Consumers create jobs.

[Rshermr]

Tax decreases to more wealthy targets have very little stimulative value.

of course thats perfectly stupid and liberal since 100% of growth comes from wealthy people. We got here from the stone age as people invented things. Today, wealthy people, corporations, and venture capitalists invent things so they are 100% responsible for any real growth or stimulation to our economy.

You could give poor people $1 million each; that would merely churn the existing economy temporarily, but result in no real growth. Real growth from the stone age to here came from new products!!

Why not repeat that over and over till you learn it?? Can't your mother quiz you each morning at breakfast??

As usual, ed posting dogma. No references, no validity to anything. And then there is your other post of 15 really stupid ideas.

Please let me help you, ed, me boy. Read this in detail, then the second. You may understand your ailment.

OpEdNews - Quicklink Missing

The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As usual, ed posting dogma.

Dogma can be incorrect or correct.

Are you too stupid to know that??


If it is incorrect why be so afraid to point out why? What does your fear tell you about your IQ and character?????????

 

[Oldstyle]

Tax decreases to more wealthy targets have very little stimulative value.

of course thats perfectly stupid and liberal since 100% of growth comes from wealthy people. We got here from the stone age as people invented things. Today, wealthy people, corporations, and venture capitalists invent things so they are 100% responsible for any real growth or stimulation to our economy.

You could give poor people $1 million each; that would merely churn the existing economy temporarily, but result in no real growth. Real growth from the stone age to here came from new products!!

Why not repeat that over and over till you learn it?? Can't your mother quiz you each morning at breakfast??

As usual, ed posting dogma. No references, no validity to anything. And then there is your other post of 15 really stupid ideas.

Please let me help you, ed, me boy. Read this in detail, then the second. You may understand your ailment.

OpEdNews - Quicklink Missing

The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

The notion that the Left is "too-polite" is almost as humorous as the claim that they are "more intelligent". What is with you folks always needing to tell each other how wonderful you are? I hate to point this out but get a group of you together...like at the Occupy Wall Street protests...ask questions about what should be done to fix things and you'll get the most idiotic replies you've ever heard. As for who's polite? Tell me the last time they had to call out the riot squad on a Tea Party event?

 

[Oldstyle]

I did not say forbes is a bad source. What forbes is, is a conduit for information very often for either far left or far right sources. Being carried by forbes tells you very little about the document or the author. It is a great way to hide behind a good name without providing any assurance of independence of information. So, a link to the information is of value, quoting the article without a link to the document in full tells me nothing.
Relative to what he said about how Clinton handled taxes, I will not take the time to rebut a source who I do not know. Give me the full link, and I will consider it. But in general, unless the author is known to be impartial, it is a waste of time. There was no proof stated, just opinion. Which is why it was most likely simply an op ed.
You say "First of all conservatives are not opposed to taxes". What I say is that nearly every repub in congress has signed Grover Norquist's no tax increase pledge. That and their refusal in congress to pass any new taxes gives me the strong opinion that what I said is correct. Consider:
U.S. no-tax pledge creator entreats Republicans - Chicago Tribune
In reference to your statements about rising tax rates, that is simply not true. Taxes are lower now than at any time over the past 50 plus years.
GOP Can't Handle The Truth: Taxes Are Lower Under Obama Than Reagan | ThinkProgress
Fact: tax rates are at a 30-year low under Obama | Death and Taxes
And, gov spending has gone along with taxes.
And regulation has not been rising in any real way. You have issues with regulation, I have issues with regulation that was eliminated that would almost certainly have stopped the great recession of 2007 - 2008. I know of no one who likes regulation. I just see that there are reasons for some regulation to be placed on industries where lack of same can hurt the citizenry of this country. And, if you can show any objective proof that regulation has hurt our economy, lets see it.

I'm amused by your decision to only rebut sources you know. Does your knowing them somehow make their premise more debate worthy? Either you have something to debunk their view or you don't. What I find even more amusing is that immediately after your decision to not address the Forbes article because you've not been assured of the author's unbiased approach to the topic, you respond by citing a piece from Think Progress. Not for nothing, Rshermr but you'd be hard pressed to find a more biased site than Think Progress. Why is it that my cites need to be "vetted" to meet your approval but you're allowed to use extreme far left sources like Think Progress? Do you not see a double standard at work there?

