billinder33: Brainsick: billinder33: He could have eliminated the Bush tax cuts and I'd have been fine with Obama. It's the single biggest issue the crossed his plate and he puzzied out because of politics, only to have the Dems get killed in the midterms anyhow.


Take off the blinders.The view of reality is actually very refreshing.

[www.wired.com image 320x240]

I don't know what that picture means. Do tell.

It's a reference to the line "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." from the Princess Bride

Bankrupt the nation and pave the way for Global Corporate Socialism to fill the vacuum. Simple really.

billinder33: The biggest issue on his desk in his four years as president was the Bush tax cuts, and he pussed out, because of politics. Why is that so hard for the Farkbamas here to understand?

That's been the biggest issue, has it? Wow...good thing he didn't have to take over any questionably-run, questionably-financed wars...

Isitoveryet: billinder33: Why bother to post if you have no argument? Just walk away.

and you? you're just upset about the extension of the tax cuts. you aren't acknowledging the economic situation or the bargaining that took place.

what i get from you is i believe you wanted to let the tax cut expire across the board which at the time (even today) would have been bad for a majority of americans.

I'm absolute acknowledged that economic realities in one of my previous posts. You chose to ignore it so you could white-knight Obama. The Bush tax cuts don't do jack of the economy, and another poster here just posted a chart that says exactly that.


You want to support the tax cuts when they favor "your guy", and you hate them when the argument favors Repubs. That's the difference between me and blindly partisan you. I hate them both ways.

Obama has done nothing during his three years as president to address the central cause of the debt run up - the unsustainable increases in entitlement spending.

Yep. We cut the shiat out of a perfectly reasonable and workable tax system so a bunch of rich people could buy some more diamond-studded dog turds, but the real problem isn't that a bunch of corporatist, fat-cat jagoffs in Congress are fighting tooth and nail to maintain that unreasonable tax change, it's that the president is trying to maintain a reasonable standard of living so the country remains a decent place for people to live and work.

Not that I don't think that there are places to cut fat off the budget, but if you're going to just arbitrarily toss out the actual starting point of any reasonable solution to the problem we can't even really get to that part of the discussion now can we you obtuse knob-slobberer?

Brainsick: billinder33: The biggest issue on his desk in my opinion in his four years as president

FTFY

/perspective is not just for landscape artists

I don't have any issue with you noting that this is my opinion.

Just be aware that your opinions are not facts either.

IXI Jim IXI: billinder33: The biggest issue on his desk in his four years as president was the Bush tax cuts, and he pussed out, because of politics. Why is that so hard for the Farkbamas here to understand?

That's been the biggest issue, has it? Wow...good thing he didn't have to take over any questionably-run, questionably-financed wars...


Thanks for making my point for me.

Saiga410: Wyalt Derp: Saiga410: To be honest Obama did not inherit Bush's tax cuts. They had a solid sunset date. Obama decided to extend them.

Damn you, Dictatorbama! If only the GOP could have found a way to stop him doing this.

The GOP overruled Obama's veto? Oh wait he signed the bill.

Yes, exactly as he said he would during the campaign.

Link (new window)

The ignorance, stupidity, or dishonesty in your argument arises from:

1) Your claim that the date Republicans always intended to extend the tax cuts was a "solid sunset date,"

2) Your failure to acknowledge the difference in circumstances between then and now, and why they're important to Obama's decision to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Either you were unaware that the Republicans never intended the sunset date to be "solid," you lacked the intelligence to decipher their intention from political context, or you just deceptively omitted the information in order to make your argument look stronger. There are no other options.

Likewise, you were either unaware of the differences in economic circumstances between then and now, you lacked the intelligence to understand why those differences matter, or you just deceptively omitted the information in order to make your argument look stronger. There are no other options.

So maybe you can clarify: are you ignorant, stupid, or dishonest? Farkers would like to know.

billinder33: Brainsick: billinder33: Anyone who views the Obama presidency as an overall 'positive' is wearing coke-bottle thick Dem-glasses. It may be better than the alternative, but a 'positive' it is not.

Oh, I don't know...
There are a few things he's done (new window)

I'm well aware of Obama's accomplishments. I don't need to hear the sales pitch again for the 1000th time.

The biggest issue on his desk in his four years as president was the Bush tax cuts, and he pussed out, because of politics. Why is that so hard for the Farkbamas here to understand?

