The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Easier said than done. He's supposed to ram this through a Republican House how?

I don't need him to win against the GOP, but I'd like he and the Dems to actually have a policy agenda. I'm tired of we can't do anything.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Didn't realize Obama was elected in 2010. I thought he had two years to pass his agenda.

And I thought he accomplished some pretty major things in those two years, even against an unprecedented use of the filibuster which forced him to water down several of the things he did get passed.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't need him to win against the GOP, but I'd like he and the Dems to actually have a policy agenda. I'm tired of we can't do anything.

Well thats fine, I was just taking issue with the word "implemented". I'm pleased with the recent speeches he's made, but I know right now that no matter what he does, he has no chance of getting anything like that passed. Hell, FDR could come back from the grave and couldn't get it done. When Obama can't even get the GOP agree on a 10:1 deal for spending cuts:tax increases, then he's just not dealing with reasonable opposition. Hell, conservative hero Reagan and the Dem Congress agreed to a 3:1 deal in 1982!

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And I thought he accomplished some pretty major things in those two years, even against an unprecedented use of the filibuster which forced him to water down several of the things he did get passed.

I guess DT didn't think he did. I obviously didn't either but I am hardly one of his supporters. Would have loved to see something done about the military industrial complex or torture bay but I guess sending more troops to the Middle East is Nobel Prize worthy. War on drugs, corporate bailouts, energy indepedence, open and honest government... Remind me again what the principles of the Democratic party are?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Well thats fine, I was just taking issue with the word "implemented". I'm pleased with the recent speeches he's made, but I know right now that no matter what he does, he has no chance of getting anything like that passed. Hell, FDR could come back from the grave and couldn't get it done. When Obama can't even get the GOP agree on a 10:1 deal for spending cuts:tax increases, then he's just not dealing with reasonable opposition. Hell, conservative hero Reagan and the Dem Congress agreed to a 3:1 deal in 1982!

How do you not see this as a failure of leadership? Either the country doesn't want it or he is a weak leader. I have no idea how you could see a third option in there on why he can't do better than a "10:1" cut. If the American public wants it he should have given to them and if they don't want it but it's needed he should give them their medicine. Instead he just bitches about how the GOP won't let him do his job. He's the president of the country not the 436th member of Congress.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

How do you not see this as a failure of leadership? Either the country doesn't want it or he is a weak leader. I have no idea how you could see a third option in there on why he can't do better than a "10:1" cut. If the American public wants it he should have given to them and if they don't want it but it's needed he should give them their medicine. Instead he just bitches about how the GOP won't let him do his job. He's the president of the country not the 436th member of Congress.

He can't just implement a tax increase. If you want to argue that he could be a more forceful leader, then I could go along with that, but if he put a bil out there with a tax increase in it, the House wouldn't even vote on it and the Senate GOP would filibuster it.

I'm not all rah rah on Obama. There's a ton of ways he's disappointed me. But I'm also a realist. He's received more difficult opposition than just about any other President. A quick look at the filibuster usage chart bears that out. Even the Dems extreme hatred of Bush didn't lead to the same level of filibusters.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

He can't just implement a tax increase. If you want to argue that he could be a more forceful leader, then I could go along with that, but if he put a bil out there with a tax increase in it, the House wouldn't even vote on it and the Senate GOP would filibuster it.

I'm not all rah rah on Obama. There's a ton of ways he's disappointed me. But I'm also a realist. He's received more difficult opposition than just about any other President. A quick look at the filibuster usage chart bears that out. Even the Dems extreme hatred of Bush didn't lead to the same level of filibusters.

His entire presidency boils down to what McConnell said, that the sole goal in all of this for the GOP, public needs be damned, is to make Obama a 1-term president.

[rowech]

I'm not sure what it says that Obama is the most beatable president that I can remember and the Republicans can't find anyone to actually beat him. We've got some real crap to choose from.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Actually, you could claim just the opposite. The federal investigation has been going on for quite awhile. You could easily argue that S&P was the retaliatory one since they knew they were being investigated long before the downgrade took place.

Fair point. Though I bet that if the S&P did not downgrade them, that investigation would have quietly slipped away with at most a slap on the wrist.