Are you really trying to make the argument that our spending is at a 30 year low under Barack Obama? I'd really like to see your proof of that. The same goes for your claim that regulations haven't been rising. The amount of new regulations passed in the last three years has been staggering. They would have been even worse except Barry and a whole bunch of Democrats are up for reelection this November and didn't want to be on record for passing things like Cap & Trade and new EPA regulations on green house gas emissions.

Ah, me boy. The point is that both references got you to the full information. No need to wonder what was left out. And you know who the source is. Think progress is a source of information in this case, not the writer of the information. So no, me boy. Sorry that you did not notice that you did not provide the link to the information that you did a copy and paste on some part of the article you found. I have no way of seeing the article, or of knowing who the author is. You do. Both the publication and the author. And there is a second source, which you do not reference. So no, no double standard. One provides reference to the actual articles, the other does not. You are the other.
And like normal, the rest of your statement is your opinion. Excuse me if I believe your opinion is prejudiced.

Not to point out the obvious but MOST people's opinions are prejudiced. That doesn't make them wrong. I noticed that you didn't respond to either of my requests that you show Obama's spending is at a 30 year low or that we haven't passed a large number of new regulations since Barry took office. Care to take a swing at that?

And nothing from Think Progress...it's "prejudiced".

 

[Rshermr]

I'm amused by your decision to only rebut sources you know. Does your knowing them somehow make their premise more debate worthy? Either you have something to debunk their view or you don't. What I find even more amusing is that immediately after your decision to not address the Forbes article because you've not been assured of the author's unbiased approach to the topic, you respond by citing a piece from Think Progress. Not for nothing, Rshermr but you'd be hard pressed to find a more biased site than Think Progress. Why is it that my cites need to be "vetted" to meet your approval but you're allowed to use extreme far left sources like Think Progress? Do you not see a double standard at work there?

Are you really trying to make the argument that our spending is at a 30 year low under Barack Obama? I'd really like to see your proof of that. The same goes for your claim that regulations haven't been rising. The amount of new regulations passed in the last three years has been staggering. They would have been even worse except Barry and a whole bunch of Democrats are up for reelection this November and didn't want to be on record for passing things like Cap & Trade and new EPA regulations on green house gas emissions.

Ah, me boy. The point is that both references got you to the full information. No need to wonder what was left out. And you know who the source is. Think progress is a source of information in this case, not the writer of the information. So no, me boy. Sorry that you did not notice that you did not provide the link to the information that you did a copy and paste on some part of the article you found. I have no way of seeing the article, or of knowing who the author is. You do. Both the publication and the author. And there is a second source, which you do not reference. So no, no double standard. One provides reference to the actual articles, the other does not. You are the other.
And like normal, the rest of your statement is your opinion. Excuse me if I believe your opinion is prejudiced.

Not to point out the obvious but MOST people's opinions are prejudiced. That doesn't make them wrong. I noticed that you didn't respond to either of my requests that you show Obama's spending is at a 30 year low or that we haven't passed a large number of new regulations since Barry took office. Care to take a swing at that?

And nothing from Think Progress...it's "prejudiced".

Sure, things from any source are prejudiced at times. No question. But if you can find the article and find out who the author is, you get a good idea of what you are about to read. Whether think progress is prejudiced or not, it is the author that makes the difference, always, as you should know if you have ever done any research at all. You know what type of writing the author does and who he writes most of his stuff for. And in my case, you can do that. Because I give you a link to the source. Then you can get a good idea. Author is identified. Nothing hidden. No secrecy. But in your case, I get none of that. I could spend half a day looking for the article you are pasting into your response. And that is not something I intend to do. It would be simpler, and show a lot more integrity, if you provided the link, which you still have not done. I can only assume that you know that your source is a joke, oldstyle. What are you hiding?

Can I take a swing at that??
Sure. But you do the reading this time, oldstyle. I figure that anyone who calls an existing president, repub or dem, by a pet name, as you do when you call obama Barry, shows what he is. A con who has to use pet terms like an adolescent, who is stupid, classless, and an ass hole. But the info you are looking for is all over the place, if you care to actually find it. But that requires that you do not spend all of your time reading dogma from right wing sights. So my suspicion is that you will not bother to read the info that the links post to. Easier to post dogma, is it not, oldstyle.
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes
Economist's View: Per Capita Government Spending by President
Under Obama, U.S. Govt. Spends At Lowest Rate In Decades, Says Journalist : It's All Politics : NPR
And many, many more. You could learn a lot, agree or disagree, if you got your head out of the right wing sights. They NEVER say anything good about obama. I know you like that, but you will never get a true understanding of the world with your head there. Just lets you believe what you want to believe, which is a sad way to exist, oldstyle.
You do some work, now, oldstyle. Lets see some proof that regs have been growing at a high rate under obama. Prove your statement, if for no other reason than to do something new.

