here, so I'm not sure what your point is?

but please keep going and tell us all about "the baseline"

The amount of money being spent by the federal government annually before Obama took office. It's not that obscure of a reference.

Wait, so docsmooth is crediting Obama for constraining government spending? Really???

One of these is true:
1. Obstructionist Republicans have prevented Obama and the democratic party from enacting the necessary spending to support the economy.
2. Republicans have reigned in spending, against Obama's wishing, to prevent the government from harmfully expanding spending.

This is the first that I've seen someone credit Obama for holding spending steady. I thought the consensus is that Republicans have prevented Democrats from further stimulus spending and tax increases. The debate is over the effectiness of such a tact; is expanded spending a good strategy for growth?

Obama keeps talking about the deficit and debt. After a while, we should gather that what you are saying you are about is what you are about. He's not for 'expanded spending'. If he was, we'd have seen it somewhere along the line. The stimulus was 40% tax cuts for chrissakes.

pacino wrote:Obama keeps talking about the deficit and debt. After a while, we should gather that what you are saying you are about is what you are about. He's not for 'expanded spending'. If he was, we'd have seen it somewhere along the line. The stimulus was 40% tax cuts for chrissakes.

Were you around for the debate surrounding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the American Jobs Act, fiscal cliff negotiations, etc?

(That you view the stimulus as evidence of Obama's committment to spending restraint is just beautiful.)

when in doubt, he's cut taxes and spending. he's proposed more cuts than tax increases, over and over and over and over.

that he's a bad negotiator and starts with what he believes instead of some other point doesn't negate what actually happened.

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:yes but Obama controls the very moon & stars, and wasn't even born here, so I'm not sure what your point is?

but please keep going and tell us all about "the baseline"

The amount of money being spent by the federal government annually before Obama took office. It's not that obscure of a reference.

Wait, so docsmooth is crediting Obama for constraining government spending? Really???

One of these is true:
1. Obstructionist Republicans have prevented Obama and the democratic party from enacting the necessary spending to support the economy.
2. Republicans have reigned in spending, against Obama's wishing, to prevent the government from harmfully expanding spending.

This is the first that I've seen someone credit Obama for holding spending steady. I thought the consensus is that Republicans have prevented Democrats from further stimulus spending and tax increases. The debate is over the effectiness of such a tact; is expanded spending a good strategy for growth?

what is a "tact", and is its effectiness similar to its truthiness

I haven't intended here to credit or discredit Obama, or anyone. I have asserted that that very course of performance analysis pursued above is barren; that the lies about the consequences to date of his presidency that his "professional" detractors have mindlessly stuck with are irrelevant when not baseless.

In other words I've been saying the same old boring true shit

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Obama keeps talking about the deficit and debt. After a while, we should gather that what you are saying you are about is what you are about. He's not for 'expanded spending'. If he was, we'd have seen it somewhere along the line. The stimulus was 40% tax cuts for chrissakes.

Were you around for the debate surrounding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the American Jobs Act, fiscal cliff negotiations, etc?

(That you view the stimulus as evidence of Obama's committment to spending restraint is just beautiful.)

Are you just playing ignorant or are you really incapable of seeing the distinction between a short-term stimulus spend in the face of a near depression and new long-term spending programs or even huge medium-term spending programs during times of reasonably low unemployment? I'll guess you are just being partisan. To refresh, spending went up drastically under Bush, including a new prescription drug entitlement. If Republicans/conservatives are so damned concerned that ballooning entitlements are destroying our nation, then why did they use their time in control to give us a big new entitlement? Bush's two wars were a huge decade-long increase in spending. Govenrment employees grew during the Bush administration. Despite the near-depression, government employees have shrunk under Obama and government spending has grown at a small rate. The deficit has declined at the fastest rate in recent memory.

allentown wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Obama keeps talking about the deficit and debt. After a while, we should gather that what you are saying you are about is what you are about. He's not for 'expanded spending'. If he was, we'd have seen it somewhere along the line. The stimulus was 40% tax cuts for chrissakes.

