The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Okay, well I don't expect President Obama to ask:

"Are you better off than you were four years ago?"   ;D

Whomever gets elected in November has a difficult task ahead.  I do realize not all our problems are of Obama's making and there are some limits as to how much control the POTUS has over economic issues. 

I'd like to know what specific policy initiatives you'd like to hear for his second term.  Please keep this from devolving into personal attacks and ad hominems.

I'll make this simple and break it down into several categories-

Debt and deficit reduction/budget:

Environmental issues:

Overall economy:

Unemployment:

Entitlements/government aid:

High oil costs/energy:

Foreign policy:

Social issues:

Any additional issues not covered by the sub sets above:

I love this message. The left has officially lost its grasp on its sanity...

(http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/toure-abortions-e1346777112239.jpg)

Quote from: Conan71 on September 04, 2012, 03:03:07 PM
"Are you better off than you were four years ago?"   ;D

Most people are. Not better off than they were six years ago, though. :P

Maybe I should start a "this day in history" recounting the events of four years ago. Which banks were having runs, which companies were going bankrupt for lack of any willing buyers of corporate paper, and so forth. It might lend some sorely needed perspective.

I'm fairly certain we'll hear more about how Obama plans to further reduce the deficit, which will contrast nicely with Romney and Ryan's teenager-like "i dunno" answer. He'll probably talk about how under his watch there's x more solar and y amount of coal burning has been replaced with natural gas, thus helping the climate change issue. They may or may not talk about how government assistance is keeping a large number of folks out of severe poverty despite the tough employment environment. He'll probably lambast the Republicans on their refusal to negotiate in good faith on the supercommittee. We might even hear a "love yeah, bin Laden is dead," but I doubt it. The Republicans seem to have successfully cowed him with their accusations of some sort of impropriety in even bothering to announce his death.

There may be a call for more stimulus, but I doubt it. Despite economists from nearly every part of the political spectrum in agreement that more stimulus is necessary because monetary policy is not closing the demand gap it's politically untouchable at the moment. The Republicans have successfully muddied the waters on that issue as well. Despite strong evidence that the stimulus did in fact prevent a worse outcome, early mistakes in gauging the depth of the crisis led to promises that simply couldn't be kept. People are rightly upset about that, but the Republicans are taking it too far and arguing that it didn't do anything at all, at least when they're on stage.

And I see guido has left his sense of humor on his last cruise.

Quote from: nathanm on September 04, 2012, 04:15:41 PM
Most people are. Not better off than they were six years ago, though. :P

Maybe I should start a "this day in history" recounting the events of four years ago. Which banks were having runs, which companies were going bankrupt for lack of any willing buyers of corporate paper, and so forth. It might lend some sorely needed perspective.

Issues which would dog him over four years ago would be fuel prices are back where they were right before the melt down.  Unemployment is higher, the average household income of the middle class has dropped, real estate prices are lower, more people are on food stamps and other entitlements.  Clearly it's not better for many.  Are those all his fault?  No, but they are metrics which have been equally applied to his predecessors.

I'm curious if he will address any of those issues with a mea culpa or tries to divert attention to his opponents instead.

I think he would do well to be humble, keep blame for others at a bare minimum, and have some concrete ideas on how to turn the economy around and tackle debt and deficit without framing it as the rich are bleeding the poor.  Unfortunately, I don't think he's capable of doing it.  Clinton managed to raise taxes without painting the wealthy as evil-doers, why hasn't Obama used the same tact?

I pay little attention to the conventions as they are TV ads albeit the dims will have some entertainment (wee, the GOPeabaggers had Clint!).

I hope that the democrats continue to grind at all the lies of Paul Ryan and the hypocrisy of Mitt the Sh!t.

I hope next week, most Americans still feel confident in the current administration and realize how dangerous Romney might be as President.


Romney's campaign centerpiece.



Waiting for the debates. ;)

Quote from: Conan71 on September 04, 2012, 04:35:57 PM
Issues which would dog him over four years ago would be fuel prices are back where they were right before the melt down.  Unemployment is higher, the average household income of the middle class has dropped, real estate prices are lower, more people are on food stamps and other entitlements.  Clearly it's not better for many.  Are those all his fault?  No, but they are metrics which have been equally applied to his predecessors.

