Are We Completely Nuts?

[FA_Q2]

You cannot blame 2009 spending on Bush. Yes, it was a Bush budget, but a budget is not a spending bill. It is a plan to authorize spending billls and how the spending will be allocated. Just as we operating on family budgets amend the budget when a bonus is less than expected or we don't get the hoped for raise--we then scrap plans for remodeling the kitchen that year or replacing the aging car--the Congress can elect not to spend everything the budget proposes.

And every penny spent is included in an allocation bill that is developed and passed separate from the budget and sometimes bears little resemblance to the language in the budget.

Thus, even though the 2008 budget was higher than the 2007 budget, 2008 spending would have been less than 2007 if TARP had not been passed. Congress and the President have the ability to do that.

You can point to a Bush budget for 2009 spending, but it was not Bush who put out the appropriation bills and spent the money in 2009. It was the 2009 Congress and President Obama who did that.

On the contrary, I can and will blame Bush for everything he passed as well as the appropriations that were under his watch even if the Obama could have tried to stop them. To do otherwise is letting the other democratic party off the hook. I refuse to give the republicans a pass on the asinine things that they put on paper during the Bush years because that's just giving them license to do it again.


Do you think they were trying to be fiscally conservative and passed that because they thought Obama would make the right call and reduce the spending levels? No, that is just silly. They did that because that is exactly what they wanted. They were aware and complicit in breaking every spending record ever set as is Obama in virtually every year after.

 

[FA_Q2]

I thought you were claiming that Obama cut federal spending? I guess that now it has been shown that claim is utter nonsense you are defaulting to the blame Bush tactic. That is another asinine claim.

sorry, I cant hear you over the sound of obama cutting a trillion dollars of spending, oh would you look at that, this addresses woodie as well.
President Obama's Record and Proposals for Cutting Spending | The White House

And yet, here are the actual spending numbers:
2009---3,517,677
2010---3,456,213
2011---3,603,061
2012---3,795,547
2013---3,803,364
2014---3,883,095
2015---4,059,866
2016---4,328,840
2017---4,531,723
Where has that trillion been cut again? Show where we spent one trillion less than the previous year because it simply is not there. Seems to me that spending in increasing every year. Apparently you can’t hear over the bullshit that you are eating from the Whitehouse. They are not cutting spending. They are increasing it.

Yes, I dont know why you think you can just dismiss the fact that lax regulation killed the economy. Clinton repealed glass stegal, but dont forget for a second that it was the republicans that thought it was such a good idea, wrote the legislation and got billy to go along with it.

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thats been the conservative mantra all along, and it resulted in disaster. You got to do it your way and it ruined the country, now get out of the way while adults handle things.

And?
You are absolving the democrats and trying to blame the republicans. I doubt that you even understand what happened to cause the recession. As I said, both parties were (and still are) complicit in creating this and future recessions. You want to magnify the republican part and make the democrat part smaller. It is not going to fly.

Tax cuts? No, those are Obama's tax cuts.

yes, the part under 250k, obama owns, the part between 250k and 450k, the republicans own. notice how republicans only fought for the rich, they didnt balk at the rate obama set for income under 250k at all. they even forced the 2% cut to the wage cut off the table, again, republicans have their priorities and it aint your well being.

No. You are not differentiating what was a democrat push or a republican push under Bush are you? Of course not. He signed the damn bill and he gets the blame and credit for it. All I seen on your chart was tax cuts under Bush. NOTHING under Obama. Are you willing to admit that your chat is utter bullshit then? From the original expiration date till they were made permanent, Obama owns the entire thing. He signed the extension and it no longer belongs under Bush. Period. Your asinine chart seems to want to categorize them as still Bush’s tax cuts. That is more than dishonest. It is an outright lie. Bush was not even in government at that time.

How quickly you seem to forget that WE were attacked

if some chinese spies based in mexico bombed ft worth, should we attack mexico, or china?

We would attack the government that was housing and abetting the agency that hit us. You do understand that the Taliban was the ‘government’ in power at the time and that they played an active role in this right?