He made a promise that he would not raise taxes on people making less than 250K. The congress would not let him raise taxes on the rich and let the tax cuts continue for the less rich. So he decided to keep his promise and get unemployment extended. How pissed would you have been if he broke his promise and raised everyone's taxes and failed to extend unemployed.

/this is how the sausage is made.

CPennypacker: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: What's funny is that if Obama's presidency was a success, no one would be talking about Bush. Since it is not......but Bush.

What's you rmeasure of a presidency being a "success?" Do we get to level 5?

What's your measure of success? Is it good enough on which to base a campaign?

yert: billinder33: Brainsick: billinder33: Anyone who views the Obama presidency as an overall 'positive' is wearing coke-bottle thick Dem-glasses. It may be better than the alternative, but a 'positive' it is not.

Oh, I don't know...
There are a few things he's done (new window)

I'm well aware of Obama's accomplishments. I don't need to hear the sales pitch again for the 1000th time.

The biggest issue on his desk in his four years as president was the Bush tax cuts, and he pussed out, because of politics. Why is that so hard for the Farkbamas here to understand?

He made a promise that he would not raise taxes on people making less than 250K. The congress would not let him raise taxes on the rich and let the tax cuts continue for the less rich. So he decided to keep his promise and get unemployment extended. How pissed would you have been if he broke his promise and raised everyone's taxes and failed to extend unemployed.

/this is how the sausage is made.

Actually, he specifically stated during the campaign that he would delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts if economic circumstances called for it:

Link (new window)

Obama is a Keynesian, just like the large majority of our mainstream economists. He understands that stimulating the economy during down times partly means avoiding anti-stimulative acts like raising taxes.

He broke no promise to rescind the Bush tax cuts. And no further rationalization is needed to justify his correct economic policy choice.

Yawn.

Forgive me if I find explaining why the Bush tax cuts didn't expire tedious and boring, but honestly, how many different ways does it have to be said and how the fark do you go about blaming the President when it's the Republicans who went to the mat to keep the farking taxes low on the wealthy?

And you doubted my perception of reality? Reach into the Clue bag and grab a handful.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: CPennypacker: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: What's funny is that if Obama's presidency was a success, no one would be talking about Bush. Since it is not......but Bush.

What's you rmeasure of a presidency being a "success?" Do we get to level 5?

What's your measure of success? Is it good enough on which to base a campaign?

Well, Osama Bin Laden is dead, DADT has been ended, the stimulus was successful, he saved the american auto industry, unemployment was extended for down and out Americans. He did much of this while dealing with a congress that has openly stated that its #1 agenda is to oppose him in every way possible no matter what he tries to do. I think he has done a bang up job.

tenpoundsofcheese: fenianfark: I seem to remember, after the first round of Bush tax cuts went through,

that. the rich paid more in taxes in 2005 than any time in the prior 20 years. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal noted, thanks to George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich, the richest one percent went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% went from paying 44% of all income taxes in 1990 to paying 60% of all income taxes in 2005.

In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share.


FTFY


This whole situation is obviously Obama's fault.

well, he was smart enough to extend those evil tax breaks.

I'm going to go out on a limb here - might those numbers represent not that lower-income families aren't paying as much per household, but that there are fewer households earning enough to be effectively taxed OR MORE LIKELY that the tax cuts disproportionately benefited the wealthy and thus exaggerated the percentages?

Let's say there are 100 taxpayers in our pool, and a total revenue from said pool of $1000. In 1990, the top person pays $250, the next four pay $190/4 or $47.50 each, and the other 95 pay $640/95 or about $6.74 each.

In 2005, we again have 100 taxpayers. The top guy pays $390, the next four pay $210/4 or $52.50 each, and the rest pay $400/95 or about $4.20 each.

This sounds good for the 95%, right? The amount of money they paid in taxes went down! BUT: looking at data from http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html , in 1990 the top 5% made $953/$3451 (billions) or 27.6 percent of the money reported as income in the country. In 2005, they made about 35.7 percent of the money in the country. From 1990 to 2005, the income of the lower 50% went up 1.85x. The income of the uppermost 5% went up about 2.82x. Sounds reasonable on both sides, until you realize those numbers don't account for inflation. The inflation between those two years means $1.00 in 2005 is only worth $0.67 from 1990. Apply inflation to the taxes paid by the lower 95, and they beat inflation tax-wise by a whopping $0.05!