Your timing is off. Unemployment is lower now than it was when Obama took office. Not by much, mind you, but lower. Personal Income is also higher than it was when Obama took office. Housing prices are indeed lower and haven't really trended back upwards. Not surprising, given the oversupply. As far as entitlements go, it depends on what you count as an entitlement. Some transfer payments (which includes Social Security, Medicare, and UI, in addition to other things) are higher, some are lower.

The message I was waiting for was a half filled stadium. And that looks like it was going to be forcast for the Thursday night acceptance speech. But a different forecast has saved the speech. Rain has moved in and the venue will "most likely" be moved to the Time Warner Cable Arena that seats a fillable 20,000.
Probably won't see Oprah crying this time.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 04, 2012, 03:03:07 PM
Okay, well I don't expect President Obama to ask:

"Are you better off than you were four years ago?"   ;D

Whomever gets elected in November has a difficult task ahead.  I do realize not all our problems are of Obama's making and there are some limits as to how much control the POTUS has over economic issues. 

I'd like to know what specific policy initiatives you'd like to hear for his second term.  Please keep this from devolving into personal attacks and ad hominems.

I'll make this simple and break it down into several categories-

Debt and deficit reduction/budget:

Environmental issues:

Overall economy:

Unemployment:

Entitlements/government aid:

High oil costs/energy:

Foreign policy:

Social issues:

Any additional issues not covered by the sub sets above:

Sheeeesh, Crownan. This looks like a set up to argue over issues.

The economy is fine compared to where it was when Bush gave up 4 years and three weeks ago. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month. Today, we are hiring 200,000 a month. The stock exchange gave smart people a chance to recapture their loses incurred resulting from an out of control economy fraught with high risk de-regulated credit default swaps. The housing market is coming back after an insane hangover. Banks have stabilized. You have one issue: debt. And not really an issue if we can get growth to %3 by spending more money.

Obama has passed the foreign policy test. Romney not only failed it but was a draft dodger and did not even mention the troops or what he will do in defense of our Nation.

When I hear the GOPeabaggers crying they're going to "take our country back" it makes me want to puke. You won't hear that type of slanderous chant.

FOUR MORE YEARS!

This is the second time that I have heard draft dodging today. What military did Obama serve in?

A side note. I didn't serve in the Military but I signed up for the draft and War somehow side stepped me. I dodged nothing.

Quote from: DolfanBob on September 04, 2012, 05:02:38 PM
This is the second time that I have heard draft dodging today. What military did Obama serve in?

A side note. I didn't serve in the Military but I signed up for the draft and War somehow side stepped me. I dodged nothing.

Obama's eligibility during peacetime payed little at the time and so he chose education and community service.

Romney left the country to avoid the draft. I do question his authenticity when he claimed to be a missionary. He may have been born here, but I'm not certain he'd be considered normal. Have we ever had a missionary in the oval office? I can't trust a person who never drinks. Hendrix would ask Mittens: "are you experienced?"

I guess folks all forgot about the biggest draft dodger of all this election, Joe Biden. Biggest damned coward of the bunch. And. yep, Obama will go down as a fantastic foreign leader... ::)

What going full retard looks and sounds like:

Quote from: Teatownclown on September 04, 2012, 05:27:17 PM
Romney left the country to avoid the draft. I do question his authenticity when he claimed to be a missionary. He may have been born here, but I'm not certain he'd be considered normal. Have we ever had a missionary in the oval office? I can't trust a person who never drinks. Hendrix would ask Mittens: "are you experienced?"

It's kind of standard protocol for Mormon's to do mission work for a few years. Am I wrong on this one. I always remember the sports teams at BYU have kids of all ages because they would take time off for mission work for a few years. Not that unusual. Maybe the timing was convenient, I really don't know.

Quote from: nathanm on September 04, 2012, 04:48:07 PM
Your timing is off. Unemployment is lower now than it was when Obama took office. Not by much, mind you, but lower. Personal Income is also higher than it was when Obama took office. Housing prices are indeed lower and haven't really trended back upwards. Not surprising, given the oversupply. As far as entitlements go, it depends on what you count as an entitlement. Some transfer payments (which includes Social Security, Medicare, and UI, in addition to other things) are higher, some are lower.

