Obama's Legacy: richest got richer and poorest got poorer faster than under Bush/Republicans

[Ray From Cleveland]

So employers should be obligated to pay them more than they are worth?

I've seen physically disabled people make a living and able to support themselves. We have people where I work that are as dumb as a box of rocks, yet they come to work everyday.

It's like my father always said: making money is easy. An idiot can make money. It's what you do with that money that counts.

That is where the government needs to step in

What they are worth is what supply and demand dictates. If there are three workers available for every opening, the employer gets to dictate terms
Employees are forced to accept terms where the government has to step in and make up the difference. The employer keeps the profit

Now, I know you will come up with another "I know a guy" anecdote but you can't apply it to 30 million people needing assistance
Buckle down and try harder can work for an individual...not for 30 million individuals

You say 30 million "that need" assistance and I will tell you that's not the case.

In fact I don't know many people that work six days a week or has a second job anymore. Today, if you can't make it on 40 hours or less, go on government assistance. What's the point of trying when government will make everything alright?

When I was younger I always worked 6 days a week (or more at times) and even then had a second part-time job. I was not alone, a lot of people did the same thing.

While there may be a few that actually "need" government assistance, most of them are scamming the system or otherwise made a lot of bad decisions in their life--mostly starting a family before they could afford one.

But somehow that's not the individuals fault and the employers problem to fix. That's the premise that I'm totally against.

I have plenty of empathy for people that try, do the right things in life, but somehow fail. I'm all for helping those people. But when I get behind a food stamp person at the grocery store, see them in the parking lot stuffing their belongings into an SUV I wish I could afford, I'm sorry, but my empathy goes right out of the window.

In what I like to call...the good ole days
Want to work OT? There is plenty to be had
Need a second job? Step right up

I don't know of any poor people right now turning down time and a half. I don't see 30 million part time jobs going unfilled

How about full-time jobs? There are plenty in my industry. They are begging people to get off their Obama phones and come to work:

ATA: ‘Driver Shortage’ Likely To Reach 48,000 By The End of The Year

OK...that is 48,000 once we get hem trained
What about the other 29,999,942 jobs we need?

I'm just giving you my industry as an example. There are plenty out there in the same position. That's besides the fact that the more people we have working, the more people will work because it creates an economic stimulus on it's own thus creating more jobs.

I'm in industrial sites all the time on my job. There are HELP WANTED signs one building after the other. Go there a month later, the signs are still on the front lawn.

"If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't."
Rush Limbaugh

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ray 12808389

. One more time: the Republican Congress created a projected surplus--not a real surplus in their budget. It was a balanced budget that gave company owners faith in the future to hire people and expand operations.

Projecting a surplus and getting it is a real surplus. If you plan to save 3000 dollars next year and your income exceeds all expenses for the year by $3000 you have a surplus. You did not have to borrow money to pay all your bills. That really happened whether it was projected or you just got lucky and found $3000 cash hidden in your deceased Aunt Edna's house that was willed to you her only survivor. You have a real surplus and your argument makes absolutely no sense that $3000 in your hand is not real.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

They are begging people to get off their Obama phones and come to work:

Obama phones is a right wing myth. That program was started under Bush.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray 12808389

. One more time: the Republican Congress created a projected surplus--not a real surplus in their budget. It was a balanced budget that gave company owners faith in the future to hire people and expand operations.

Projecting a surplus and getting it is a real surplus. If you plan to save 3000 dollars next year and your income exceeds all expenses for the year by $3000 you have a surplus. You did not have to borrow money to pay all your bills. That really happened whether it was projected or you just got lucky and found $3000 cash hidden in your deceased Aunt Edna's house that was willed to you her only survivor. You have a real surplus and your argument makes absolutely no sense that $3000 in your hand is not real.

A projected surplus means down the road, but not right now. Budgets are made out for three, five and even ten years ahead of time. That's not to say it wasn't a good thing. Even a projected surplus is better than debt. When Congress spends money today, at times it's the Congress seven years from now that has to figure out how to pay for the spending. That's why we have to raise the debt ceiling from time to time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They are begging people to get off their Obama phones and come to work:

Obama phones is a right wing myth. That program was started under Bush.