 

[expat_panama]

...Your second source...

We've got to focus.

This is important because millions suffer when bad policy keeps people from feeding their families. In this case the bad policy is the belief that more taxes put people to work. People living off taxes say Clinton raised taxes and America prospered. Reality is that Clinton's '93 taxes stopped job growth and caused a backlash that demanded cuts. The return to prosperity came after the cuts with the backlash.

Let's see this together. The first link in the post was to the fed's plot of BLS employment levels:

The second link was to my adding the date of Clinton's Sept. 93 taxes:

Say what you want about the other references but first things first. Employment levels show higher taxes hurt hiring, and tax cuts encourage it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah, me boy. The point is that both references got you to the full information. No need to wonder what was left out. And you know who the source is. Think progress is a source of information in this case, not the writer of the information. So no, me boy. Sorry that you did not notice that you did not provide the link to the information that you did a copy and paste on some part of the article you found. I have no way of seeing the article, or of knowing who the author is. You do. Both the publication and the author. And there is a second source, which you do not reference. So no, no double standard. One provides reference to the actual articles, the other does not. You are the other.
And like normal, the rest of your statement is your opinion. Excuse me if I believe your opinion is prejudiced.

Not to point out the obvious but MOST people's opinions are prejudiced. That doesn't make them wrong. I noticed that you didn't respond to either of my requests that you show Obama's spending is at a 30 year low or that we haven't passed a large number of new regulations since Barry took office. Care to take a swing at that?

And nothing from Think Progress...it's "prejudiced".

Sure, things from any source are prejudiced at times. No question. But if you can find the article and find out who the author is, you get a good idea of what you are about to read. Whether think progress is prejudiced or not, it is the author that makes the difference, always, as you should know if you have ever done any research at all. You know what type of writing the author does and who he writes most of his stuff for. And in my case, you can do that. Because I give you a link to the source. Then you can get a good idea. Author is identified. Nothing hidden. No secrecy. But in your case, I get none of that. I could spend half a day looking for the article you are pasting into your response. And that is not something I intend to do. It would be simpler, and show a lot more integrity, if you provided the link, which you still have not done. I can only assume that you know that your source is a joke, oldstyle. What are you hiding?

Can I take a swing at that??
Sure. But you do the reading this time, oldstyle. I figure that anyone who calls an existing president, repub or dem, by a pet name, as you do when you call obama Barry, shows what he is. A con who has to use pet terms like an adolescent, who is stupid, classless, and an ass hole. But the info you are looking for is all over the place, if you care to actually find it. But that requires that you do not spend all of your time reading dogma from right wing sights. So my suspicion is that you will not bother to read the info that the links post to. Easier to post dogma, is it not, oldstyle.
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes
Economist's View: Per Capita Government Spending by President
Under Obama, U.S. Govt. Spends At Lowest Rate In Decades, Says Journalist : It's All Politics : NPR
And many, many more. You could learn a lot, agree or disagree, if you got your head out of the right wing sights. They NEVER say anything good about obama. I know you like that, but you will never get a true understanding of the world with your head there. Just lets you believe what you want to believe, which is a sad way to exist, oldstyle.
You do some work, now, oldstyle. Lets see some proof that regs have been growing at a high rate under obama. Prove your statement, if for no other reason than to do something new.

As usual I'm amused by your (and Mr. Ungar's) contention that Barack Obama was a "small spender". I guess it depends on your definition of the term. If one takes in much less and spends slightly more does that make someone more fiscally responsible than another who took in MUCH more and spent more? To use a correlation with your household budget...who's the more responsible parent...the one who makes $30,000 a year and spends $50,000 or the one who makes $45,000 and spends $51,000? The following is a list of government revenue and spending.