[JPhillips]

JPMorgan lowered their growth forecast by a full point, saying:

There are three main reasons for our downgrade. First, the recent incoming data, especially in the US and the euro area, have been disappointing, suggesting less momentum into 2H11 and pushing down full-year 2011 estimates. Second, recent policy errors – especially Europe’s slow and insufficient response to the sovereign crisis and the drama around lifting the US debt ceiling – have weighed down on financial markets and eroded business and consumer confidence. A negative feedback loop between weak growth and soggy asset markets now appears to be in the making in Europe and the US. This should be aggravated by the prospect of fiscal tightening in the US and Europe.

Thank God we're all focused on how much money we should pull out of the economy.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Heh. That's not retaliatory at alllll. If S&P didn't see this one coming, I'd be shocked.

Considering how bad they are at their job, they need to get more than just a slap on the wrist

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Fair point. Though I bet that if the S&P did not downgrade them, that investigation would have quietly slipped away with at most a slap on the wrist.

Probably right on that as well.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

He can't just implement a tax increase.

Actually he could have. He had to sign in the bill to extend the Bush tax cuts.

[AENeuman]

Quick questions (too much Hannity this week):

Is it true Obama's new spending policies are responsible for the increase in debt?

Are there significant economic policies in place now (can see health care down the road) that are radically socialist/left?

What specifically has Obama done that has prevented the continuation of the Bush tax cuts from working (creating jobs)?


I thought i knew the answers to these things but the easiness they are being said and promoted has given me pause. If they are not true, i would think people who have legitimate problems with Obama would also be angered by this rhetoric.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Thank God we're all focused on how much money we should pull out of the economy.

Yeah, it's not like economists have tried for a couple of decades now to get the public to save more, then started griping when they did

[JPhillips]

Conditions change. Saving is good during normal conditions, but during a demand crisis the government is the only entity that can fill the output gap.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by rowech

I'm not sure what it says that Obama is the most beatable president that I can remember and the Republicans can't find anyone to actually beat him. We've got some real crap to choose from.

John Kerry says, "hi!"

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Quick questions (too much Hannity this week):

Is it true Obama's new spending policies are responsible for the increase in debt?

Are there significant economic policies in place now (can see health care down the road) that are radically socialist/left?

What specifically has Obama done that has prevented the continuation of the Bush tax cuts from working (creating jobs)?


I thought i knew the answers to these things but the easiness they are being said and promoted has given me pause. If they are not true, i would think people who have legitimate problems with Obama would also be angered by this rhetoric.

Watch less Hannity FFS.

1. No. The increase in the debt has been a long-term problem. And all spending is authorized by Congress anyways, so it's really their spending that's running up the debt.

2. Healthcare isn't radically socialist/left. And there aren't any other policies that are radically socialist/left (unless you talk to one of those "all taxes are socialist" wackos).

3. Obama hasn't "done anything" to prevent the Bush tax cuts from working. The fact is that most economists have come to agree that tax cuts do not spur job creation. It's not just true here - it's true overseas in other economies too. It's a fallacy.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The fact is that most economists have come to agree that tax cuts do not spur job creation. It's not just true here - it's true overseas in other economies too. It's a fallacy.

[citation needed]

The administration itself doesn't agree with you.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

[citation needed]

The administration itself doesn't agree with you.

He was talking about the Bush tax cuts though, which are to higher-income individuals. Tax cuts for higher-income individuals have not been shown to create jobs.

[PilotMan]

Pretty interesting little graph here. Part of this study.

http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/no...in%20press.pdf

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Pretty interesting little graph here. Part of this study.

http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/no...in%20press.pdf

A graph of what Republicans and Democrats think the distribution is would be interesting as well.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

A graph of what Republicans and Democrats think the distribution is would be interesting as well.

I think that was in the PDF. It wasn't too much different in my opinion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That graph kind of reminds me of the old stories about how many people said they watched PBS versus how many actually watched it.

[SirFozzie]

Tom Coburn: Idiot. The Gabrielle Giffords thing is how long ago, and he says "Thank God I can't bring a gun on the Senate Floor"????

(although in a dark humor moment, I wonder if the NRA will grade him down for that statement)

Coburn: Good thing I can't pack a gun - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com

[Edward64]

In general, I'm sympathetic ... but would prefer if the "guidance" were defined first (e.g. no felons etc.).