So both groups beat inflation (as far as federal income tax is concerned. Sales taxes, gas tax, state taxes, etc. are a different story). But the poor did so by the skin of their teeth, hanging on to what they had, while the uppermost taxpayers doubled their money. Eight cents of every dollar in those fifteen years made their way from the poor to the rich. The rich pay a larger percentage of the taxes now because they have a larger percentage of the money.

And I'm sure the tax cuts lopping off a bit of the low end means there are fewer people overall paying taxes, but that's because they don't make enough to pay them. So the small number of rich people getting a larger share of the money, coupled with tax breaks constricting the taxpayer population, means, yes, the rich do pay a larger share in taxes. Because they make more, MUCH more, in taxable income.

Darklemming: dwrash: Arkanaut: CPennypacker: Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income

Hear hear

Hear hear... income is income is income.. it should all be taxed at the same rate.

Except higher taxes on investments will discourage future investment which will crash the economy again!

Weeeeeee! This economics thing is fun!

If anything, one of our problems during the 2000's was over-investment. Too many rich people with money lying around looking for risky investments -- and they got it, except that risk blewup the rest of the economy too.

Plus, investment isn't going to grow the economy by itself -- all it can do is chase returns. If regular people don't have any money to spend at (for example) a store, you're going to be hard pressed to squeeze better returns out of them, no matter how much you invest. (And of course the more you invest in a single instrument / company, after a point, the harder it becomes to get satisfactory returns.) Even the WSJ agrees that the problem in the economy right now is depressed demand, not lack of investment.

Reaganomics used to be justified by the adage "a rising tide lifts all boats". What happened though, is that some boats (the financial / corporate executive classes) took off soaring, while most other boats rose only a little bit. I propose that instead of focusing on trying to get the flying boats flying faster and higher (sorry, this analogy is breaking down), we work on helping the regular boats get moving, by lifting the tides (with money). The "1%" will have to pay for it, but they will reap the benefits from the "rising tide" also, as their investments and property values grow.

And before we get any derpier, let me just say that there are no absolute laws with economic policy the way there are with physics and chemistry. Policy has to be conditional and responsive. I'm advocating deficit spending for now, but if times are booming (which they aren't right now) then the government should be cutting its spending and workforce. I think there was overinvestment back in the 2000's, but if our financial arteries were so choked up that a company like GE has to borrow at 10%, then certainly we would have a problem.

* Fark won't let me link to WSJ, so here's the URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576452181063763 332.html

Soup4Bonnie: Yawn.

Forgive me if I find explaining why the Bush tax cuts didn't expire tedious and boring, but honestly, how many different ways does it have to be said and how the fark do you go about blaming the President when it's the Republicans who went to the mat to keep the farking taxes low on the wealthy?

And you doubted my perception of reality? Reach into the Clue bag and grab a handful.

Especially since Obama stated during the campaign that he would delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts if economic circumstances called for it:

Link (new window)

The untold story of the 2010 tax cut extension debate is how Obama used a tax cut extension he did want to negotiate an unemployment extension the Republicans did not want. Negotiation jujitsu, which directly contravenes the idea that he's "weak."

As a dog returneth to its vomit, thus the right wing returneth to its ever favourite pack of lies. 'Tis the tragedy of the morans.

bugontherug: yert: billinder33: Brainsick: billinder33: Anyone who views the Obama presidency as an overall 'positive' is wearing coke-bottle thick Dem-glasses. It may be better than the alternative, but a 'positive' it is not.

Oh, I don't know...
There are a few things he's done (new window)

I'm well aware of Obama's accomplishments. I don't need to hear the sales pitch again for the 1000th time.

The biggest issue on his desk in his four years as president was the Bush tax cuts, and he pussed out, because of politics. Why is that so hard for the Farkbamas here to understand?

He made a promise that he would not raise taxes on people making less than 250K. The congress would not let him raise taxes on the rich and let the tax cuts continue for the less rich. So he decided to keep his promise and get unemployment extended. How pissed would you have been if he broke his promise and raised everyone's taxes and failed to extend unemployed.

/this is how the sausage is made.

Actually, he specifically stated during the campaign that he would delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts if economic circumstances called for it:

Link (new window)

Obama is a Keynesian, just like the large majority of our mainstream economists. He understands that stimulating the economy during down times partly means avoiding anti-stimulative acts like raising taxes.