Uh, except for these darned facts:

QuoteAmerican household median annual incomes have fallen 4.8% since the recession ended, from $53,508 in June 2009 -- when the recession technically ended -- to $50,964 in June of this year, a study found.

But for some subgroups, such as African Americans and those without a college degree, the declines were even starker, according to a study conducted by Sentier Research, an Annapolis, Md.-based research group.

The nearly 5% decline during the recovery is even larger than the 2.6% drop in median income during the recession.

That adds to a total drop of 7.2% since December 2007 when the recession began, according to the study.

"This latest report continues our efforts to help chronicle one important dimension of the economic hardships now being experienced by a large number of American households," wrote co-author Gordon Green. "Based on our data, almost every group is worse off now than it was three years ago, with the exception of households with householders 65 years old and over."

For some, the effects of the recession were much more pronounced:

-- For households headed by those between the ages of 25 and 34, real median annual income fell 8.9% from $54,520 in June 2009 to $49,659.

-- The opposite occurred for households headed by those 65 to 74 years old. For this age bracket, income rose by 6.5% from $39,548 to $42,113 during the same three-year period.

-- Regionally, the drops were disparate. Households in the West region saw a drop of 8.5% -- from $59,065 to $54,071 -- compared with the Midwest's 1.1% decline.

-- Perhaps the starkest drop was among African American households, which saw median income drop 11.1% from $36,567 to $32,498.

The report also found that in blue states, where Democrats have strongholds, income levels were down 5.2%, compared with red states, which were down 5%. In swing states, median household income dropped by 5.7% to $51,430.

The Sentier Research analysis follows this week's news that the middle class has been steadily shrinking.

A report by the Pew Research Center found that the middle class fell to to 51% of the population in 2011 from 61% in 1971.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-household-income-fell-during-economic-recovery-study-finds-20120823,0,6601675.story

As well, unemployment was 6.1% four years ago in August 2008 and gas prices are at or above Aug. 2008 levels.  The question was: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"  It gets even worse though if you were to compare fuel prices in Jan. of '09 when Obama took office, national average was $1.84 at the time. U-6 unemployment was 14.2% in Jan. '09 and after trending down as low as 14.5% in March and April of this year, as of July it's 15%.

Quote from: Teatownclown on September 04, 2012, 04:56:57 PM
Sheeeesh, Crownan. This looks like a set up to argue over issues.

The economy is fine compared to where it was when Bush gave up 4 years and three weeks ago. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month. Today, we are hiring 200,000 a month. The stock exchange gave smart people a chance to recapture their loses incurred resulting from an out of control economy fraught with high risk de-regulated credit default swaps. The housing market is coming back after an insane hangover. Banks have stabilized. You have one issue: debt. And not really an issue if we can get growth to %3 by spending more money.

Obama has passed the foreign policy test. Romney not only failed it but was a draft dodger and did not even mention the troops or what he will do in defense of our Nation.

When I hear the GOPeabaggers crying they're going to "take our country back" it makes me want to puke. You won't hear that type of slanderous chant.

FOUR MORE YEARS!

So you don't have a wish list of things you'd like to see POTUS Obama address as objectives for his second term or are you simply afraid of a debate over them?  I'd really like to see what others would like to hear come from this convention.  I honestly am not spring loaded to argue over them, I'm more interested to hear what his supporters are wanting to see in new policy initiatives. 

Obviously the recovery is going much slower than anyone would like and on social issues, he appears to still be lagging in things more progressive voters like yourself would like.  Well he did finally come clean about his stance on gay marriage. 

Quote from: Conan71 on September 05, 2012, 11:51:44 AM
So you don't have a wish list of things you'd like to see POTUS Obama address as objectives for his second term or are you simply afraid of a debate over them?  I'd really like to see what others would like to hear come from this convention.  I honestly am not spring loaded to argue over them, I'm more interested to hear what his supporters are wanting to see in new policy initiatives. 

Obviously the recovery is going much slower than anyone would like and on social issues, he appears to still be lagging in things more progressive voters like yourself would like.  Well he did finally come clean about his stance on gay marriage. 

I want him to do what is right without weighing it on the political scales for so long.