 

[Foxfyre]

You cannot blame 2009 spending on Bush. Yes, it was a Bush budget, but a budget is not a spending bill. It is a plan to authorize spending billls and how the spending will be allocated. Just as we operating on family budgets amend the budget when a bonus is less than expected or we don't get the hoped for raise--we then scrap plans for remodeling the kitchen that year or replacing the aging car--the Congress can elect not to spend everything the budget proposes.

And every penny spent is included in an allocation bill that is developed and passed separate from the budget and sometimes bears little resemblance to the language in the budget.

Thus, even though the 2008 budget was higher than the 2007 budget, 2008 spending would have been less than 2007 if TARP had not been passed. Congress and the President have the ability to do that.

You can point to a Bush budget for 2009 spending, but it was not Bush who put out the appropriation bills and spent the money in 2009. It was the 2009 Congress and President Obama who did that.

On the contrary, I can and will blame Bush for everything he passed as well as the appropriations that were under his watch even if the Obama could have tried to stop them. To do otherwise is letting the other democratic party off the hook. I refuse to give the republicans a pass on the asinine things that they put on paper during the Bush years because that's just giving them license to do it again.


Do you think they were trying to be fiscally conservative and passed that because they thought Obama would make the right call and reduce the spending levels? No, that is just silly. They did that because that is exactly what they wanted. They were aware and complicit in breaking every spending record ever set as is Obama in virtually every year after.

I haven't given Bush a "pass" for anything. Quite the contrary. I have been one of his most severe critics when I thought he was wrong and I thought he was wrong on entitlements, energy, immigration, environment, spending, and prosecution of the war. And I certainly gave the Bush administration no props whatsoever for fiscal austerity.

But just as President Bush was working from a Clinton budget in 2001, it was still the Republican Congress with him signing the legislation that wrote and passed the appropriations bills and spent the money. He can't blame what was spent in 2008 on Clinton, and Obama (or you) cannot ethically blame what was spent in 2009 on Bush.

Just because the money is budgeted does not mean that the money has to be spent.

 

[Wiseacre]

I have always felt the the Congress owns at least half of the responsibility for budget deficits, or surpluses if and when we ever have any. It is after all their primary responsibility rather than the president's.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have always felt the the Congress owns at least half of the responsibility for budget deficits, or surpluses if and when we ever have any. It is after all their primary responsibility rather than the president's.

Absolutely. The President, as CEO of the government, is supposed to present Congress a budget to run the departments of government that the President is responsible for, but it is Congress's sole authority to approve and pass a budget. I don't recall in my lifetime, and maybe it has never happened, that the Congress ever passed the budget presented to them by the President?

The President does not approve the final budget passed by the House and Senate. We haven't had a budget for the last three years because Harry Reid refuses to put a budget to a vote. He considerrs the debt ceiling the only budget they need.

Once a budget is passed, if they do pass one, the actual spending is done by a series of appropriations bills funding varous areas of government. The President can sign or veto these but is not required to do so. Appropriations bills are different from other kinds of legislation as there is no pocket veto. If the Presient does not sign or veto the appropriations bill, it automatically becomes law.

But typically, our current fearless leader has attempted to convince the uninformed and ignorant that he has increased spending less than his predecessors while he simultaneously takes no responsibility for the huge deficits during his years in office. Anything that can be made to look good, he takes full credit for. Anything that looks bad, he blames on George Bush.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you're missing Katz' point. Look how quickly most threads criticizing Obama in any way draw some kind of fire and accusation of 'racism' from somebody on the Left. He is afforded a layer of protection against a lot of criticism purely because he is black, at least so far as his admiring public is concerned. You can't use certain words like 'lazy' to characterize the President because that is deemed 'racist'. It IS absolutely Nuts as the thread title suggests.