Not sure what the hispanic support for Rep vs Dems are, but this will help ... considering hispanics have (or will soon) exceed african americans as the largest (il)legal minority group.

Obama to deport illegals by 'priority' - Washington Times

Bowing to pressure from immigrant rights activists, the Obama administration said Thursday that it will halt deportation proceedings on a case-by-case basis against illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria, such as attending school, having family in the military or having primary responsible for other family members’ care.

The move marks a major step for President Obama, who for months has said he does not have broad categorical authority to halt deportations and said he must follow the laws as Congress has written them.

But in letters to Congress on Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she does have discretion to focus on “priorities” and that her department and the Justice Department will review all ongoing cases to see who meets the new criteria.

“This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety,” she said. “Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high-priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons.”

The move won immediate praise from Hispanic activists and Democrats who had strenuously argued with the administration that it did have authority to take these actions, and said as long as Congress is deadlocked on the issue, it was up to Mr. Obama to act.
:
:
Ms. Napolitano said a working group will try to come up with “guidance on how to provide for appropriate discretionary consideration” for “compelling cases” in instances where someone already has been ordered deported.

Administration officials made the announcement just before Mr. Obama left for a long vacation out of Washington, and as members of Congress are back in their home districts.

The top House Republican on the Judiciary Committee said the move is part of a White House plan “to grant backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants.”

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Tom Coburn: Idiot. The Gabrielle Giffords thing is how long ago, and he says "Thank God I can't bring a gun on the Senate Floor"????

(although in a dark humor moment, I wonder if the NRA will grade him down for that statement)

Coburn: Good thing I can't pack a gun - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com

Not in good taste, but I think people get too carried away with that stuff. It's an expression we use all the time.

I found the part where he implied Senior Citizens could pay for their MRIs with Apple Pies.

[stevew]

If we're doing graphs, I really want to see the "Amount politicians get paid in relation to the budget vs. what people think they get paid." Cause it is funny how many people seem to think that we'd be able to balance the budgets if politicians stopped getting paid, or at least had their wages significantly reduced.

[PilotMan]

Well then on top of that Steve, we should look at what they get paid from the US directy. Then how much they actually make through various means, then how much total compensation they receive.

Your right though, here is a facebook post that was nearly worthy of the facebook thread:

salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000 FOR LIFESalary of House/Senate .......................$174,000 FOR LIFESalary of Speaker of the House ............$223,500 FOR LIFESalary of Majority/Minority Leaders ...... $193,400 FOR LIFEAverage Salary of a teacher ................ $40,065Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN $38,000I think we found where the cuts should be.

[Edward64]

Sad ... my gut tells me its true. I don't blame it all on Obama but it happened on his watch so he owns it.

Pre-Market Report - Aug. 19, 2011 - CNNMoney

PIMCO's Gross: Recession inevitable

[Edward64]

Just a scenario.

Wall Street set to follow global stocks lower - Business - msnbc.com

Exane BNP Paribas, in a note, said a global recession was far from priced in by financial markets. Another global slump could see corporate earnings plunge 35 percent from peak to trough, implying a 50 percent cut to consensus earnings per share estimates.

The sharp decline in stock markets is expected to have an adverse impact on household wealth, further undermining consumer confidence and demand in coming months. Heightened uncertainty over growth could also see producers delaying decision-making, hitting global output.

Those concerns are likely to see investors cut exposure to stocks, metals and oil, and growth-linked currencies such as the Australian dollar in the coming days, unless the U.S. Federal Reserve signals more quantitative easing or European politicians take decisive actions to stem contagion risk from the euro zone debt crisis.

While investors fled stocks, the price of gold hit a record high of $1,867.30 an ounce, putting it on track for the largest weekly gains since February 2009. The metal has rallied nearly 14 percent so far this month -- its best month since September 1999 -- benefiting from a deluge of safe-haven flows.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sad ... my gut tells me its true. I don't blame it all on Obama but it happened on his watch so he owns it.

Pre-Market Report - Aug. 19, 2011 - CNNMoney

No President ever deserves all of the blame or all of the credit but there is a clear vacuum of economic understanding & leadership at play which is directly (and indirectly) causing instability in the markets, imho.