He broke no promise to rescind the Bush tax cuts. And no further rationalization is needed to justify his correct economic policy choice.

I don't think he thought economic circumstances called for it. At the time of the debate he wanted to keep the tax cuts for the less wealth and let the cuts expire on the more wealthy. He made the compromise of keeping the cuts for everyone so he could get unemployment extended and keep taxes low on the not as rich people making

tenpoundsofcheese: [percentage of income taxes screed]

don't you think that talking point looks tired?

CPennypacker: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: CPennypacker: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: What's funny is that if Obama's presidency was a success, no one would be talking about Bush. Since it is not......but Bush.

What's you rmeasure of a presidency being a "success?" Do we get to level 5?

What's your measure of success? Is it good enough on which to base a campaign?

Well, Osama Bin Laden is dead, DADT has been ended, the stimulus was successful, he saved the american auto industry, unemployment was extended for down and out Americans.

And all but one of those "successes" will be kept under wraps during the campaign. At least you had the honesty to leave out Obamacare. "Saved the auto industry"....what a hoot!

He did much of this while dealing with a congress that has openly stated that its #1 agenda is to oppose him in every way possible no matter what he tries to do. I think he has done a bang up job.

It's called leadership. It's the quality that all successful politicians must have. Good leadership in politics requires that the politician is able to convince, compromise with, or outmanuever their opposition. This is the way it has been for centuries, it's the way it is now. Just because this president is not very good at it does not mean his situation is unique.

yert: I don't think he thought economic circumstances called for it. At the time of the debate he wanted to keep the tax cuts for the less wealth and let the cuts expire on the more wealthy. He made the compromise of keeping the cuts for everyone so he could get unemployment extended and keep taxes low on the not as rich people making

It's possible he didn't feel tax increases on the wealthy were sufficiently anti-stimulative not to do them, but that tax increases on everyone else were. Or, it's possible he just adopted a negotiating position to get what he wanted, which was an extension of the tax cuts, and an extension of unemployment benefits, both of which are classic Keynesian responses to tough economic times. Given the state of the economy in December 2010, I just don't buy that he really thought that was the best time to raise taxes, especially in light of his statement that he would delay rescinding them if economic circumstances called for it.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: It's called leadership. It's the quality that all successful politicians must have. Good leadership in politics requires that the politician is able to convince, compromise with, or outmanuever their opposition. This is the way it has been for centuries, it's the way it is now. Just because this president is not very good at it does not mean his situation is unique.

His successful use of tax cuts extensions he did want to negotiate unemployment extensions the Republicans did not want suggests otherwise. If my factually supported interpretation of events is correct, he seriously outmaneuvered the Republicans on that issue. So successfully, the Republicans still do not know he even did it.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: CPennypacker: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: CPennypacker: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: What's funny is that if Obama's presidency was a success, no one would be talking about Bush. Since it is not......but Bush.

What's you rmeasure of a presidency being a "success?" Do we get to level 5?

What's your measure of success? Is it good enough on which to base a campaign?

Well, Osama Bin Laden is dead, DADT has been ended, the stimulus was successful, he saved the american auto industry, unemployment was extended for down and out Americans.

And all but one of those "successes" will be kept under wraps during the campaign. At least you had the honesty to leave out Obamacare. "Saved the auto industry"....what a hoot!

He did much of this while dealing with a congress that has openly stated that its #1 agenda is to oppose him in every way possible no matter what he tries to do. I think he has done a bang up job.

It's called leadership. It's the quality that all successful politicians must have. Good leadership in politics requires that the politician is able to convince, compromise with, or outmanuever their opposition. This is the way it has been for centuries, it's the way it is now. Just because this president is not very good at it does not mean his situation is unique.

You're a laugh riot.

I forgot Obamacare. Thanks

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: compromise with, or outmanuever their opposition

Not a compromise:
Dems: "Let's keep the tax cuts for low and middle income and let them expire for the wealthy, and extend unemployment benefits."
GOP: "Let's NOT let them expire for the wealthy, and we can live with the other stuff."
Dems: "OK."

Not outmaneuvering anyone:
GOP: "Let's hold the debt ceiling hostage for large spending cuts!"
Dems: "Raise the debt ceiling and we'll do automatic cuts to your favorite programs if you don't decide otherwise."
GOP: "OK."

bugontherug: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: It's called leadership. It's the quality that all successful politicians must have. Good leadership in politics requires that the politician is able to convince, compromise with, or outmanuever their opposition. This is the way it has been for centuries, it's the way it is now. Just because this president is not very good at it does not mean his situation is unique.