Year/Fed receipts/fed outlays (billions of dollars)
1998 1,721.7 1,652.5
1999 1,827.5 1,701.8
2000 2,025.2 1,789.0
2001 1,991.1 1,862.9
2002 1,853.1 2,010.9
2003 1,782.3 2,159.9
2004 1,880.1 2,292.9

2005 2,153.6 2,472.0
2006 2,406.9 2,655.1
2007 2,568.0 2,728.7
2008 2,524.0 2,982.5
2009 2,105.0 3,517.7
2010 2,162.7 3,456.2
2011 2,303.5 3,603.1

Sorry, but when I look at the difference between what's being brought in in revenue and what's being spent, I have a hard time giving Barry credit for being fiscally "tight".

 

[Oldstyle]

As for regulations? The following is from FactCheck...

"Red Tape Reduction?

In other cases, the president’s factual claims checked out — but didn’t tell the whole story.

For example, Obama claimed he approved fewer regulations in his first three years in office than Republican President George W. Bush did three years into his first term. That’s true through Obama’s first 33 months in office — just barely. But Obama’s regulations came at a higher cost.

Obama: In fact, I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.

Obama is right, as far as his statement goes. Bloomberg News, based on a review of Office of Management and Budget data, reported that the Obama administration approved 613 regulations in the first 33 months. That was 30 fewer than Bush approved in his first 33 months.

However, Bloomberg also found that it cost more to comply with Obama’s regulations than either Bush’s or President Bill Clinton’s during that same time period.

Bloomberg News, Oct. 25, 2011: The number of significant federal rules, defined as those costing more than $100 million, has gone up under Obama, with 129 approved so far, compared with 90 for Bush, 115 for President Bill Clinton and 127 for the first President Bush over the same period in their first terms.

This is not the first time that the administration has hand-picked regulatory data to cast its actions in a more positive light than those of Obama’s Republican predecessor.

As we wrote in September, Cass Sunstein, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post to address Republican complaints of overregulation. In that opinion piece, Sunstein said the Bush administration proposed more costly regulations in its last two years than the Obama administration did in its first two years. That was true, but misleading. The fact is that Obama’s regulations in his first two years were far more costly than those of Bush’s first two years. And that’s the more relevant comparison."

So once again it depends on your definition. Barry imposed about the same number of regulations as his predecessors but his carried a higher cost for American businesses to comply to. What's more important to you...getting ten bills in the mail that total $1,000 or getting seven bills that total $1,200? Someone contending that the person only getting seven bills in the mail was somehow better off than the person who got ten is rather foolish.

What's most amusing to me is these totals don't reflect some of the things that Barry WANTED to get passed but couldn't get the votes for. If he'd had his way we'd have Cap & Trade in place right now adding billions to the energy costs of Americans. Credit that cost not being added to moderate Democrats and Republicans. Or take the EPA regulations on green house gas emissions that Barry backed off on this year because he knew they would cost American businesses money and jobs. That was an election year decision by Mr Obama based on what he thought would get him reelected...not on what he thought was good policy. You can be assured that if he WERE to be elected to a second term that his little pals over at the EPA will be given the go-ahead to hit us with that regulation.

 

[expat_panama]

...Under Obama, U.S. Govt. Spends At Lowest Rate In Decades, Says Journalist : It's All Politics : NPR...

So who're you going to believe, what NPR says about the White House, or--

--what the White House admits to the Fed?

 

[Rshermr]

...Your second source...

We've got to focus.

This is important because millions suffer when bad policy keeps people from feeding their families. In this case the bad policy is the belief that more taxes put people to work. People living off taxes say Clinton raised taxes and America prospered. Reality is that Clinton's '93 taxes stopped job growth and caused a backlash that demanded cuts. The return to prosperity came after the cuts with the backlash.

Let's see this together. The first link in the post was to the fed's plot of BLS employment levels:

The second link was to my adding the date of Clinton's Sept. 93 taxes:

Say what you want about the other references but first things first. Employment levels show higher taxes hurt hiring, and tax cuts encourage it.

Interesting interpretation, Expat. But invalid. If you simply look at the changes in employment, you get strange numbers. So you have a pair of charts, the second with your interpretation, that really do not show much of anything. Employment went up, so did the working population. But if you take the info in full, more total jobs were created during the clinton admin than during any other admin. Term by term, the highest increases in employment were during the clinton admin.
So, how about unemployment rates??
Unemployment dropped from about 7.1% to about 4.2% during the clinton years. From marginally bad to extremely good.
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
This continuing effort by repubs to paint the economic gains during the clinton years is relentless, but wrong. Remember, the repubs at all levels said the fed income tax increase on over $200K earners would be an economic disaster. Did not turn out that way. Now they want to take credit for everything good in the clinton admin.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOputServlet

Raising taxes does not create jobs. Raising taxes on the higher incomes does not decrease jobs to any great extent, if at all. But taking the revenue from the tax increase and useing it to stimulate the economy DOES create jobs. As it did during the clinton admin.