While I am curious what the Pres will have as a "Jobs Bill" speech...my expectations for it could not be much lower. Simply calling it a "Jobs Bill" is probably the wrong approach in the first place (though I can let it slide until hearing it) as the country needs to have direction outside of "hire people". Giving tax incentives to businesses to hire people when there is no real business incentive for them is basically a different form of welfare. We need to stop this kind of nonsensical policy.

The country needs leadership, vision, and a logical incentive for business to use their cash. You can have 2 of those 3 and probably get by, but you need to have more than 1, for certain.

[JediKooter]

The problem is, we have lawyers running the country instead of business people.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

The problem is, we have lawyers running the country instead of business people.

We have lawyers paid for by business people

SI

[Rizon]

I'd be curious on how this poll would turn out now.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by stevew

If we're doing graphs, I really want to see the "Amount politicians get paid in relation to the budget vs. what people think they get paid." Cause it is funny how many people seem to think that we'd be able to balance the budgets if politicians stopped getting paid, or at least had their wages significantly reduced.

About a year ago, I had a conversation with someone I would qualify as an otherwise fairly intelligent individual who was going on and on about how welfare people are bilking the system and bankrupting our country because they were making tons of money to sit at home. He started making some conclusions and talking about how to solve these problems and the logic just didn't add up.

So I asked him, "How much do you think the average American makes"? His response: $100-200K. Once I had finished shaking my head at him (and it's a bit baffling since neither he nor I make anywhere close to that), I got to thinking "how many more people make horribly faulty assumptions based on numbers like that"?

Is that how you can easily get away with continually saying things like "taxing people over $250K kills small businesses" (because unless your accountant is an idiot, something like that would be incorporated). Or my belief that a significant portion of society is going "no, you can't do things to rich people because I might be among them one day" (yeah, you're not)?

SI

[larrymcg421]

Don't forget earmarks. Man, if we just got rid of those, everything would be solved!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Don't forget earmarks. Man, if we just got rid of those, everything would be solved!

Yeah, I loved John McCain's campaigning against 1% of spending and how that would fix government.

At least earmarks required you to just shunt, say, $500M of the regular transportation budget specifically to your state. Instead, you just attach it to another bill or create an omnibus bill: "Hey, the $500M fund for the Hubert H Humphrey Homeland Security Defense Facility could have gone to any state. We were just lucky that money magically found its way to Minnesota".

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Rizon

I'd be curious on how this poll would turn out now.

FWIW, the poll started pretty positive and has trended negative as the days went on.

[Edward64]

Continuation of health care reform will be a major reason why I lean towards Dems (e.g. but would seriously consider Romney if he comes back into the fold of some sort of serious health care reform). Rooting for you Obama ... make it a reality in 2013.

White House Faces Political Dilemma On Health Law Challenge | FoxNews.com

But would they work without the individual mandate? Neither the president nor the critics think it would and that's one reason the administration may want to avoid an early Supreme Court decision.

"Regardless of whether the courts ultimately strike down the entire law, if they strike down the individual mandate as unconstitutional, the reform doesn't hang together and ultimately Congress will have to rework it in its entirety," said former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin.

The president seems to agree, arguing on the campaign trail in Minnesota this week that the new law could not work without the individual mandate.

"If an insurance company has to take you, has to insure you, even if you're sick," the president explained, "but you don't have an individual mandate, then what would everybody do? They would wait until they get sick, and then you'd buy health insurance, right?"

"You can't not have health insurance," the president continued, "then go to the emergency room, and each of us, who've done the responsible thing and have health insurance, suddenly we now have to pay the premiums for you. That's not fair."

So one might think the president has some interest in getting a quick decision from the Supreme Court.

But most analysts believe the White House will try to delay a decision as long as it can-- first, by asking the full appeals court to rehear the case, which could postpone a final decision there for months. Then, the administration could take the maximum time to request Supreme Court consideration, hoping to push a final decision past the 2012 election.

"It's not a politically-winning issue for them," Powers said. "All anybody cares about right now are jobs and economic growth and they don’t want to be reminded about health care."

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Quick questions (too much Hannity this week):

Is it true Obama's new spending policies are responsible for the increase in debt?

Are there significant economic policies in place now (can see health care down the road) that are radically socialist/left?

What specifically has Obama done that has prevented the continuation of the Bush tax cuts from working (creating jobs)?