His successful use of tax cuts extensions he did want to negotiate unemployment extensions the Republicans did not want suggests otherwise. If my factually supported interpretation of events is correct, he seriously outmaneuvered the Republicans on that issue. So successfully, the Republicans still do not know he even did it.

So, Obama vigorously campaigned from 2008 to 2010 for ending the Bush tax cuts, but it was all a secret ploy to get uemployment extensions? I'll say your "factually supported interpretation" is lacking in common sense.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: bugontherug: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: It's called leadership. It's the quality that all successful politicians must have. Good leadership in politics requires that the politician is able to convince, compromise with, or outmanuever their opposition. This is the way it has been for centuries, it's the way it is now. Just because this president is not very good at it does not mean his situation is unique.

His successful use of tax cuts extensions he did want to negotiate unemployment extensions the Republicans did not want suggests otherwise. If my factually supported interpretation of events is correct, he seriously outmaneuvered the Republicans on that issue. So successfully, the Republicans still do not know he even did it.

So, Obama vigorously campaigned from 2008 to 2010 for ending the Bush tax cuts, but it was all a secret ploy to get uemployment extensions? I'll say your "factually supported interpretation" is lacking in common sense.

I'll say your interpretation of my factually supported interpretation is lacking in comprehension. I said nothing of any long term ploy to get unemployment extensions. The timing of the issues' presentation coincided in December of 2010, and Obama used the circumstance to get a two for one deal out of Congress.

Objective reality is what it is, no matter how hard you deny it. Obama said in September of 2008 that he would delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts in the event of recession Link (new window) . And then he did exactly what he said he would do, negotiating an unemployment extension that the Republicans did not want at the same time.

The Republicans got had, and Obama got exactly what he wanted. That's what the evidence says happened, and that's exactly what happened. I apologize if this undermines your Fox News inspired narrative about how the purportedly simpering wimp Obama keeps getting bullied around by the strong, virtuous Republicans, instead suggesting that hot headed GOP idiots have made themselves easy to take advantage of.

Wait, no I don't. NM.

qorkfiend: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: compromise with, or outmanuever their opposition

Not a compromise:
Dems: "Let's keep the tax cuts for low and middle income and let them expire for the wealthy, and extend unemployment benefits."
GOP: "Let's NOT let them expire for the wealthy, and we can live with the other stuff."
Dems: "OK."

Not outmaneuvering anyone:
GOP: "Let's hold the debt ceiling hostage for large spending cuts!"
Dems: "Raise the debt ceiling and we'll do automatic cuts to your favorite programs if you don't decide otherwise."
GOP: "OK."

But Fark tells me that the reason Obama can't get anything done is because of the evil GOP. Hell, the GOP has been blamed for his failed presidency at least 10 times here alone. So I guess the GOP is now the party of "OK".

bugontherug: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: bugontherug: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: It's called leadership. It's the quality that all successful politicians must have. Good leadership in politics requires that the politician is able to convince, compromise with, or outmanuever their opposition. This is the way it has been for centuries, it's the way it is now. Just because this president is not very good at it does not mean his situation is unique.

His successful use of tax cuts extensions he did want to negotiate unemployment extensions the Republicans did not want suggests otherwise. If my factually supported interpretation of events is correct, he seriously outmaneuvered the Republicans on that issue. So successfully, the Republicans still do not know he even did it.

So, Obama vigorously campaigned from 2008 to 2010 for ending the Bush tax cuts, but it was all a secret ploy to get uemployment extensions? I'll say your "factually supported interpretation" is lacking in common sense.

I'll say your interpretation of my factually supported interpretation is lacking in comprehension. I said nothing of any long term ploy to get unemployment extensions. The timing of the issues' presentation coincided in December of 2010, and Obama used the circumstance to get a two for one deal out of Congress.

Objective reality is what it is, no matter how hard you deny it. Obama said in September of 2008 that he would delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts in the event of recession Link (new window) . And then he did exactly what he said he would do, negotiating an unemployment extension that the Republicans did not want at the same time.

The Republicans got had, and Obama got exactly what he wanted. That's what the evidence says happened, and that's exactly what happened. I apologize if this undermines your Fox News inspired narrative about how the purportedly simpering wimp Obama keeps getting bullied around by the strong, virtuous Republicans, instead suggesting that hot headed ...