 

[Rshermr]

Not to point out the obvious but MOST people's opinions are prejudiced. That doesn't make them wrong. I noticed that you didn't respond to either of my requests that you show Obama's spending is at a 30 year low or that we haven't passed a large number of new regulations since Barry took office. Care to take a swing at that?

And nothing from Think Progress...it's "prejudiced".

Sure, things from any source are prejudiced at times. No question. But if you can find the article and find out who the author is, you get a good idea of what you are about to read. Whether think progress is prejudiced or not, it is the author that makes the difference, always, as you should know if you have ever done any research at all. You know what type of writing the author does and who he writes most of his stuff for. And in my case, you can do that. Because I give you a link to the source. Then you can get a good idea. Author is identified. Nothing hidden. No secrecy. But in your case, I get none of that. I could spend half a day looking for the article you are pasting into your response. And that is not something I intend to do. It would be simpler, and show a lot more integrity, if you provided the link, which you still have not done. I can only assume that you know that your source is a joke, oldstyle. What are you hiding?

Can I take a swing at that??
Sure. But you do the reading this time, oldstyle. I figure that anyone who calls an existing president, repub or dem, by a pet name, as you do when you call obama Barry, shows what he is. A con who has to use pet terms like an adolescent, who is stupid, classless, and an ass hole. But the info you are looking for is all over the place, if you care to actually find it. But that requires that you do not spend all of your time reading dogma from right wing sights. So my suspicion is that you will not bother to read the info that the links post to. Easier to post dogma, is it not, oldstyle.
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes
Economist's View: Per Capita Government Spending by President
Under Obama, U.S. Govt. Spends At Lowest Rate In Decades, Says Journalist : It's All Politics : NPR
And many, many more. You could learn a lot, agree or disagree, if you got your head out of the right wing sights. They NEVER say anything good about obama. I know you like that, but you will never get a true understanding of the world with your head there. Just lets you believe what you want to believe, which is a sad way to exist, oldstyle.
You do some work, now, oldstyle. Lets see some proof that regs have been growing at a high rate under obama. Prove your statement, if for no other reason than to do something new.

As usual I'm amused by your (and Mr. Ungar's) contention that Barack Obama was a "small spender". I guess it depends on your definition of the term. If one takes in much less and spends slightly more does that make someone more fiscally responsible than another who took in MUCH more and spent more? To use a correlation with your household budget...who's the more responsible parent...the one who makes $30,000 a year and spends $50,000 or the one who makes $45,000 and spends $51,000? The following is a list of government revenue and spending.

Year/Fed receipts/fed outlays (billions of dollars)
1998 1,721.7 1,652.5
1999 1,827.5 1,701.8
2000 2,025.2 1,789.0
2001 1,991.1 1,862.9
2002 1,853.1 2,010.9
2003 1,782.3 2,159.9
2004 1,880.1 2,292.9

2005 2,153.6 2,472.0
2006 2,406.9 2,655.1
2007 2,568.0 2,728.7
2008 2,524.0 2,982.5
2009 2,105.0 3,517.7
2010 2,162.7 3,456.2
2011 2,303.5 3,603.1

Sorry, but when I look at the difference between what's being brought in in revenue and what's being spent, I have a hard time giving Barry credit for being fiscally "tight".

Again, you give no source information. Again, you call the a president by your slang word. Tacky, stupid, immature, and proves you to be a con before considering what you say. No integrity, just quoting dogma.

 

[Plight]

Tell me specifically how this revenue spurred job growth during the Clinton years?

 

[Rshermr]

As for regulations? The following is from FactCheck...

"Red Tape Reduction?

In other cases, the president’s factual claims checked out — but didn’t tell the whole story.

For example, Obama claimed he approved fewer regulations in his first three years in office than Republican President George W. Bush did three years into his first term. That’s true through Obama’s first 33 months in office — just barely. But Obama’s regulations came at a higher cost.

Obama: In fact, I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.