Were you around for the debate surrounding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the American Jobs Act, fiscal cliff negotiations, etc?

(That you view the stimulus as evidence of Obama's committment to spending restraint is just beautiful.)

Are you just playing ignorant or are you really incapable of seeing the distinction between a short-term stimulus spend in the face of a near depression and new long-term spending programs or even huge medium-term spending programs during times of reasonably low unemployment? I'll guess you are just being partisan. To refresh, spending went up drastically under Bush, including a new prescription drug entitlement. If Republicans/conservatives are so damned concerned that ballooning entitlements are destroying our nation, then why did they use their time in control to give us a big new entitlement? Bush's two wars were a huge decade-long increase in spending. Govenrment employees grew during the Bush administration. Despite the near-depression, government employees have shrunk under Obama and government spending has grown at a small rate. The deficit has declined at the fastest rate in recent memory.

Werthless is more than capable of defending himself, but I'll point out that he's generally as or more critical of Bush's spending than Obama's.

What's interesting to me is whether the Republicans, when they get back in, will be demonstrably more fiscally responsible than they were under GWB. To be sure, that's the lowest possible bar. But the only Republican president in the last thirty years, arguably much longer, who wasn't a budget-busting spendthrift was Bush 41. And he's not exactly a role model for Republicans in terms of policy or politics. Raising taxes is anathema; exploding the debt and launching dumb, tragic wars is fine.

That is the best pic ever

pacino wrote:when in doubt, he's cut taxes and spending. he's proposed more cuts than tax increases, over and over and over and over.

that he's a bad negotiator and starts with what he believes instead of some other point doesn't negate what actually happened.

I'm pleading ignorance a bit because I really don't and I generally avoid this thread, but where has The President cut taxes? I know I pay more now than a few years ago. I also blame everyone in Washington for this ... just like I do for this sequester. As for his proposals, were these in actual bills or just on speeches? Honestly, I don't think Obama is a very good negotiator and politician. I think he would have been better served staying in the Senate for a few years getting more experience. Then again, he has to work with asshats like Boehner and McConnell, so it's tough to blame him. I think Hillary would have been much better than Obama. Maybe its perception because Jay Carney seems clueless and out of his league every time he gets to the podium. Robert Gibbs he is not. Or maybe that Bill Clinton was so good at being a politician and I'm going to compare every President to him. Anywho, I'd rather stick to history than politics. But I would really like an answer to my tax question ... and if it's true, his team does a horrible job in getting the message out.

dajafi wrote:

allentown wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Obama keeps talking about the deficit and debt. After a while, we should gather that what you are saying you are about is what you are about. He's not for 'expanded spending'. If he was, we'd have seen it somewhere along the line. The stimulus was 40% tax cuts for chrissakes.

Were you around for the debate surrounding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the American Jobs Act, fiscal cliff negotiations, etc?

(That you view the stimulus as evidence of Obama's committment to spending restraint is just beautiful.)

Are you just playing ignorant or are you really incapable of seeing the distinction between a short-term stimulus spend in the face of a near depression and new long-term spending programs or even huge medium-term spending programs during times of reasonably low unemployment? I'll guess you are just being partisan. To refresh, spending went up drastically under Bush, including a new prescription drug entitlement. If Republicans/conservatives are so damned concerned that ballooning entitlements are destroying our nation, then why did they use their time in control to give us a big new entitlement? Bush's two wars were a huge decade-long increase in spending. Govenrment employees grew during the Bush administration. Despite the near-depression, government employees have shrunk under Obama and government spending has grown at a small rate. The deficit has declined at the fastest rate in recent memory.

Werthless is more than capable of defending himself, but I'll point out that he's generally as or more critical of Bush's spending than Obama's.

