The Economic Case Against Obama

Despite the predictions of conservatives about Clinton's big tax increase, if Obama had Clinton's record this election wouldn't be a contest.

 

He could have introduced the United States to how China creates job, by having huge Government companies like Solyndra installed to create jobs, that is how democrats see job creation, not reducing tax liabilities and limiting regulations on the free market.

The Democrats have proven they are socialist, by passing the beginning of universal health care, without creating jobs, which Americans desperately need.

Job creators, are those who make over 250k a year, if they are taxed at a higher rate, it trickles down to Business.

The President is not a Communist Chairman, like Mao, he has the responsibility of working with all sides of the country, not his own.

 

Bill Clinton worked with republicans, and those tax cuts on job creators helped spur the economy during his presidency, Obama did not work with republicans, so he has a worst record.

President Bush was in power during an attack, so his performance should not be compared in this discussion.

 

You're criticizing Obama for not spending more money on companies to create jobs?

 

Yes, as a job creator the Presidents grade is F, he is a socialist I am not disputing that, I even praise him for being a socialist since I'm a liberal.

But he was tasked with creating jobs when he began his presidency, not pass universal health care, that could have come later.

The problem here is he was too scared of showing his true colors, as all democrats, they believe creating jobs through communism, where government companies do it like Solyndra, and not the FREE MARKET, like republicans believe in.

 

Except Clinton passed a big tax increase, not a tax cut, that Republicans call the biggest tax increase in history.

Conservatives by the score predicted the tax increase would kill jobs and wreck the economy. What followed was the longest sustained period of growth in post WWII history and 23 million new jobs created, with decades recrod low unemployment and poverty rates, and a then record deficit coming down and turning into a surplus.

The Republicans tried to jam a huge tax cut down Clinton's throat, but he held them off with his veto power, compromising in a 1997 with a minor tax cut on capital gains taxes.

In 2001, with a Republican selected for the WH, they got their way and passed the tax cuts that mostly benefitted the wealthy. Revenues crashed an unprecedented 4 years, and withing a couple years the surplus was squandered and replaced by new record deficits.

 

You socialist.

 

ROFL .. it was Phil Gramm who introduced the bill to repeal Glass Steagal and later deregulation under Bush that allowed for retail institutions to sell mortages into mortgage backed securities.

Then .. to really ramp up the fire, interest rates were reduced and the money supply increased.

Total debt under Clinton increased but not 2 Trillion. It took Clinton time to whittle down the huge deficit he inherited from Bush Sr.

See the chart below for details

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg

Trade agreements are a good thing are they not ?

 

I really don't care how a politicians last policies turned out, I only care about how well I believe his future policies will.

 

Yes, just like the rich. Their money gets spent too, not only on consumables, groceries and all the things the 'middle-class' and poor buy to sustain themselves but the rich also buy big-ticket items, use the service industry (which many middle class folks work in). Their investments make money for middle-class brokers working for brokerages and the countless Internet investment vehicles available today and all the support staff not to mention the computers that need retailers, wholesalers, distributers, etc.

This Socialist lie that there is one class and then another is hogwash. In America one can transcend their current position in the economic ladder. All it takes is work. Only the government can throw a monkey wrench into the economy's gears grinding it to a halt and taking that work away. It's not 'big business' or 'big bankers' it is our government meddling in the market. We don't need to TAKE more money from We The People to fix the economy, we need to let folks KEEP more of their hard-earned money and send a message that the government doesn't hate private enterprise.

 

It wouldn't be the biggest tax increase in history, I think.

Wilson got the income tax system started (after a brief stint by Lincoln during the Civil War).