Obama is right, as far as his statement goes. Bloomberg News, based on a review of Office of Management and Budget data, reported that the Obama administration approved 613 regulations in the first 33 months. That was 30 fewer than Bush approved in his first 33 months.

However, Bloomberg also found that it cost more to comply with Obama’s regulations than either Bush’s or President Bill Clinton’s during that same time period.

Bloomberg News, Oct. 25, 2011: The number of significant federal rules, defined as those costing more than $100 million, has gone up under Obama, with 129 approved so far, compared with 90 for Bush, 115 for President Bill Clinton and 127 for the first President Bush over the same period in their first terms.

This is not the first time that the administration has hand-picked regulatory data to cast its actions in a more positive light than those of Obama’s Republican predecessor.

As we wrote in September, Cass Sunstein, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post to address Republican complaints of overregulation. In that opinion piece, Sunstein said the Bush administration proposed more costly regulations in its last two years than the Obama administration did in its first two years. That was true, but misleading. The fact is that Obama’s regulations in his first two years were far more costly than those of Bush’s first two years. And that’s the more relevant comparison."

So once again it depends on your definition. Barry imposed about the same number of regulations as his predecessors but his carried a higher cost for American businesses to comply to. What's more important to you...getting ten bills in the mail that total $1,000 or getting seven bills that total $1,200? Someone contending that the person only getting seven bills in the mail was somehow better off than the person who got ten is rather foolish.

What's most amusing to me is these totals don't reflect some of the things that Barry WANTED to get passed but couldn't get the votes for. If he'd had his way we'd have Cap & Trade in place right now adding billions to the energy costs of Americans. Credit that cost not being added to moderate Democrats and Republicans. Or take the EPA regulations on green house gas emissions that Barry backed off on this year because he knew they would cost American businesses money and jobs. That was an election year decision by Mr Obama based on what he thought would get him reelected...not on what he thought was good policy. You can be assured that if he WERE to be elected to a second term that his little pals over at the EPA will be given the go-ahead to hit us with that regulation.

Did you know, oldstyle, that cap and trade was developed and pushed by repubs ??? you either did, but tried to make it seem like obamas idea, or you simply were ignorant. Either is possible with you:
"Getting all this to work in the real world required a leap of faith. The opportunity came with the 1988 election of George H.W. Bush. EDF president Fred Krupp phoned Bush's new White House counsel—Boyden Gray—and suggested that the best way for Bush to make good on his pledge to become the "environmental president" was to fix the acid rain problem, and the best way to do that was by using the new tool of emissions trading. Gray liked the marketplace approach, and even before the Reagan administration expired, he put EDF staffers to work drafting legislation to make it happen. The immediate aim was to break the impasse over acid rain. But global warming had also registered as front-page news for the first time that sweltering summer of 1988; according to Krupp, EDF and the Bush White House both felt from the start that emissions trading would ultimately be the best way to address this much larger challenge."
The Political History of Cap and Trade | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

Makes your charges look pretty irrational, and, as usual, makes you look like what you are. A pusher of conservative dogma. And nothing else.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for regulations? The following is from FactCheck...

"Red Tape Reduction?

In other cases, the president’s factual claims checked out — but didn’t tell the whole story.

For example, Obama claimed he approved fewer regulations in his first three years in office than Republican President George W. Bush did three years into his first term. That’s true through Obama’s first 33 months in office — just barely. But Obama’s regulations came at a higher cost.

Obama: In fact, I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.

Obama is right, as far as his statement goes. Bloomberg News, based on a review of Office of Management and Budget data, reported that the Obama administration approved 613 regulations in the first 33 months. That was 30 fewer than Bush approved in his first 33 months.

However, Bloomberg also found that it cost more to comply with Obama’s regulations than either Bush’s or President Bill Clinton’s during that same time period.

Bloomberg News, Oct. 25, 2011: The number of significant federal rules, defined as those costing more than $100 million, has gone up under Obama, with 129 approved so far, compared with 90 for Bush, 115 for President Bill Clinton and 127 for the first President Bush over the same period in their first terms.

This is not the first time that the administration has hand-picked regulatory data to cast its actions in a more positive light than those of Obama’s Republican predecessor.

As we wrote in September, Cass Sunstein, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post to address Republican complaints of overregulation. In that opinion piece, Sunstein said the Bush administration proposed more costly regulations in its last two years than the Obama administration did in its first two years. That was true, but misleading. The fact is that Obama’s regulations in his first two years were far more costly than those of Bush’s first two years. And that’s the more relevant comparison."