Example: He was always for gay marriage but it took a slip from Biden to draw him out.

Equality Issues when viewed through the rearview mirror of history will prove to have been the right thing to do.
Humanistic Immigrant reform is the right thing to do.
Lets put people first and politics second.

Quote from: carltonplace on September 05, 2012, 12:18:43 PM
I want him to do what is right without weighing it on the political scales for so long.

Example: He was always for gay marriage but it took a slip from Biden to draw him out.

Equality Issues when viewed through the rearview mirror of history will prove to have been the right thing to do.
Humanistic Immigrant reform is the right thing to do.
Lets put people first and politics second.

Lets put people first and government second.

If President Obama presents a platform where Government:
Divorces itself from business, no more GM, Solyndra, Bank of America, or any "too big to fail" BS.
Provides equal opportunity for all energy production, not just his favorites.
Gives parents the choice on where to spend their educational dollars (private or public).
Gives everyone a choice to take their SS (currently averaging 1.23%) and divert to securities that actually produce a return insulated from politician plunder.
Gives everyone the choice to replace their medicare with private alternatives, also insulated from politician plunder.
Promotes a progressive reduction in taxation across the board.
Simplifies or eliminates much of the tax code.
Offers to work with his own democrats in the senate on completing and passing a budget instead of just delivering ridiculous documents that his own party won't even bring to the floor for a vote.
Gets rid of Obamacare and the uncertainty holding back employers. 
Creates a national exchange for health insurance and eliminates state run monopolies.
Proposes a complete tort reform program.
Stops paying banks .25% not to loan money to people (why the hell is that still around?)
Phases out GITMO once all of the suspected terrorists and their friends have been killed by drones.
Promises to publish the names of the winners of his "Terror Tuesday Meetings."
Promises to praise job creators and embrace capitalism.
Agrees to sit down with The Simpson Bowels Committee and adopt their recommendations instead of doing absolutely and utterly nothing.
Agrees to stop saying "I will create a committee", or a "study" or any other delay mechanism designed to stall obvious decisions that have to be made.
Agrees to meet with house republicans and hash out differences on legislation.
Promises to his own constituants, not me, to make good on his 2008 campaign promises.
Admits himself to a 12 step program to stop blaming outside forces for everything that happens in his life.

If he promotes just half of these in his address at the DNC, I'll vote for him.  :D

^See why few people are taking this topic seriously?

Quote from: AquaMan on September 05, 2012, 01:01:37 PM
^See why few people are taking this topic seriously?

But those are all currently things roughly 1/2 (give or take a few percent per issue) really do agree with.  We need to stop demonizing those who don't hold our identical point of view, start looking at our similarities, and start working together to craft solutions to our nation's tough problems instead of viewing everything through a "liberal" or "conservative" lens.

We are seriously going to have to quit looking at opposing political and societal viewpoints as "radical" or "extreme".

Snark and condescension aren't solutions.

Since gaspar made a list of things Obama could do to earn his vote, I felt obliged to offer a list of things Romney could do to earn my vote.

Release ten years of his taxes. Taxes are a critical connection between the federal government and the individual and he has been running on a campaign of changes to tax laws. To not release his own personal taxes for review is an insult. He knows that this issue makes him look bad, but must also know that releasing this information will make him look worse.

Take all of his money out of the Cayman Islands and Swiss banks. Putting his money in overseas banks is frankly unAmerican. Our country's entire banking system is based on banks loaning money to individuals and businesses. What he is doing is legal for an American businessman, but wrong for an American president. What does it say to the rest of us that don't hide their money to avoid paying taxes? Tax loopholes like deducting $77,000 in expenses for your wife's horse are bad; taking money out of America is way worse. I expect more out of my presidents.

Stop saying you saved the Olympics. He saved them by getting a government bailout of $1.3 billion dollars. It was more U.S. taxpayer dollars than all the previous Olympic games combined. What did he do with the money? He spent it on stuff like $30 million on parking lots for privately-owned ski resorts owned by republican campaign dollar bundlers. To rail against federal spending and earmarks at every campaign stop while ignoring his own payments is the exact definition of hypocrisy.