Wrong, it was started under Reagan.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ray 12808389

.
If not for the tech bubble they would have been absolutely correct.

whack-a-mole.

Now once again it's the private sector that created the surpluses - not Clinton - not Republicans. When will you start basing your opinions on what actually happened in the real world rather than on a series of "IF ONLY" scenarios that alter the entire space time continuum?

The Republicans can never be correct when the reality was that raising taxes on the rich was not a deterrent to creating jobs. They were saying a Dot.Com job creating bubble was not possible if taxes were raised on the rich. They were wrong.


Ray 12808389

.
And again, by the advice of Newt Gingrich, Clinton dropped the capital gains taxes making it more attractive for investors to put money into the market.

Key point here is made well by you in my favor. "Clinton dropped the capital gains taxes" but he didn't combine it with cutting the top personal rates as Gingrich argued needed to be done.

So now even Clinton gets credit for the real surpluses at the end of his term.

whack-a-mole

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray 12808389

.
If not for the tech bubble they would have been absolutely correct.

whack-a-mole.

Now once again it's the private sector that created the surpluses - not Clinton - not Republicans. When will you start basing your opinions on what actually happened in the real world rather than on a series of "IF ONLY" scenarios that alter the entire space time continuum?

The Republicans can never be correct when the reality was that raising taxes on the rich was not a deterrent to creating jobs. They were saying a Dot.Com job creating bubble was not possible if taxes were raised on the rich. They were wrong.


Ray 12808389

.
And again, by the advice of Newt Gingrich, Clinton dropped the capital gains taxes making it more attractive for investors to put money into the market.

Key point here is made well by you in my favor. "Clinton dropped the capital gains taxes" but he didn't combine it cutting the top personal rates as Gingrich argued needed to be done.

So now even Clinton gets credit for the real surpluses at the end of his term.

whack-a-mole

No, all you can do is give Clinton credit for compliance with the Republican Congress which is much more than I can say for the clown in the White House now. I will always credit Clinton with working with the other side and doing what was best for the country instead of himself and his party like Obama is doing today.

Raising some taxes, lowering other taxes, yes, that's how our government is supposed to negotiate with each other. Not with "I have a pen and I have a cell phone" or "Republicans want to drive the car. They can come along for the ride, but they have to sit in the back seat."

That's the attitude of somebody that doesn't want to work with anybody.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No, all you can do is give Clinton credit for compliance with the Republican Congress which is much more than I can say for the clown in the White House now.

Clinton did not comply with a Republican Congress. It's the other way around. Republicans shut down the government but Clinton held his ground and came out on top. More popular than ever and Republicans took the blame.

When on earth have Republicans demanded that taxes be raised only on the wealthy since Carter? Doing the exact opposite of what Republucans always want is not complying with them. It is opposing them. Clinton gets credit for opposing them any way you look at it.

If Clinton didn't agree with Gingrich's advice on capital gains he has shown no propensity that he would have taken that advice. Perhaps he already agreed with it from his own advisers. You've made a broad assumption with no backup.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, all you can do is give Clinton credit for compliance with the Republican Congress which is much more than I can say for the clown in the White House now.

Clinton did not comply with a Republican Congress. It's the other way around. Republicans shut down the government but Clinton held his ground and came out on top. More popular than ever and Republicans took the blame.

When on earth have Republicans demanded that taxes be raised only on the wealthy since Reagan? Doing the exact opposite of what Republucans always want is not complying with them. It is opposing them. Clinton gets credit for opposing them any way you look at it.

If Clinton didn't agree with Gingrich's advice on capital gains he has shown no propensity that he would have taken that advice. Perhaps he already agreed with it from his own advisers. You've made a broad assumption with no backup.

Since when have Democrats ever agreed to lowering the taxes for the wealthy?