So... Wilson (D) increased taxes on top earners from 0 to 7%, then during WW1 he bumped it up to 67%.
After the war, Harding/Coolidge (R) cut them to 25%.
Hoover (R), in response to the Great Depression, increased taxes on the wealthy up to 63%.
FDR brought them up to 79%, and then during the war they peaked at 94%.
Truman (D) pulled them down to 91%.
Eisenhower wanted to cut taxes, but wanted to balance the budget before first...
Kennedy also wanted to cut taxes, but he was killed before he got the chance.
So Lyndon Johnson (D) cut taxes from 91% to 70%. He said that the tax cut spurred job growth, brought us nearly to full employment, raised revenues and increased production.
Reagan (R) cut them from 70% to 28%.
George H.W. Bush (R) increased them up to 31%.
Clinton (D) increased them to 39%.
George W. Bush (R) cut them down to 35%.
Barack Obama (D) extended them, keeping the rate at 35%.

So... the President who gave us the "biggest tax increase in history" would've been Wilson, Hoover or FDR.
The President that cut taxes the most would be Reagan followed by Lyndon B. Johnson and Harding/Coolidge.

 

I agree it probably wasn't the largest, but as my post indicated, some Republicans call it that:

In speeches and fundraising appeals the Bush campaign keeps making a distorted claim that Clinton 's 1993 tax increase -- supported by Kerry -- was "the biggest in history."

http://www.factcheck.org/treasury_tax_expert_to_bush_clintons_increase.html

 

I want to post this OP again so people don't have to jump back to page 1 to get a refresher on that bum Barack "Slick Barry" Obama's terrible 4-year track record of shame, blame and name change.

 

The richest spend proportionately much less of their income than middle classes.

The capitalist lie is that America is the land of greatest opportunity. Over the past 30 years, this social mobility has been much reduced as the rich and poorer have become more entreched. Social mobility is now greater in Europe.

I agree Govt involvement has a big effect. The Reagan "trickle down" revolution, which raised taxes on the poorer and cut taxes on the richest, among other things, is a major reason why most of the growth in income and wealth has been funnelled to the richest over the past 30 years.

We need to reverse trickle down and the policies that pander to the 1%, and focus instead on the middle classes.

And in November, we have a clear choice about which road to go down.

 

It's bunk, based on blaming Obama for the consequences of the Great Recession he inherited.

http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...onomic-case-against-obama.html#post1061695268

Why do you blame Obama for the Great Recession?

 

Semantics. based on income. but please turn off Rachel Maddow and the Ed Show NOW!...the rich are needed in this country like it or not.

Actually, it's not a lie. it's the cold hard truth. name ONE COUNTRY that has more capitalistic opportunities than America?

Also, the founding fathers NEVER promise you anything but FREEDOM, if you can keep it. And that freedom is the Constitution. the freedom to TRY and make your life the most luxurious as you can without harming or cheating your fellow man, etc...and honor system framed by that document.

the Fouding Fathers knew what Tyranny looked like and that's why the Constitution was drafted. to keep that BS from taking over America. period.

the Opportunity lies within that. if you have no freedom, you have no opportunity.

Ron Paul!!

 

Why would you post these links again after being shown how dumb most of them are ?

The whole "jobs" argument (at least the way it is presented) is flawed when reality is taken into consideration.

It stands to reason that after

1) Stock Market Crash 14,000 to 6,500
2) Financial system meltdown (Credit markets frozen)
3) Housing market collapse
4) 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit
5) 12.9 Trillion dollar debt
6) Thanks Bush

The economy is going to lose a few Jobs. Blaming Obama for this is like blaming the fireman who shows up to put out the fire for starting the fire ??

Prior to Obama the rate of job losses was 700,000 per month. Sure, creation of 60,000 per month is not great and needs to improve .. but it is much better than it was.

 

Each President has the chance to reverse any whacky policy by the preceding President. Obama has only added and continued the bad policies of Bush1, Clinton, Bush2....so he is equally as guilty.

IF he was the type to stand on his word "Change", he would've revered the madness and risked taking a bullet to do so, for the sake of the country. he did not. He bent over for the Bankers and the Foreign elite and now his bunghole is badly damaged and so is his ego and reputation.

Obama is finished. His extended Kenya vacation awaits

 

Obama did reverse much of the mess left by Bush.