So in the larger picture, does the media protect him and exalt him and advantage him like they do because he is black? Must he be admired and liked as a President, even if you are horrified by his policies, because he is black? I would like to think that isn't the case, but if you look at the cold, ungarnished, pure, unadulteratd reality, I have to believe that is part of it. There are way too many Americans who see a black man, not a President, and therefore to be noble, unracist, and tolerant, he must be loved.

And because the media largely refuses to critique him, criticize him, or do any honest reporting of any negatives re his policies, it is easy to give him that approval rating. Everybody loves him. Therefore he must be great.

I honestly can come up with no other reason for an approval rating over 50%.

 

[Spoonman]

Obama wants the closing of tax loopholes for the wealthy and for corporations, like GE, which did not pay a dime of taxes on $14.2 billion in profits, to be part of the plan to narrow the deficit. The republicans don't want to do that. They are, once again, on the wrong side of history on this. He is not, to my knowledge, asking for increased tax rates.

but they did contribute very nicely to his campaign

 

[Spoonman]

it's all an example of us becoming too politically correct. you can't criticize him because cries of rascism are the first thing you hear. and why is that? are they saying saying failed policy, raising the debt, a flat economy, high unemployment are a black thing? criticism is based on results or lack of them. if obama was delivering or making improvement, I could understand the claims of racism. but the fact is, he is not delivering

 

[Vandalshandle]

Obama wants the closing of tax loopholes for the wealthy and for corporations, like GE, which did not pay a dime of taxes on $14.2 billion in profits, to be part of the plan to narrow the deficit. The republicans don't want to do that. They are, once again, on the wrong side of history on this. He is not, to my knowledge, asking for increased tax rates.

but they did contribute very nicely to his campaign

I guess you did not see where I posted this earlier in the thread:

General Electric: Summary | OpenSecrets 70% of their presidential campaigns went to Mitt.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we didn't like Clinton or Bush, would that automatically mean we are racist?

I think you're missing Katz' point. Look how quickly most threads criticizing Obama in any way draw some kind of fire and accusation of 'racism' from somebody on the Left. He is afforded a layer of protection against a lot of criticism purely because he is black, at least so far as his admiring public is concerned. You can't use certain words like 'lazy' to characterize the President because that is deemed 'racist'. It IS absolutely Nuts as the thread title suggests.

So in the larger picture, does the media protect him and exalt him and advantage him like they do because he is black? Must he be admired and liked as a President, even if you are horrified by his policies, because he is black? I would like to think that isn't the case, but if you look at the cold, ungarnished, pure, unadulteratd reality, I have to believe that is part of it. There are way too many Americans who see a black man, not a President, and therefore to be noble, unracist, and tolerant, he must be loved.

And because the media largely refuses to critique him, criticize him, or do any honest reporting of any negatives re his policies, it is easy to give him that approval rating. Everybody loves him. Therefore he must be great.

I honestly can come up with no other reason for an approval rating over 50%.

it's all an example of us becoming too politically correct. you can't criticize him because cries of rascism are the first thing you hear. and why is that? are they saying saying failed policy, raising the debt, a flat economy, high unemployment are a black thing? criticism is based on results or lack of them. if obama was delivering or making improvement, I could understand the claims of racism. but the fact is, he is not delivering

But you see, in the skewed world in which partisan blinders are firmly in place, they buy the media hype that Obama gets the credit for any good news of any kind. And George Bush gets the credit for any bad news of any kind. As long as the adoring throngs are willing to accept that nutty--okay really stupid--concept, Obama enjoys great approval ratings and nothing sticks to him.

It is brilliantly conceived and executed. And those who have drunk the koolade and close their minds to whatever uglies come of it and pretend that without Obama, we would have all been doomed, will make sure that nobody is allowed to even question it with impunity, much less stop the insanity in its tracks.

 

[FA_Q2]

Would these numbers have been bigger without obamas spending cuts? TADAA. You expect our budget to be on a flat surface, this is naive and childish, I dont know how to explain it to you apart from "the baby boomers are retiring".