Congress creates the budgets and taxation for our country. Clinton had to agree with Gingrich otherwise he would have vetoed the bill. And for your information, Reagan increased taxes as well so it's not like Republicans never increase taxes in effort to get along. Do you think it was the Republican's idea to increase taxes on those making over 450K and corporations? Of course not, that was all DumBama's idea.

 

[imawhosure]

num_nut 12805774

The Surplus has been debunked here on USMB by many

The annual surpluses that Bush inherited can not be debunked. It is impossible. You are citing numbers that do not refute the reality that Clinton left Bush a surplus wherein the federal government for three years took in more money annually than it was actually spending during that very same year. What debunks your argument is that the debt cieling did not need to be raised until Bush43 started spending more and taking in less tax revenue

Citing the federal government's gross debt/borrowing data as you have done has nothing to do with annual revenue/income compared to annual spending. Those figures are not tracking actual outlays versus actual revenue during a one year period. Those figures are tracking gross accumulated debt.

Say you have a thirty year mortgage for $100,000 and you are in the first and second year. You have no other debt. You made $50,000 during the first year and you spent (including $12000 in mortgage payments) a total of $40000 during that first year. You had a surplus of 10,000. But only $1000 of your house payments went to principle so your debt was reduced to 99,000. The next year you got a raise of $5000 so you spent the same as year one but you spent $4,000 of your raise on a vacation You still had a surplus of $11,000. But your total debt is only reduced to $97,000.

What you are doing is adding your debt to your annual spending.

Year One $40,000 + $99,000 = $139,000,
Year Two $44,000 + $97,000 = $141,000

With the surplus added in:
Year One = $129,000
Year Two = $130,000

You had surpluses but adding gross debt to your annual operating budget does not show them.

You are uneducated, are spinning and using propaganda if you are not. THERE WAS NO SURPLUS, but I will admit it is the closest we have gotten in decades.

 

[imawhosure]

Why are we talking about Clinton or Reagan anyway? The whole truth is, Obama has screwed the pooch, the statistics show it, and he is doubling down on his idiocy. That is all that matters!

 

[rightwinger]

num_nut 12805774

The Surplus has been debunked here on USMB by many

The annual surpluses that Bush inherited can not be debunked. It is impossible. You are citing numbers that do not refute the reality that Clinton left Bush a surplus wherein the federal government for three years took in more money annually than it was actually spending during that very same year. What debunks your argument is that the debt cieling did not need to be raised until Bush43 started spending more and taking in less tax revenue

Citing the federal government's gross debt/borrowing data as you have done has nothing to do with annual revenue/income compared to annual spending. Those figures are not tracking actual outlays versus actual revenue during a one year period. Those figures are tracking gross accumulated debt.

Say you have a thirty year mortgage for $100,000 and you are in the first and second year. You have no other debt. You made $50,000 during the first year and you spent (including $12000 in mortgage payments) a total of $40000 during that first year. You had a surplus of 10,000. But only $1000 of your house payments went to principle so your debt was reduced to 99,000. The next year you got a raise of $5000 so you spent the same as year one but you spent $4,000 of your raise on a vacation You still had a surplus of $11,000. But your total debt is only reduced to $97,000.

What you are doing is adding your debt to your annual spending.

Year One $40,000 + $99,000 = $139,000,
Year Two $44,000 + $97,000 = $141,000

With the surplus added in:
Year One = $129,000
Year Two = $130,000

You had surpluses but adding gross debt to your annual operating budget does not show them.

You are uneducated, are spinning and using propaganda if you are not. THERE WAS NO SURPLUS, but I will admit it is the closest we have gotten in decades.

Another con admitting that Bush lied about a surplus to justify his tax cuts

"give money back to those who paid it"






.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

imawhosure 12810996

You are uneducated, are spinning and using propaganda if you are not. THERE WAS NO SURPLUS, but I will admit it is the closest we have gotten in decades.

Every educated, every highly educated professional person on government taxation and economics in the U.S. knows about the Clinton budget surpluses.

I see your only response is a personal insult and total avoidance of the argument that I have presented. That's enough to know that you know you are wrong but can't admit it.