Stop solely blaming Obama for the national debt. Yes, the debt has risen from $10.626 trillion to $16 trillion under Obama. That is a 50% increase. But under George Bush it went from $5.6 trillion to $10.6 trillion (an 89% increase). Both presidents did nothing to lower the national debt. Why even under Reagan it went from $907 billion to $3.3 trillion (a 350% increase). The national debt is a major problem, but it didn't start the day Obama took office.

Stop lying to the American people. He says that Obama has had massive defense budget cuts. The truth is that Obama defense spending has gone up every year and during his years went from $594 billion to $739 billion. Romney says he is not going to reduce taxes on the high income people, yet his tax plan gives the richest 1% a $60,000 reduction and the richest .1% a $264,000 tax reduction. Romney says the rate of regulatory burden has increased four-fold since Obama became president, yet the facts show that Obama approved 613 rules during his first 33 months, 4.7% fewer than Bush did in his first 33 months as president. Romney lies about defense to make people scared, then lies about his tax plan to get the poor to believe him, then lies to business community so they will support him. He is nothing more than an habitual liar.

Stop attacking ObamaCare. The differences between Romney healthcare solution while governor and Obama's healthcare solution for America is minute. Both had individual mandates that impose a tax penalty to people who don't buy insurance. Both require health care exchanges designed to create competition between providers. Both plans would provide subsidies to low-income individuals to help pay the costs. The only real difference is that Obama's version includes a patient bill of rights.

If Romney can do any three of these things, I would consider voting for him.

^^^^^^^

Bwahahahaha. Like you would EVER be the slightest inclined to vote for anyone but Obama (unless it was Hillary).

Now we are getting somewhere.  Thank you RM & Gaspar.  I'll take a turn now.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 04, 2012, 03:03:07 PM
Okay, well I don't expect President Obama to ask:

"Are you better off than you were four years ago?"   ;D

Whomever gets elected in November has a difficult task ahead.  I do realize not all our problems are of Obama's making and there are some limits as to how much control the POTUS has over economic issues. 

I'd like to know what specific policy initiatives you'd like to hear for his second term.  Please keep this from devolving into personal attacks and ad hominems.

I'll make this simple and break it down into several categories-

Debt and deficit reduction/budget:

I'd love to see President Obama adopt many of the same policies of the Clinton administration.  I honestly don't see reverting to the Clinton-era tax rates as being something which would doom the economy to eternity.  That time may not be now, but it may be in the next year or two should indicators start showing significant growth and unemployment finally starting to abate.  However, I'd like to see him frame it in something other than "The rich don't pay their fair share!".  Clinton did it without the wealth-envy rhetoric. Clinton also managed to work with an opposition Congress to reform entitlements, cut spending, and raise revenue. 

Obama would also do well to quit calling unpalatable taxes or another issue he knows is kryptonite to the GOP he inserts in initiatives as attempts at bi-partisanship. 

Environmental issues:

Provide tax incentives to companies who will willingly adopt more energy efficient and low emission technologies in their operations.  That's also another way to create jobs via sales and installation contractors and with manufacturers who build high efficiency/low emission furnaces, machinery, electric motors, etc. [/color]


Overall economy:

There needs to be a solution to health insurance and healthcare, no one is denying that.  The problem with Obamacare as it passed is thousands upon thousands of small businesses still have no idea what it means to their payroll costs.  We've got to remove this doubt which is one reason potential employers cite as being a wait and see issue before they will go on a hiring spree.  Certainly demand is an issue, but in previous downturns we've seen those willing to invest in the future with the promise of better times ahead.  That's not happening this time around.

Unemployment:

Provide healthy tax incentives for companies who will hire American workers and expand with American workers.  Make people accepting u/e benefits do contract or part time work for local, county, state, or federal agencies while they continue their search for permanent employment.

Entitlements/government aid:

As the economy improves, hopefully this trend reverses. Otherwise, remove incentives to seek long-term aid in place of employment.

High oil costs/energy:

Rein in the speculators.  That's the most immediate impact you can have.  There are no more supply issues than there were when gas was $2.00 per gallon.  With gas at nearly $4.00 a gallon, it's choking the rest of the consumer economy.  Yes, this will astound some people who know me, but I'd even be in favor of temporary price controls as a way to help free up cash for consumers to spend in other parts of the economy.