TADA nothing. Spending increased, period. That has nothing to do with expecting budgets to remain flat or not. The reality is that CUTTING directly implies that you have spent less. We have not spent less ergo we have not cut jack shit. All we have done is slow the rate of growth or government spending, growth that exceeds the growth of the nation itself virtually every year.

The fact is that we spend more now than we did last year in which we spent more than the year before and so on yet YOU want to make the claim that Obama is actually cutting. What is naive and childish is the fact that you are fine with the war Ryan’s summed up current budget practices:
“Let’s pass a bill to cover the moon with yogurt that will cost $5 trillion today. and then let’s pass a bill the next day to cancel that bill. We could save $5 trillion. Wait, I’ve got a better idea. Our debt is $14 trillion. Let’s come up with a new plan to spend $14 trillion, then rescind it the next day and let’s save $14 trillion.”
You are essentially saying that is fine. You don’t mind the fact when the government decides to spend shitloads of cash next year that we don’t have and then claims that it ‘cuts’ spending by saying they are going to increase spending by a little less.

Also, while we are calling each other childish and naive, your form of ‘evidence’ is a BLOG from the Whitehouse. Don’t make me sick. That is a direct propaganda machine and it does not even try and hide it. Again, go look up some fucking facts and try to use them. You are not using anything that even remotely could be considered a source to back up you asinine claims.

While we are on asinine claims, the statement that you keep wanting to push at us “I don’t know how to explain it to you apart from the baby boomers are retiring” is horseshit. I would say that you know its horseshit but I am no longer sure if you actually are. Again, look up some damn data. You are claiming that you can’t see the decreases because the boomers are retiring? Really! The fallout from them retiring has not even gotten into full swing yet. We are barely scratching the surface. The baby boomer generation was from 1946-1964 and with retirement generally at 65 (retirement that affects government spending anyway) we are 7 years into the 20 year time period. They have not retired yet IOW, we still have 13 years before they all retire and really start affecting the bottom line. Ill post some real data here for the others as you seem to insist on ignoring it but maybe, maybe you will do some thinking here:
Medicare spending by year (in millions again and from the same source):
2009-----430,903
2010-----451,636
2011-----485,653
2012-----484,486
So, where is that trillion in cuts that is hiding because of the baby boomers? I guess that you could claim .05 of that trillion is hiding there. Don’t know where the other 95% is hiding. Perhaps you can shed some light on that WITH REAL NUMBERS AND A REAL SOURCE.

You have failed to put forward an argument against my position that the recession was caused by lax regulation, and you seem to be unaware that the fraud was happening out on the free market, where private investors were making bad loans, fudging the numbers to sell them to people that pile them together and slice them up into traunches, and then those people were going out and lying to the ratings agencies, who outright failed to do their job. these liar loans and shell games stayed far away from freddy and frannie because f+f actually have standards.
The Subprime Mortgage Primer

No, actually I have not even challenged your assertion and I don’t need to. The only assertion that I challenged was that you are blaming it on Bush and only Bush. You are making wild ass claims that Bush has added all of Obama’s deficits. That Obama is somehow not responsible for the trillions added to the deficit under hos watch But instead Bush is liable for that. Bush was complicit in the crash as were democrats. They are all STILL complicit because they have done NOTHING to address that actual problems that caused the crash and NONE of this has anything to do with the topic at hand. Try and stay focused. That chart you are posting is bullshit and has nothing to do with Obama’s negligence in addressing our spending problems.

theres not nothing under obama, nor are all of bushes shortcomings attributed solely to his terrible tax policy. bush doesnt need to be in office for his terrible policies to remain terrible.

He does need to be in office for him to continue to receive the blame for them since a new president has taken those policies and not only affirmed almost all of them but also strengthened many. Bush’s policies did suck. Why do they not suck when Obama passes them and why, after he has done so, are they still Bush policies? They are now Obama policies.

if some chinese spies based in mexico bombed ft worth, should we attack mexico, or china?

We would attack the government that was housing and abetting the agency that hit us. You do understand that the Taliban was the ‘government’ in power at the time and that they played an active role in this right?