What's interesting to me is whether the Republicans, when they get back in, will be demonstrably more fiscally responsible than they were under GWB. To be sure, that's the lowest possible bar. But the only Republican president in the last thirty years, arguably much longer, who wasn't a budget-busting spendthrift was Bush 41. And he's not exactly a role model for Republicans in terms of policy or politics. Raising taxes is anathema; exploding the debt and launching dumb, tragic wars is fine.

What he said.

Also, one problem with countercyclical fiscal policy is dialing back with the spending when the economy recovers. A second problem is whether or not it works. Here's one exampleof the ongoing debate.

momadance wrote:

pacino wrote:when in doubt, he's cut taxes and spending. he's proposed more cuts than tax increases, over and over and over and over.

that he's a bad negotiator and starts with what he believes instead of some other point doesn't negate what actually happened.

I'm pleading ignorance a bit because I really don't and I generally avoid this thread, but where has The President cut taxes? I know I pay more now than a few years ago. I also blame everyone in Washington for this ... just like I do for this sequester. As for his proposals, were these in actual bills or just on speeches? Honestly, I don't think Obama is a very good negotiator and politician. I think he would have been better served staying in the Senate for a few years getting more experience. Then again, he has to work with asshats like Boehner and McConnell, so it's tough to blame him. I think Hillary would have been much better than Obama. Maybe its perception because Jay Carney seems clueless and out of his league every time he gets to the podium. Robert Gibbs he is not. Or maybe that Bill Clinton was so good at being a politician and I'm going to compare every President to him. Anywho, I'd rather stick to history than politics. But I would really like an answer to my tax question ... and if it's true, his team does a horrible job in getting the message out.

I suspect he's crediting Obama with the temporary payroll tax cut (since expired), originally rejected by Democrats/Obama when Republicans wanted to include in the stimulus in 2009, but I'll let pacino specify if he's referring to something else.

Werthless wrote:
Also, one problem with countercyclical fiscal policy is dialing back with the spending when the economy recovers. A second problem is whether or not it works. Here's one exampleof the ongoing debate.

What doesn't work is the link in that article to the Alesina paper. I'd call it irony, but why bother? The paper cannot be worth the electrons it is not printed on, if, according to NR's summary, Alesina & co are still arguing that austerity is/has been just the thing in a near-zero-interest rate environment for the countries that have trundled down that path, as well as the politicians who have solemnly endorsed these measures.

This way we're all spared wasting time on A&A's rhetorical monkeyshines.

there are a multitude of credits created or expanded by his administration for the family and small businesses, many of which are still in the tax code. he also made permanent tax rates lower than they were under clinton for dividends.

the ACA has already saved seniors tons of money in the form of rebates and less prescription costs.

pacino wrote:there are a multitude of credits created or expanded by his administration for the family and small businesses, many of which are still in the tax code. he also made permanent tax rates lower than they were under clinton for dividends.

Which ones? I want to read up on them.

There were home buying credits, environmental ones regarding cars, home improvements etc., health care deduction, startup costs. There are tons more. Some he kept renewing some were new proposals.

It's interesting that Obama doesn't get tax cutting credit for the temporary stimulus programs like the rebate on sales tax for new car purchases and the homebuying tax credit, yet eliminating similar but more longstanding deductions (like say the mortgage interest tax deduction) would be considered a tax increase. The reality is that from an economic perspective it's all equivalent to government spending.

You all probably remember that early last summer, Rob Portman was considered a strong front-runner to be Romney's running mate. Given the revelations of the last week, I find it hard to believe that the subject of his gay son, and probably the senator's "evolving" views on marriage equality, didn't come up over the course of the vetting.

I don't think Portman on the ticket would have switched the overall dynamic of the presidential race, or the outcome. But I think that net, he would have helped more than Ryan, at least given how the campaign ultimately used Ryan... if they could have kept the gay son out of the spotlight, which is a huge if.