So once again it depends on your definition. Barry imposed about the same number of regulations as his predecessors but his carried a higher cost for American businesses to comply to. What's more important to you...getting ten bills in the mail that total $1,000 or getting seven bills that total $1,200? Someone contending that the person only getting seven bills in the mail was somehow better off than the person who got ten is rather foolish.

What's most amusing to me is these totals don't reflect some of the things that Barry WANTED to get passed but couldn't get the votes for. If he'd had his way we'd have Cap & Trade in place right now adding billions to the energy costs of Americans. Credit that cost not being added to moderate Democrats and Republicans. Or take the EPA regulations on green house gas emissions that Barry backed off on this year because he knew they would cost American businesses money and jobs. That was an election year decision by Mr Obama based on what he thought would get him reelected...not on what he thought was good policy. You can be assured that if he WERE to be elected to a second term that his little pals over at the EPA will be given the go-ahead to hit us with that regulation.

Did you know, oldstyle, that cap and trade was developed and pushed by repubs ??? you either did, but tried to make it seem like obamas idea, or you simply were ignorant. Either is possible with you:
"Getting all this to work in the real world required a leap of faith. The opportunity came with the 1988 election of George H.W. Bush. EDF president Fred Krupp phoned Bush's new White House counsel—Boyden Gray—and suggested that the best way for Bush to make good on his pledge to become the "environmental president" was to fix the acid rain problem, and the best way to do that was by using the new tool of emissions trading. Gray liked the marketplace approach, and even before the Reagan administration expired, he put EDF staffers to work drafting legislation to make it happen. The immediate aim was to break the impasse over acid rain. But global warming had also registered as front-page news for the first time that sweltering summer of 1988; according to Krupp, EDF and the Bush White House both felt from the start that emissions trading would ultimately be the best way to address this much larger challenge."
The Political History of Cap and Trade | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

Makes your charges look pretty irrational, and, as usual, makes you look like what you are. A pusher of conservative dogma. And nothing else.

My charge remains the same, Rshermr. Are you disputing that Obama wanted Cap & Trade legislation passed but couldn't convince enough of his fellow Democrats to back that legislation when he held super majorities in the House and Senate? Are you disputing that the passage of the legislation that Obama was seeking would have added billions to the energy costs of Americans? The fact that some people in George Herbert Walker Bush's White House thought Cap & Trade was a viable solution doesn't convince me that it actually IS a viable solution, nor does it change the fact that Obama sought passage of something that would have severely dampened the economic recovery and the only reason he didn't get what he wanted was that some of the people in his own party were far wiser than he. You've claimed that Obama doesn't push new regulations...I simply pointed out that what he GOT wasn't even close to what he had SOUGHT and if he'd gotten his way then we'd be in even worse shape than we are now.

Your contention that Obama doesn't push to add regulations is as amusing as a married man who hits on his neighbor's wife but doesn't consider himself to be unfaithful because she turned him down.

 

[Oldstyle]

Sure, things from any source are prejudiced at times. No question. But if you can find the article and find out who the author is, you get a good idea of what you are about to read. Whether think progress is prejudiced or not, it is the author that makes the difference, always, as you should know if you have ever done any research at all. You know what type of writing the author does and who he writes most of his stuff for. And in my case, you can do that. Because I give you a link to the source. Then you can get a good idea. Author is identified. Nothing hidden. No secrecy. But in your case, I get none of that. I could spend half a day looking for the article you are pasting into your response. And that is not something I intend to do. It would be simpler, and show a lot more integrity, if you provided the link, which you still have not done. I can only assume that you know that your source is a joke, oldstyle. What are you hiding?

Can I take a swing at that??
Sure. But you do the reading this time, oldstyle. I figure that anyone who calls an existing president, repub or dem, by a pet name, as you do when you call obama Barry, shows what he is. A con who has to use pet terms like an adolescent, who is stupid, classless, and an ass hole. But the info you are looking for is all over the place, if you care to actually find it. But that requires that you do not spend all of your time reading dogma from right wing sights. So my suspicion is that you will not bother to read the info that the links post to. Easier to post dogma, is it not, oldstyle.
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes
Economist's View: Per Capita Government Spending by President
Under Obama, U.S. Govt. Spends At Lowest Rate In Decades, Says Journalist : It's All Politics : NPR
And many, many more. You could learn a lot, agree or disagree, if you got your head out of the right wing sights. They NEVER say anything good about obama. I know you like that, but you will never get a true understanding of the world with your head there. Just lets you believe what you want to believe, which is a sad way to exist, oldstyle.
You do some work, now, oldstyle. Lets see some proof that regs have been growing at a high rate under obama. Prove your statement, if for no other reason than to do something new.