"the" taliban was a loose coalition of warlords, you would be hard pressed to call them a nation, that lack of a govt to is what made cooperating with local forces, like we do in the war on drugs in mexico and south america, an impossibility because it didnt exist. who the hell would name themselves the northern coalition? thats the name we use to describe the coalition that we built.

And? That loose coalition of warlords were the ones in power. They were the ones we bombed. Their opposition were the ones that we armed.

I am beginning to think that you actually do not know what we did in Afghanistan. There were very few forces there that were American through most of the operations there.

We haven't had a budget for the last three years because Harry Reid refuses to put a budget to a vote. He considers the debt ceiling the only budget they need.

I still dont get whats so magical about a "new" budget, as opposed to modifications to the current one, this tangent always reminds me of the mad hatter screaming "switch places".


The republicans have been playing this passive aggressive game for the last 30 years, demand deep cuts, but without specifying anything in particular, then cry about all the deep cuts when the democrats attempt to meet their insane demands.

Modifications?

They are not making any modifications. They are not doing anything. They are simply appropriating funds without a budget at all. Besides being completely unconstitutional, it is contrary to the ‘open’ government that Obama promised us. Congress does not even feel like it has to explain its plans anymore, we should just accept that they are going to spend whatever they want on whatever they want to spend it on. It is asinine.

And the crying? That is coming from the democrats that are outright lying to the people when they tell them the sky is falling because we will only get to spend 430 billion more this year instead of 510 billion more.

Yes, that is actually what they are crying about. They wanted to INCREASE spending by over 500 billion and now they are ‘just’ getting 430 billion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Obama wants the closing of tax loopholes for the wealthy and for corporations, like GE, which did not pay a dime of taxes on $14.2 billion in profits, to be part of the plan to narrow the deficit. The republicans don't want to do that. They are, once again, on the wrong side of history on this. He is not, to my knowledge, asking for increased tax rates.

but they did contribute very nicely to his campaign

I guess you did not see where I posted this earlier in the thread:

General Electric: Summary | OpenSecrets 70% of their presidential campaigns went to Mitt.

This is true. But at least give us the honest picture. When you say G.E., you are actually referring mostly to G.E. employees. Ditto for Goldmann Sachs et al. And these people heavily backed Obama in 2008, certainly at the same level they favored Mitt in 2012. But Obama didn't deliver the on his oh so eloquent promises of 2008 did he. So he had his shot and, in the eyes of most people who actually work for a living and need a recovering economy, he blew it.

Fool me once, shame on you. . . .fool me twice. . . .and all that.

But Obama didn't need them. All he needed was a lapdog media and license to hand out unlimited free phones, etc. for four years, the ability to mischaracterize Romney, and the appearance of a great approval rating, and he had all the votes he needed in all the places he had to have those votes.

G.E. itself has thrived under Obama. Its U.S. employees, not so much.

 

[Underhill]

I did not place this thread in the Clean Debate Zone in order to start a Blame Game. I would just like to know the full extent of the two approaches being offered to the public.

Well that depends on what you want. Do you want what they claim is their aproach or what it actually has been historically?

There's a huge difference.

Historically both spend about the same. The only real blip in spending was under Clinton with a republican congress. Setting that aside spending has gone up at virtually an unchanged rate with slight variations for wars and recessions.

The difference is not in how much they spend, but in what they spend it on.

Historically republicans tend to spend much more on the military. They often cut taxes, but all too often those cuts simply lead to increased taxes and fees elsewhere, either locally or at the state and federal level.

Democrats historically spend more on social programs, healthcare and education. They raise taxes almost as often as republicans cut them, but it seems like the increases never offset the cuts (at least not in the last 40 years) usually made by republicans.

When it comes to the deficits both sides haven't really changed their tune. They both recognize cuts need to happen, but neither side wants their favorites to get touched or their base will start screaming.

I think what is happening is exactly what they wanted to happen. They (both sides of the aisle) recognize their constituency has them handcuffed, so by allowing the sequester, they can both blame the other side and get some necessary cuts in place across the board.