I thought i knew the answers to these things but the easiness they are being said and promoted has given me pause. If they are not true, i would think people who have legitimate problems with Obama would also be angered by this rhetoric.

I thought that this was a legit set of questions and I didn't want it left by the wayside.

1) Techincally, the President signed the Stimulus bill which spent a lot of money that we didn't have in order to try and prevent a full blown depression. Any president would have signed a bill of that magnitude, because they all knew that the alternative would have been a long slow decline of the economy. The Republicans have been squaking about the size of it and how it has burdened the economy ever since it was singed. Hindsight is always 20/20, and we have the privilege of saying that it was the worst choice ever because we didn't dive into a depression.

2) The policies that they are talking about besides the healthcare bill which is in no way socialist, are the government bailouts of the auto industry and banking industry. Money that was spent to keep small businesses, suppliers and to prevent a further escalation of the financial crisis. Had everything been allowed to fail, the US would have no auto industry at all, and any future competitor would need a full generation to catch up. Had all the banks been allowed to fail all this current finger pointing would be needless because we would be looking for who to fire for not having done what we did. Oh, and Bush II started this whole process with the first round of bailouts, which is a conveniently forgotten fact.

3) Businesses are making money hand over fist, and not spending it because they fear. Jobs that were lost were lost for good. Hence the reason why the unemployment rate has been slow to recede. It's going to take a good 10 years for those numbers to come back. This shouldn't be much of a surprise, and it won't have any bearing on who the president is. All this finger pointing by the Republican party is all a set up to try and win the 2012 presidential election. There are no policies that Obama has set up that have worked against the Bush tax cuts. Frankly, if the cuts had been allowed to expire, it's my opinion that Wall Street would have responded much better than they did with the crapfest of a deal that we got. Wall Street realizes that money needs to flow into the system, and that revenues need to be increased.

[ISiddiqui]

I do tend to find it amusing that people consider Obama's policies to be socialist or far left. It seems absurdly strange to me considering every other Western industrialized democracy. If we consider a country like the UK as "far left", were exactly should the rest of the world see us? Lunatic right wing madmen (ok, some already do)?

[Edward64]

I've not been keeping up on this but boy, how far has he fallen ...

Edwards drops one prominent DC lawyer for another – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

(CNN) - Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has requested a new attorney in his defense of federal charges roughly two months before the criminal conspiracy trial is set to begin.

In a copy of the motion filed Friday, Edwards requested representation by prominent DC attorney Abbe Lowell, indicating that he has dropped defense attorney and former White House counsel Greg Craig.

Lowell previously represented lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee was indicted by a federal grand jury in June and subsequently pleaded not guilty. He will be tried in October on federal charges of conspiracy, issuing false statements, and violating campaign contribution laws.

Justice Department prosecutors brought charges against the 2008 presidential candidate based on allegations that money given to Edwards to support his mistress, Rielle Hunter, should have been considered as donations toward his presidential campaign.

Edwards maintains the money was a gift.

If convicted on all counts, he could face up to 30 years in prison and a fine of up to $1.5 million.

[Edward64]

Glad to get this one out of the way and think it was a distraction, I think the real prize is Syria.

BTW - if I was that Lockerbie "I'm not dead yet" guy, I would be leaving town.

Tripoli facing three-sided advance by Libyan rebels | World news | The Guardian

Muammar Gaddafi's 41-year grip on power in Libya looked more precarious than ever on Friday night, as rebel forces advanced on the capital from three directions after breaking out of the once-besieged town of Misrata.

With rebels taking control of the coastal town of Zlitan in the east, those in the west claimed to have made progress clearing out the last pro-Gaddafi troops from Zawiyah, 30 miles west of Tripoli. They now have the main coastal road under pressure on both sides of the capital and also under threat from the Nafusa mountains.

Gaddafi's army outside Tripoli is trapped in a series of besieged and shrinking enclaves, with rebels controlling more than two thirds of the country. And as the stranglehold on the capital tightens, plans are being made to evacuate the last remaining foreign workers by sea.

Good to know they are planning for it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14560983

Nato governments have been working closely with the NTC on a plan for the immediate aftermath of the conflict.