Stop playing lip service to alternative fuels and craft some sort of real energy policy.  This issue has been punted for the last 30+ years and he's in a position he could make a difference.  Rein in the speculative trading practices which are falsely inflating the price of oil, gasoline, and road diesel.  Reward the energy alternatives which make the most sense and which could be capable of standing on their own if they have the same sort of favorable treatment that the petroleum industry gets but quit investing money in technologies in which we simply cannot compete unless we are willing to erect tariffs to protect US companies in the energy business.  (Let's not pretend that petroleum is subsidy-free.)

Foreign policy:

Refuse to be the world's top cop and make NATO more fairly split the load on international police actions.  There's very little I disagree with on how he handled Libya and deposing Qadaffi.  I'd still love to see and accelerated timeline out of Afghanistan and Iraq.  I'd also like to see us not always be the first in line with foreign aid to every corrupt tin horn dictator after earthquakes, volcanos and tsunamis.  We have got to get our own house in order before we keep handing out bucket loads of borrowed cash to other nations.

Social issues:

Declare the war on drugs a fiscal failure as well as a failure to humanity and decriminalize marijuana.  It's effects are far less deleterious to society than that of alcohol.

Any additional issues not covered by the sub sets above:

None I can think of at the moment.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 04, 2012, 04:35:57 PM
Clinton managed to raise taxes without painting the wealthy as evil-doers, why hasn't Obama used the same tact?

Clinton didn't have the noise machine putting words in his mouth. Limbaugh was just getting started at the time, if you'll recall.

Quote from: nathanm on September 05, 2012, 03:53:48 PM
Clinton didn't have the noise machine putting words in his mouth. Limbaugh was just getting started at the time, if you'll recall.

Limbaugh ran hourly parodies about Clinton being a tax and spend liberal.

Obama doesn't need talking heads to do his bidding when he stands in front of the camera and says: "The rich aren't paying their fair share".

I honestly cannot ever remember a Clinton speech claiming that.  If you can find and quote one, please do.

Quote from: Conan71 on September 05, 2012, 03:59:57 PM
Limbaugh ran hourly parodies about Clinton being a tax and spend liberal.

Obama doesn't need talking heads to do his bidding when he stands in front of the camera and says: "The rich aren't paying their fair share".

I honestly cannot ever remember a Clinton speech claiming that.  If you can find and quote one, please do.

Maybe because during Clinton's presidency, the highest taxed were paying almost forty percent.  Bush's tax cuts reduced that to 35.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 05, 2012, 12:48:03 PM
Provides equal opportunity for all energy production, not just his favorites.

Like what, artificially improving the economics of coal in an environment when natural gas is stupidly cheap? You are asking for market manipulation.

Quote
Stops paying banks .25% not to loan money to people (why the hell is that still around?)

Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but the President, by design, does not control the Fed.

Quote
Phases out GITMO once all of the suspected terrorists and their friends have been killed by drones.

He tried. As I recall, Congress told him to love off.

Quote
Agrees to sit down with The Simpson Bowels Committee and adopt their recommendations instead of doing absolutely and utterly nothing.

The committee did not produce a recommendation, largely thanks to Paul Ryan voting against it because it included tax increases in addition to spending cuts.

Quote
Agrees to stop saying "I will create a committee", or a "study" or any other delay mechanism designed to stall obvious decisions that have to be made.

You just praised one of his committees. What's up with that?

Conan, you complained about facts, try this on for size. Real personal income (in 2005 dollars) since February 1 2009:

(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=adz)

Personal Income is up significantly.

(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=adC)

U6 is down a tick, the actual unemployment rate is pretty much unchanged, which is good when you consider that 02/01/2009 was prior to the bottoming out of the recession.

Hoss, more importantly, the capital gains tax rate was not less than half the top wage income tax rate.

Sentier's research utilizes BLS and US Census bureau data.

I suggest you read it:

http://www.sentierresearch.com/reports/Sentier_Household_Income_Trends_Report_June2012_07_24_12.pdf

http://www.sentierresearch.com

(http://www.sentierresearch.com/Charts/HouseholdIncomeIndex_UnemploymentRate_04_2012.jpg)

Quote from: Conan71 on September 05, 2012, 11:51:44 AM
So you don't have a wish list of things you'd like to see POTUS Obama address as objectives for his second term or are you simply afraid of a debate over them?  I'd really like to see what others would like to hear come from this convention.  I honestly am not spring loaded to argue over them, I'm more interested to hear what his supporters are wanting to see in new policy initiatives. 