From your link.

"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates."

I suggest you look up the word "rescind" and then reevaluate your "factually supported interpretation".

CPennypacker: Well, Osama Bin Laden is dead, DADT has been ended, the stimulus was successful, he saved the american auto industry, unemployment was extended for down and out Americans. He did much of this while dealing with a congress that has openly stated that its #1 agenda is to oppose him in every way possible no matter what he tries to do. I think he has done a bang up job.

You can't really give that much credit for the OBL to Obama, though, since the tracking of him actually started under Bush. Although he did give the "go ahead", the intelligence to track him was actually gathered under the Bush administration. Neither one deserves credit anymore than Carter deserves credit for the Miracle on Ice.

And I wouldn't say the stimulus was successful, although that depends on your definition of success...

bugontherug: Saiga410: Wyalt Derp: Saiga410: To be honest Obama did not inherit Bush's tax cuts. They had a solid sunset date. Obama decided to extend them.

Damn you, Dictatorbama! If only the GOP could have found a way to stop him doing this.

The GOP overruled Obama's veto? Oh wait he signed the bill.

Yes, exactly as he said he would during the campaign.

Link (new window)

The ignorance, stupidity, or dishonesty in your argument arises from:

1) Your claim that the date Republicans always intended to extend the tax cuts was a "solid sunset date,"

2) Your failure to acknowledge the difference in circumstances between then and now, and why they're important to Obama's decision to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Either you were unaware that the Republicans never intended the sunset date to be "solid," you lacked the intelligence to decipher their intention from political context, or you just deceptively omitted the information in order to make your argument look stronger. There are no other options.

Likewise, you were either unaware of the differences in economic circumstances between then and now, you lacked the intelligence to understand why those differences matter, or you just deceptively omitted the information in order to make your argument look stronger. There are no other options.

So maybe you can clarify: are you ignorant, stupid, or dishonest? Farkers would like to know.

The extension of the tax cuts had a lot more to do with politics than with any economic scenario. Again, see the farking chart posted above. We could have taken the extra revenue from the tax cuts and funded infrastructure or something useful. We didn't. Because Obama and the Dems were afraid of Republican attacks around taxes. Which was stupid, because they got routed in the election anyhow.

People who really need a break aren't getting anything out of cap-gains anyhow. That's a bogus argument. You can argue the unemployment extension, and that's fine, but I don' think it really changes the long-term position of these unemployed people. Many of these jobs are gone and not coming back.

Extending the tax cuts was a major-league stupid decision by Obama.... it is what it is.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: "Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates."

I suggest you look up the word "rescind" and then reevaluate your "factually supported interpretation".

Okay.

Rescind means to revoke, cancel, or repeal.

Link (new window)

In September of 2008, Obama said he would delay revoking, canceling, or repealing the Bush tax cuts in the event of recession. And then, in 2010, after it was clear that the economy had experienced a deep recession, Obama did what he said he would do by delaying revoking, canceling, or repealing the Bush tax cuts. At the same time, negotiating an unemployment benefits extension that the Republicans did not want.

I have looked up the word "rescind," and I have reevaluated my factually supported interpretation. On reevaluation, I came to the same conclusion as I did before:

Obama did exactly what he said he would do, while negotiating for the Republicans to concede what they did not want to concede. Obama got what he wanted, while bilking Republican fools so blinded with hate for the black man in the White House that they couldn't see, and still don't see, how they were outmaneuvered.

billinder33: really changes the long-term position of these unemployed people. Many of these jobs are gone and not coming back.

Extending the tax cuts was a major-league stupid decision by Obama.... it is what it is.

Objective reality is what it is. Obama said he would delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts in the event of recession.

Link (new window)

Then, after a recession, he did exactly what he said he would do, by delaying rescinding the Bush tax cuts. At the same time, he used the tax cut issue to negotiate an extension of unemployment benefits that the Republicans did not want.

Temporarily extending the Bush tax cuts was sound economic policy, and for several reasons, sound politics. It is what it is.

machoprogrammer: CPennypacker: Well, Osama Bin Laden is dead, DADT has been ended, the stimulus was successful, he saved the american auto industry, unemployment was extended for down and out Americans. He did much of this while dealing with a congress that has openly stated that its #1 agenda is to oppose him in every way possible no matter what he tries to do. I think he has done a bang up job.