1) Stock Market Crash 14,000 to 6,500 Dow is back to 13,000
2) Financial system meltdown (Credit markets frozen) Credit is flowing again
3) Housing market collapse Housing market is coming back
4) 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit Deficits have been reduced
5) 12.9 Trillion dollar debt Deficits have been reduced (It took Clinton more than 4 years as well to stop the bleeding) http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg

Rome was not built in a day and the Titanic does not turn on a dime.

Only someone who is completely ignorant of economics (Like Romney given his apparent surprise over Job losses in the first Obama years .. what did he think was going to happen after the Bush crash ? .. either that or he is a disingenuous liar .. my guess is its the latter ) thinks that after such a massive collapse things can be turned around in a year or two.

 

To what? 1.3 trillion? Besides that, before 2008, we've never had a trillion dollar deficit. Now we've had five of them - four of them under Obama. And they haven't passed a single budget.

.... You're saying the national debt has been reduced? It was $10.6 trillion when Obama took office. Now we're in debt over $16 trillion. That's not "reducing" the debt. That's adding massively to it. It took Bush a whole eight years to add $5 trillion of debt. It took Obama less than four years to add the same. That's not an accomplishment to boast about.

 

I certainly agree we need to reduce the deficit.

Write to your Tea Party representative and tell them to compromise on a tax increase and if not vote them out of office.

We don't need Grover Norquist obstructing deficit reduction.

 

When Obama took office, the economy was tanking at a -9% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The housing market was destroyed and the economy was headed straight for a depression.

But now the economy has been growing steadily for almost three straight years, the private sector has added more jobs every month for 30 months in a row, stock markets are up 100% from their recession lows, the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to 8.1%, and over 4.6 million additional private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

And this despite an obstructionist Tea Party Republican party whose stated top priority is not to work with the president to improve the economy but get him out of office.

 

"Semantics"? LOL. How is what I said "semantics"?

Several studies have been made comparing social mobility between developed countries. One such study (“Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults?")[5][15][16] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation. The four countries with the lowest "intergenerational income elasticity", i.e. the highest social mobility, were Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Canada with less than 20% of advantages of having a high income parent passed on to their children. (see graph)

At least five large studies in recent years have found that vertical inter-generational mobility is lower in America than in comparable nations, belief in America as a land of opportunity not withstanding.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility

The founding fathers NEVER promised you low taxes.

Yep. And they new a democratic government with checks and balances was the best way to avoid tyranny.

No doubt.

Is he running for Congress or something?

 

The deficit was 1.4 Trillion when Obama stepped into office. Obama can not "unspend" money that is already spent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

If you would like more details on exactly what the deficit consisted of .. I will be happy to provide them.

Nope

The debt was 12.9 Trillion (see above link) by the time Obama had a chance to make changes. (with the exception of the Stimulus package, and the Auto bailout and a few other things which accounted for no more than 200 Billion of the total)

Everything else was from spending bills passed by Bush.

Redoing your math taking reality into consideration:

Bush started with a balance budget and handed off a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit.

Bush started with 5 Trillion debt and increased this amount by at minimum 7.5 T (give Bush the benefit of the doubt and attribute 400 Billion to Obama) which = 12.5 Trillion in Debt = 12.5/5 = 250% increase in the debt.

Obama would have to increase the debt to 12.5*2.5 = 31.2 Trillion to match the Bush spending in percentage terms.

 

Please don't pass on misleading information as truth, Bill Clinton lowered the capital gains tax even lower than REAGAN, that's the same tax that makes democrats panties bunch up, every time taxes are discussed.

Its currently at a 15 percent rate, and its not going anywhere up anytime soon, and that is how Clinton created jobs by working with republicans, because Rich men who invest and create jobs in the economy only pay a 15 percent tax rate on taking that risk.

The President had no incline to work with Republicans at all, that is why no jobs have been created, you can be a socialist wanting government to create jobs, or a republican wanting the free market to create jobs, but the President has a duty to work with both sides and all he did was create solyndra, he's a failure as a job creator, those are the facts. Fan or not.