As usual I'm amused by your (and Mr. Ungar's) contention that Barack Obama was a "small spender". I guess it depends on your definition of the term. If one takes in much less and spends slightly more does that make someone more fiscally responsible than another who took in MUCH more and spent more? To use a correlation with your household budget...who's the more responsible parent...the one who makes $30,000 a year and spends $50,000 or the one who makes $45,000 and spends $51,000? The following is a list of government revenue and spending.

Year/Fed receipts/fed outlays (billions of dollars)
1998 1,721.7 1,652.5
1999 1,827.5 1,701.8
2000 2,025.2 1,789.0
2001 1,991.1 1,862.9
2002 1,853.1 2,010.9
2003 1,782.3 2,159.9
2004 1,880.1 2,292.9

2005 2,153.6 2,472.0
2006 2,406.9 2,655.1
2007 2,568.0 2,728.7
2008 2,524.0 2,982.5
2009 2,105.0 3,517.7
2010 2,162.7 3,456.2
2011 2,303.5 3,603.1

Sorry, but when I look at the difference between what's being brought in in revenue and what's being spent, I have a hard time giving Barry credit for being fiscally "tight".

Again, you give no source information. Again, you call the a president by your slang word. Tacky, stupid, immature, and proves you to be a con before considering what you say. No integrity, just quoting dogma.

Calling Barack Obama by the name he went by most of his life isn't using a "slang word". Is my use of Barry more "tacky, stupid, immature and lacking in integrity" than those of the Left who referred to George W. Bush derisively as "Dubya"? Quite frankly I think Barack Obama's "facade" needs to be picked on...to me he's Barry, the stoner from Hawaii that scammed his way through college and into some cushy high paying jobs without ever really DOING anything. I think that when Barack Obama is alone he's got laugh at how far he's gotten on Harvard Law School's need to elect a person of color to the position of President of the Law Review. We've got a President who's the ultimate expression of Affirmative Action's failings. Yes, he's gotten promoted...No, he doesn't have a clue how to do the job he finds himself in.

 

[GreatDay]

Greenspan said in 2001 we were on track to be debt free by 2011.

 

[expat_panama]

...

...

... that really do not show much of anything. Employment went up, so did the working population...

Ah, so we need to see what the Clinton tax hikes at the end of '93 did to the employment/population ratio--

--looks like we were doing better before the tax hikes and not as well after. Hey guy, let's face it. Money going to taxes is money not going for payrolls.

 

[antagon]

Ah, so we need to see what the Clinton tax hikes at the end of '93 did to the employment/population ratio--

--looks like we were doing better before the tax hikes and not as well after. Hey guy, let's face it. Money going to taxes is money not going for payrolls.

What could he be talking about?

The chart shows that the EMRATIO turned around from a steep dive and had two sizable leaps over the next 4 years.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A pusher of conservative dogma. And nothing else.

dear, conservatives push conservative dogma and liberals push liberal dogma. The issue is which dogma is correct.

It is absolutely astounding that you are so dumb as to think labeling something as dogma, defeats it. It does nothing but point to your pure liberal ignorance. Can this really be over your head?

 

[expat_panama]

Ah, so we need to see what the Clinton tax hikes at the end of '93 did to the employment/population ratio--

--looks like we were doing better before the tax hikes and not as well after. Hey guy, let's face it. Money going to taxes is money not going for payrolls.

What could he be talking about? The chart shows that the EMRATIO turned around from a steep dive and had two sizable leaps over the next 4 years.

We're talking about the Clinton tax hikes that he proposed and signed into the FY 1994 budget. From here, "...fiscal year 1994 budget proposed the highest peace-time tax increases...". What happened is we looked at the employment levels and Rshermr says

...that really do not show much of anything. Employment went up, so did the working population...

so then we check the employment/pop ratio before and after the FY94 budget--

and what we got is that

... Clinton's tax raises... ...The economy got better AFTER the tax increases, not before it...

is flat out wrong.