You can't really give that much credit for the OBL to Obama, though, since the tracking of him actually started under Bush. Although he did give the "go ahead", the intelligence to track him was actually gathered under the Bush administration. Neither one deserves credit anymore than Carter deserves credit for the Miracle on Ice.

And I wouldn't say the stimulus was successful, although that depends on your definition of success...

Obama put tracking Bin Laden on the front burner, and risked his political career on that raid. He deserves credit.

And as far as the stimulus goes, I'm going to side with the CBO over you.

machoprogrammer: You can't really give that much credit for the OBL to Obama, though, since the tracking of him actually started under Bush. Although he did give the "go ahead", the intelligence to track him was actually gathered under the Bush administration. Neither one deserves credit anymore than Carter deserves credit for the Miracle on Ice.

And I wouldn't say the stimulus was successful, although that depends on your definition of success...

You're not waiting in a bread line for a $20 loaf are you? It was successful. As for OBL..."the intelligence to track him was actually gathered under the Bush administration"...is a pretty hollow argument when you consider it was Obama and his staff who used that intel successfully, regardless of when it was gathered.

bugontherug: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: "Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates."

I suggest you look up the word "rescind" and then reevaluate your "factually supported interpretation".

Okay.

Rescind means to revoke, cancel, or repeal.

Link (new window)

In September of 2008, Obama said he would delay revoking, canceling, or repealing the Bush tax cuts in the event of recession. And then, in 2010, after it was clear that the economy had experienced a deep recession, Obama did what he said he would do by delaying revoking, canceling, or repealing the Bush tax cuts. At the same time, negotiating an unemployment benefits extension that the Republicans did not want.

I have looked up the word "rescind," and I have reevaluated my factually supported interpretation. On reevaluation, I came to the same conclusion as I did before:

Obama did exactly what he said he would do, while negotiating for the Republicans to concede what they did not want to concede. Obama got what he wanted, while bilking Republican fools so blinded with hate for the black man in the White House that they couldn't see, and still don't see, how they were outmaneuvered.

I'll hold your hand and guide you through this one time. Obama said, according to your article, that he would delay rescinding the tax cuts but would not extend the tax cuts when they expired (see the difference). The expiration was the end of 2010. Obama fought to allow the tax cuts to expire and did so vigorously. But he signed an extension, something he said he would not do according to your own evidence, when faced with political opposition he could not overcome. He went against his promise to let the tax cuts expire (hell even alot of Dems are pissed at that one).

But according to you, it was all a preprogrammed strategy to push through an unemployment extension. Good plan. I'm sure he will point out his own prowess on that event during the runup to the election.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: But Fark tells me that the reason Obama can't get anything done is because of the evil GOP. Hell, the GOP has been blamed for his failed presidency at least 10 times here alone. So I guess the GOP is now the party of "OK".

And you're the party of one.

Nobody can be this willfully dense about the obstructionist blitz campaign the Republican party has been pledged to being the past 3 years.

whidbey: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: But Fark tells me that the reason Obama can't get anything done is because of the evil GOP. Hell, the GOP has been blamed for his failed presidency at least 10 times here alone. So I guess the GOP is now the party of "OK".

And you're the party of one.

Nobody can be this willfully dense about the obstructionist blitz campaign the Republican party has been pledged to being the past 3 years.

So now we're back to the party of "No", and Obama being pitifully inept at politics again.

Got it.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: whidbey: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: But Fark tells me that the reason Obama can't get anything done is because of the evil GOP. Hell, the GOP has been blamed for his failed presidency at least 10 times here alone. So I guess the GOP is now the party of "OK".

And you're the party of one.

Nobody can be this willfully dense about the obstructionist blitz campaign the Republican party has been pledged to being the past 3 years.

So now we're back to the party of "No", and Obama being pitifully inept at politics again.

Got it.

You're bad at this

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: I'll hold your hand and guide you through this one time. Obama said, according to your article, that he would delay rescinding the tax cuts but would not extend the tax cuts when they expired (see the difference).

1) There is no difference between delaying rescinding the Bush tax cuts, and temporarily extending them for two years.

2) What he said was that he had no "plans" to extend the Bush tax cuts. In September of 2008, he did not. He did not say he would not extend them when they expired.