The only problem is, the blame game is causing some serious angst among the people which could lead to more actual harm than the cuts themselves will. Our economies engine is consumer confidence and sadly if they think the sky is falling, it just might.

 

[Spoonman]

you do realize that back then the federal income taxes filled the lions share of the burden, including at the state level. we didn't hve sales taxes, and luxury taxes and excise taxes and taxes on services and pretty much everything else we buy. but thats all part of the smoke and mirror game. the federal continues to provide less and less so they can say see, we didn't raise your taxes. but they cut aid to the states who in turn charge you more. you also pay more out of your pocket for services where federal aid has been cut. taxes taxes today do not cover what they did in 1950. not even close. also the average salary in the 1950's was like $10,000

 

[jwoodie]

Lighten up, for Pete's sake!

 

[ReallyMeow]

the burden that the income tax carries has only increased as corporate taxes have dwindled steadily

 

[Underhill]

I wish. Obama's solution is to give the appearance of increasing revenues by taking more from the 'rich'--something the media has aided and abetted in by brainwashing the more gullbile among us that this is the way to go--even though you could confiscate ALL the wealth from the 'rich' and it would run the government for at most a very few weeks at the current rate of spending. And then of course with the rich improverished, there would be no more tax revenues, no more production, no more jobs, no more wages, no more of anything that keeps the house of cards from crashing down.

And meanwhile Obama actually pushes the treasury to print more and more money to cover more and more spending. The prevailing mantra from liberal Democrats this week? I've heard it again and again. There is no deficit problem. There is no spending problem. There is only a revenue problem.

It's enough to make a person of even average intelligence and education scream!

You do realize the tax rates in 1955 ranged from 50% at an adjusted income of 137-155k to 91% for income over 1.7 million in adjusted income.

In the 60's it dropped to 53% and 70%. And stayed there until the 80's.

And none of the things you describe happened.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_rates_history_real_1913_2013_0.pdf

you do realize that back then the federal income taxes filled the lions share of the burden, including at the state level. we didn't hve sales taxes, and luxury taxes and excise taxes and taxes on services and pretty much everything else we buy. but thats all part of the smoke and mirror game. the federal continues to provide less and less so they can say see, we didn't raise your taxes. but they cut aid to the states who in turn charge you more. you also pay more out of your pocket for services where federal aid has been cut. taxes taxes today do not cover what they did in 1950. not even close. also the average salary in the 1950's was like $10,000

What difference does any of that make? If you added up all the taxes payed to all levels of government by those making over 500k, it still wouldn't add up to the rate in 1970 and no where near the rates in 1955.

I'm not saying (and neither is anyone else) we should go back to the 1950's rates. But claiming that a 2-3% increase will be the end of all in this country is over the top and is certainly not backed up by history.

 

[Foxfyre]

You do realize the tax rates in 1955 ranged from 50% at an adjusted income of 137-155k to 91% for income over 1.7 million in adjusted income.

In the 60's it dropped to 53% and 70%. And stayed there until the 80's.

And none of the things you describe happened.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_rates_history_real_1913_2013_0.pdf

you do realize that back then the federal income taxes filled the lions share of the burden, including at the state level. we didn't hve sales taxes, and luxury taxes and excise taxes and taxes on services and pretty much everything else we buy. but thats all part of the smoke and mirror game. the federal continues to provide less and less so they can say see, we didn't raise your taxes. but they cut aid to the states who in turn charge you more. you also pay more out of your pocket for services where federal aid has been cut. taxes taxes today do not cover what they did in 1950. not even close. also the average salary in the 1950's was like $10,000

What difference does any of that make? If you added up all the taxes payed to all levels of government by those making over 500k, it still wouldn't add up to the rate in 1970 and no where near the rates in 1955.

I'm not saying (and neither is anyone else) we should go back to the 1950's rates. But claiming that a 2-3% increase will be the end of all in this country is over the top and is certainly not backed up by history.