The lessons from the collapse of the Iraqi regime are still in everyone's minds. They do not want to see the chaos of a power vacuum, revenge killings, looting and so on.

Indeed, the final stages of this conflict pose particular problems for Nato whose formal mandate, remember, remains the defence of Libya's civilian population.

Critics have argued that this is largely a fiction. Nato has waded in on one side in a civil war, they say, and its air operations have effectively served to tilt the balance of power away from Col Gaddafi towards his opponents.

Nato's intervention began with the immediate goal of protecting the people of Benghazi from advancing government forces.

The war could end with Nato having to ensure the safety of civilians in Tripoli as a new regime advances on the city.

This is going to be the real test of the understandings made between Western governments and the rebels and of the trust invested in the NTC by key Western governments like those in Britain and France.

[Edward64]

I agree with this and thought it unfair when it was done to GWB also. However, you would think Obama's team should be managing this better ...

Of course Obama deserves a vacation - CNN.com

Every year, we can count on nutcases from the right throwing temper tantrums about President Obama going on vacation. And when President George W. Bush was in office, there were reliable cranks on the left who would scream to high heaven because he would spend a lot of time at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Let's all say in unison: Shut the hell up!

[SteveMax58]

I have a much bigger problem with the House & Senate extended recesses than the President's mini-vacations. Especially when the H/S members may be doing many other things even when IN session.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Conditions change. Saving is good during normal conditions, but during a demand crisis the government is the only entity that can fill the output gap.

Saving is always good, consumers should not go into debt to boost consumer spending to save the economy. If anything it generally weakens the health of the economy as increasing debt levels increases the probability of default (the magical phenonmenon which justifies charging interest on all loans).

A lot of factors go into 'output' and the government is not the only source of demand as it were. The population itself has a certain level of necessary demand (your food, shelter, energy requirements to actually live) and the technological revolutions of this century are the biggest and best explanation of the expansion of demand and consumer spending (even better than credit card debt, which has also boomed, but not as much relatively).

The people of today live with more conveniences and standard of living than any time in history, and get there through technology and productivity continually growing. If it takes government investment to set the environment for growth, than by all means go ahead, but the moment it becomes just about throwing money around the less it all will really work in the end. We just end up with a few more fat cats with more zeroes in their account balances.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

[citation needed]

The administration itself doesn't agree with you.

Pro tax cuts:
http://www.house.gov/jec/tax/taxrates/taxrates.pdf

How high incomes react to tax cuts:
Soaking the rich | The Economist

Supply-side economics:
Supply-Side Economics: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

All of these are obviously biased towards the 'cut taxes on the rich creates jobs' but give the gist of the argument (and have a bundle of citations to papers of varying quality on the topic).


I prefer the multiplier line of thought, similar to that mentioned by this:
Econbrowser: Pocketful of Multipliers (II): Options for Stimulus Packages

Again, start digging into citations made in the article to get at a variety of opinions.

The problem with reading economists is you can hire an economist to spout whatever nonsense you want them to. Taking a poll of them is just taking a poll of which side has made more bribes!

I've already stated my opinion, high income tax cuts will not create jobs... not based so much on philosophy but on what I consider to be common sense, a wealth of capital is already in the hands of the decision makers, tax rates only impact marginal returns on extracting the money out of a business (i.e. income), and tax cuts in a perfect ideal republican-sponsored supply-side REagnomics world can still only increase capital supply and marginal return on investment... neither of which are the key factors holding back investment (as JonInMiddleGA might say, all those jerks don't deserve jobs in the first place, the losers!!!).

The worry warts are things like 'double dip recession fears', inflation, job numbers and its relation to consumer spending, debt levels, and the fact that taxes right now are so goddamn awesome for looting corporations of dollars. Gotta extract those dollars before the INEVITABLE tax hike, sorry conservatives, your own elephants will help put them in when the time for the reaper comes, they already are targeting poor taxes like increased fees, sales taxes, and loophole reductions that mostly benefit low incomes like earned income, student deductions, etc...

[RainMaker]

Demand creates jobs, not cuts to income taxes. Seriously, we have one of the lowest top tax rates in our nation's history and high unemployment.

I love reading those articles where they cherry-pick points and ignore others.

[Flasch186]

As John Stewart said you can get $700 billion simply by taking HALF of everything that the poor have.