Your efforts here are just plausible enough that I actually think you've misunderstood, and not that you're trolling. If the latter, 9/10. You hooked me for sure, but your troll still lacks that ineffable "something" that makes a troll golden.

CPennypacker: You're bad at this

I'd like to think Zappa would immerse him in yellow snow for white-knighting the Repubs so shamelessly if he were here.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: But according to you, it was all a preprogrammed strategy to push through an unemployment extension.

Wait. You are trolling. NM.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: So now we're back to the party of "No", and Obama being pitifully inept at politics again.

Got it.

Party of NO, yes.

Inept at politics? You're also ignoring the many accomplishments this administration has achieved despite the constant childish behavior of the so-called "opposition."

You clearly want a Decider like Bush.

bugontherug: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: I'll hold your hand and guide you through this one time. Obama said, according to your article, that he would delay rescinding the tax cuts but would not extend the tax cuts when they expired (see the difference).

1) There is no difference between delaying rescinding the Bush tax cuts, and temporarily extending them for two years.

2) What he said was that he had no "plans" to extend the Bush tax cuts. In September of 2008, he did not. He did not say he would not extend them when they expired.

Your efforts here are just plausible enough that I actually think you've misunderstood, and not that you're trolling. If the latter, 9/10. You hooked me for sure, but your troll still lacks that ineffable "something" that makes a troll golden.

Since this has now devolved to the predictable..."you disagree with my political position so you must be a troll"....meme, I'll leave with this. Obama campaigned on rescinding the tax cuts as soon as he was sworn into office. It became apparent as the economy faltered that this would be a mistake in 2008. He still planned to allow the cuts to expire in 2010. When the expiration came up, he fought hard with many (not all) Dem leaders to allow them to expire. To say he got what he wanted with just an extension of unemployment is laughable at best.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Since this has now devolved to the predictable..."you disagree with my political position so you must be a troll"....meme,

You've just verified my suspicion that you're trolling, because the reason I called you a troll was your statement that I've claimed Obama's negotiation jujitsu was part of a long term, secret plan. But I'll play along for another post anyway.

I'll leave with this. Obama campaigned on rescinding the tax cuts as soon as he was sworn into office.

You forgot the part where he said he'd evaluate the state of the economy before rescinding the Bush tax cuts. You know, in that link I've posted already several times in this very thread? Here, I'll post it again:

Link (new window)

And, incidentally, citation needed on the "as soon as he was sworn into office" part. Especially since rescinding them "as soon as he was sworn into office" would have required a special bill.


It became apparent as the economy faltered that this would be a mistake in 2008. He still planned to allow the cuts to expire in 2010.

That's great. If only there were some evidence for the proposition that he still planned to allow the cuts to expire in 2010. Of course, we have unmistakable evidence that he planned to delay rescinding (letting them expire) them in the event of recession.

When the expiration came up, he fought hard with many (not all) Dem leaders to allow them to expire.

Wait a second. I thought the spin was that he shriveled up like a leaf and blew away in a stiff breeze the second he was met with Republican opposition. Now you're saying he fought hard alongside Dem leaders to allow them to expire?

To say he got what he wanted with just an extension of unemployment is laughable at best

To say he got what he wanted with just an extension of unemployment comports with repeatedly cited evidence that that's exactly what happened.

billinder33: No sir. Currently, the rich are too poor, the poor too rich.
FFS, poor people in this country have REFRIGERATORS!

Oh, I sold my refrigerator. It's winter now, I don't need it. Got $500 for it, too.

I bet you rich farkers wouldn't think of doing something so smart.

farkityfarker: I wonder where we'd be today if Obama hadn't inherited Bush's tax cuts and war spending.

The oceans would be receding, the planet would be healing and you would be happy. Happy.

bugontherug: To say he got what he wanted with just an extension of unemployment comports with repeatedly cited evidence that that's exactly what happened.

Remember, Obama also got the repeal of DADT and the START treaty with Russia right after giving the Bush tax cuts an extension for the ultra wealthy as the Republicans wanted. The Republicans said at the time "there are no more pressing matters than the expiring tax cuts and those must be resolved before considering any other legislation." (not verbatim) Seeing as it was right after getting the 2010 election results, they had a very limited time window to pass that legislation.

So, if I recall correctly, Obama had to give the Republicans their ultra-wealthy Bush tax cut extension in order to get an extension of unemployment benefits, the START treaty, and the repeal of DADT. If he didn't agree, he wouldn't have gotten any of that.