Tracking gross debt and tracking budget deficits or surpluses are two different issues. The reason you can't accept that reality is because your side did not produce the surpluses.

All these people cannot be uneducated or spinning.

.
(CNN) — President Obama declared on Wednesday that Democrats can be trusted on the budget because, “the last time the budget was balanced was under a Democratic president.”

Fact Check: Who was president the last time the budget was balanced?

— The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.
— Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.
— There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.
— Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. The United States had a budget deficit in 2002, and it has recorded budget deficits every year since. The deficit is projected to increase substantially this year under President Barack Obama.
— Republicans say they should get at least some of the credit for the balanced budgets during the Clinton administration, because Republican majorities controlled both the House and Senate.

CNN Fact Check: The last president to balance the budget

It's a fact live with it:

"The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.
— Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus."


Bush 43 is highly educated. He used Clinton's budget surpluses to justify his tax cuts.

Bush: Surplus Justifies Tax Cut

 

[NotfooledbyW]

imawhosure 12810996

THERE WAS NO SURPLUS,....

Are you serious? Bush43 knew damn well he inherited a budget surplus. Was he lying in these quotes?

Bush: Surplus Justifies Tax Cut


Bush: Surplus Justifies Tax Cut
Feb 24, 2001 11:38 AM EST

Bush discussed the "surplus"
In his weekly radio address in February 2001.

. "A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back."

So Ima, is Bush uneducated?

. "Along with funding our priorities and paying down debt, my plan returns about one of every four dollars of the surplus to the American taxpayers, who created the surplus in the first place," Mr. Bush said.

Did you pay taxes in 1999, 2000, 2001. According to Bush, you helped create the surpluses.


This one is a doozy;

. "After paying the bills, my plan reduces the national debt, and fast,"Mr. Bush said. "So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire. That would be a good worry to have."

America was attacked seven months later on his watch and he never adjusted for conditions that the world and terrorists presented. He stuck with trickle down economics while fighting a major unecessary war in Iraq. The results were devastating by 2007.

But here's proof from that terrible Republican president that Clinton's surpluses were real.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

imawhosure 12811025.

The whole truth is, Obama has screwed the pooch, the statistics show it,

What statistics? You have produced no statistics to show that Obama screwed the pooch or screwed up anything,

 

[Wyatt earp]

They are begging people to get off their Obama phones and come to work:

Obama phones is a right wing myth. That program was started under Bush.

God Damn if you want to correct history , the program started under Reagen

But hey the term Obama phone is here to stay along with Obamacare

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bear 12812607

But hey the term Obama phone is here to stay along with Obamacare

The term Obamaphone is a right wing lie. There is nothing derogatory about the term Obamacare except to rightwingers that spread the Obamaphone lie.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bedowin62 12746042

going into obama's EIGHT AND FINAL YEAR; there are STILL bout 13 MILLION MORE on food stamps then there were under Bush.

The number of beneficiaries in April 2001 was 17.3 million.

The number of beneficiaries in April 2009 was 33.8 million

Bush43 produced an increase of 16.5 million on food stamps per month.

That is an increase of 95% over eight years.

The number of beneficiaries in August 2015 was 45.5 million

Obama produced an increase of 11.7 million on food stamps per month since April 2009.

That is an increase of 74% over six and a half years. But the numbers of recipients on food stamps per month has been in decline since October 2014.

Obama's record on food stamp recipients per month will be much lower than Bush's. At least 21% lower.

Bush is the food stamp president by a long shot. Obama, during the recovery from the Great Bush Recession, has not increased the number of Americans on food stamps per month as much as Bush did with his big recession at the end of his term.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Here is the chart where Kaz quit the argument that there were no budget surpluses in 1998 through 2001.?

NFBW 12797544

. ...your argument is that there is no trust fund.

No. You can't read. My argument to your point was and still is that the lock box point you bring up has no bearing on the fact that Clinton left annual budget surpluses for Bush to deal with.

Perhaps the debt cieling will help you understand how goofy your point is.