It is all relative though. In the 1950's, social security was the only entitlement and it had not yet spiraled out of control as all entitlements always do. Very few people fell into the highest tax brackets and they had plenty of tax shelters and other ways to avoid taxes that none of them were paying anywhere near those high rates.

Further, the average household at or above the median income was paying about 20% of their total income in taxes and fees at all levels. Now, the average household at or above the median income is paying a much higher percentage approaching 50% in taxes and fees at all levels. So add another 3 or 4% on top of that, and it is counter productive.

Also, the more money the government leaves with the people, the higher the revenues as a percentage of the GDP:

Why we can?t go back to sky-high, 1950s tax rates | AEIdeas

Instead of promoting class envy and pretending they are doing the right thing by trying to bring down the rich, the government would serve us much better with tax structure, regulation, and policy that would encourage private sector growth and prosperity which in turn creates many more people with jobs who are paying taxes.

 

[Spoonman]

You do realize the tax rates in 1955 ranged from 50% at an adjusted income of 137-155k to 91% for income over 1.7 million in adjusted income.

In the 60's it dropped to 53% and 70%. And stayed there until the 80's.

And none of the things you describe happened.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_rates_history_real_1913_2013_0.pdf

you do realize that back then the federal income taxes filled the lions share of the burden, including at the state level. we didn't hve sales taxes, and luxury taxes and excise taxes and taxes on services and pretty much everything else we buy. but thats all part of the smoke and mirror game. the federal continues to provide less and less so they can say see, we didn't raise your taxes. but they cut aid to the states who in turn charge you more. you also pay more out of your pocket for services where federal aid has been cut. taxes taxes today do not cover what they did in 1950. not even close. also the average salary in the 1950's was like $10,000

What difference does any of that make? If you added up all the taxes payed to all levels of government by those making over 500k, it still wouldn't add up to the rate in 1970 and no where near the rates in 1955.

I'm not saying (and neither is anyone else) we should go back to the 1950's rates. But claiming that a 2-3% increase will be the end of all in this country is over the top and is certainly not backed up by history.

yea, but we'd also have to go back to the 50's salaries and cost of living.

 

[Underhill]

I think you're missing Katz' point. Look how quickly most threads criticizing Obama in any way draw some kind of fire and accusation of 'racism' from somebody on the Left. He is afforded a layer of protection against a lot of criticism purely because he is black, at least so far as his admiring public is concerned. You can't use certain words like 'lazy' to characterize the President because that is deemed 'racist'. It IS absolutely Nuts as the thread title suggests.

So in the larger picture, does the media protect him and exalt him and advantage him like they do because he is black? Must he be admired and liked as a President, even if you are horrified by his policies, because he is black? I would like to think that isn't the case, but if you look at the cold, ungarnished, pure, unadulteratd reality, I have to believe that is part of it. There are way too many Americans who see a black man, not a President, and therefore to be noble, unracist, and tolerant, he must be loved.

And because the media largely refuses to critique him, criticize him, or do any honest reporting of any negatives re his policies, it is easy to give him that approval rating. Everybody loves him. Therefore he must be great.

I honestly can come up with no other reason for an approval rating over 50%.

I am sorry but what media are you watching? Because I see plenty of criticizing and complaining.

I realize it is hard being in your position. I was in the same position while Bush was in the white house, wondering how even his low approval numbers could possibly be accurate.

The truth is, Obama isn't nearly as bad as the right tries to paint him. His healthcare plan is a rehashed republican plan from the 90's. In fact I would bet it's not much different than what McCain would have done. Remember, he was talking about a new health care plan too when he was running. Obama's policies thus far have been moderate and reasonable for the most part.

That doesn't mean everyone agrees with him. But if, as so many have said, he is the worst president in their memory, I would like specifics why. I think our society is the most polarized in living memory so both sides sees the other as hideous.

The reality everyone needs to remember is that most politicians on both sides of the aisle have solid intentions. They simply disagree on what is best for the nation. But demonizing either side isn't constructive.