First the definition.

.
Debt Limit - Department of the Treasury
www.treasury.gov › Home › Initiatives
Oct 31, 2015 - The debt limit is the total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations,

When the government takes in more money than it spends during the year there is no reason to raise the debt limit. Repeat that twenty times in your head. That is called a surplus.


When the government takes in kess money than it spends during the year it is absolutely necessary to raise the debt limit. Repeat that twenty times in your head. That is called a deficit.


Now look at this chart and bullet one:

• from FY 1998 through FY 2001, the federal government ran surpluses and GDP was growing rapidly, which reduced debt held by the public;
• when large deficits returned and GDP growth slowed in the early 2000s, public debt increased again.

Thirty-Two Years of Bipartisan Debt-Ceiling Raises | Mercatus


Now look at this chart:


SEPTEMBER 27, 2013
Chart of the Week: The bipartisan federal debt limit
BY DREW DESILVER3 COMMENTS



Chart of the Week: The bipartisan federal debt limit

Do you see that longest flat period tagged debt cieling? That's when Clinton ran surpluses and the debt cieling did not need to be raised.

If what you claimed to be true that there were no surpluses or balanced budgets under Clinton then the government did not pay its bills because the debt cieling was not raised during those surplus years.

It was the result of Clinton raising taxes only on the rich and yet the 'job creators' still managed to create 18 million jobs. Business likes seeing Federal surpluses too. Then Bush cut taxes during war and triggered the worst recession since the Great One. Once again the debt cieling had to be raised due to list revenue and paying the cost of fighting a dumb and unecessary war.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-the-week-the-bipartisan-federal-debt-limit/#

There is no valid argument that budged surpluses did not exist from 1998 through 2001. Thus chart proves it.?

 

[kaz]

Here is the chart where Kaz quit the argument that there were no budget surpluses in 1998 through 2001.?

NFBW 12797544

. ...your argument is that there is no trust fund.

No. You can't read. My argument to your point was and still is that the lock box point you bring up has no bearing on the fact that Clinton left annual budget surpluses for Bush to deal with.

Perhaps the debt cieling will help you understand how goofy your point is.

First the definition.

.
Debt Limit - Department of the Treasury
www.treasury.gov › Home › Initiatives
Oct 31, 2015 - The debt limit is the total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations,

When the government takes in more money than it spends during the year there is no reason to raise the debt limit. Repeat that twenty times in your head. That is called a surplus.


When the government takes in kess money than it spends during the year it is absolutely necessary to raise the debt limit. Repeat that twenty times in your head. That is called a deficit.


Now look at this chart and bullet one:

• from FY 1998 through FY 2001, the federal government ran surpluses and GDP was growing rapidly, which reduced debt held by the public;
• when large deficits returned and GDP growth slowed in the early 2000s, public debt increased again.

Thirty-Two Years of Bipartisan Debt-Ceiling Raises | Mercatus


Now look at this chart:


SEPTEMBER 27, 2013
Chart of the Week: The bipartisan federal debt limit
BY DREW DESILVER3 COMMENTS



Chart of the Week: The bipartisan federal debt limit

Do you see that longest flat period tagged debt cieling? That's when Clinton ran surpluses and the debt cieling did not need to be raised.

If what you claimed to be true that there were no surpluses or balanced budgets under Clinton then the government did not pay its bills because the debt cieling was not raised during those surplus years.

It was the result of Clinton raising taxes only on the rich and yet the 'job creators' still managed to create 18 million jobs. Business likes seeing Federal surpluses too. Then Bush cut taxes during war and triggered the worst recession since the Great One. Once again the debt cieling had to be raised due to list revenue and paying the cost of fighting a dumb and unecessary war.

There is no valid argument that budged surpluses did not exist from 1998 through 2001. Thus chart proves it.?

I quit the argument when you stopped responding to the point.

You can't double count the same money.

Do you admit there was no surplus

or do you admit there is no social security trust fund.

You can't spend the same $ twice. `When you want to man up to the discussion, let me know, Dorothy