Obviously the recovery is going much slower than anyone would like and on social issues, he appears to still be lagging in things more progressive voters like yourself would like.  Well he did finally come clean about his stance on gay marriage. 

TWO WORDS!

Supreme Court

I would vote for Obama if his balls were as big as this dogs.....

You can see where FRED gets its data. It's the same place. ;)

You may note that there is a difference between median household income and personal income. For someone who regularly poo-poohs any idea that income inequality is a problem, you sure seem rather interested in the median income today. Oh, that's right, it's something you can use to beat Obama about the head with. You really think that's something that Mitt Romney is going to do anything about?

You may be interested to know that the average wage of production and nonsupervisory workers is also up significantly since Obama took office. It was a hair over $18.40 an hour at the time, now it's a hair over $19.80. Yes, unemployment is high. For those who are working, however, the economy is looking surprisingly good, especially when compared to the rest of the world, where declining wages are the norm, outside of China and Australia, anyway.

I'll look at the study later and see if I can divine exactly where the divergence is.

interesting subliminal message....

Quote from: Breadburner on September 05, 2012, 04:28:00 PM
I would vote for Obama if his balls were as big as this dogs.....

That seems fair.

Quote from: Teatownclown on September 05, 2012, 04:40:13 PM

interesting subliminal message....

Meh. I'd rather go to White Castle.

Although it is a bit late, (because no one at the DNC will do this) but I would like to see someone point out the problems with the much heralded "Wall Street Reford" (i.e. Dodd-Frank). I think anyone with half a brain would conclude that the single greatest factor in bringing down the economy recently has been the sub-prime mortgage market. What did Dodd-Frank conveniently leave out of their reach? The ratings agencies (S&P & Moody's) and the GSE's (Fannie/Freddie). Who thinks this recession is a one time thing?

And all this bickering back and forth is really immaterial. Generally speaking, I would say that myself and a few others on here aren't arguing how certain things should be run by the government, but whether or not the federal government SHOULD be running/doing these things at all. For example, RomneyCare & ObamaCare are very similar, except for the glaring fact that the federal government should not have had the authority to do such a thing (although through a wacky Supreme Court decision, they apparently are, which is why Supreme Court selections are so dang important).

And the whole tax the rich thing is so old. They can say everyone needs to pay their fair share until the cows come home, but what are they really going to do about it, they're rich too. Does no one find it comical to have a rich dude (Obama or Romney) telling me (a not rich dude) that the rich need to pay their fair share. Seriously.

There, I just ranted on the three of the major planks of the Democratic platform.

Quote from: erfalf on September 05, 2012, 05:14:05 PM
Although it is a bit late, (because no one at the DNC will do this) but I would like to see someone point out the problems with the much heralded "Wall Street Reford" (i.e. Dodd-Frank). I think anyone with half a brain would conclude that the single greatest factor in bringing down the economy recently has been the sub-prime mortgage market. What did Dodd-Frank conveniently leave out of their reach? The ratings agencies (S&P & Moody's) and the GSE's (Fannie/Freddie). Who thinks this recession is a one time thing?

And all this bickering back and forth is really immaterial. Generally speaking, I would say that myself and a few others on here aren't arguing how certain things should be run by the government, but whether or not the federal government SHOULD be running/doing these things at all. For example, RomneyCare & ObamaCare are very similar, except for the glaring fact that the federal government should not have had the authority to do such a thing (although through a wacky Supreme Court decision, they apparently are, which is why Supreme Court selections are so dang important).

And the whole tax the rich thing is so old. They can say everyone needs to pay their fair share until the cows come home, but what are they really going to do about it, they're rich too. Does no one find it comical to have a rich dude (Obama or Romney) telling me (a not rich dude) that the rich need to pay their fair share. Seriously.

There, I just ranted on the three of the major planks of the Democratic platform.

Yeah.  Especially when one of those rich dudes shelters a smile-load of his money offshore.  The gawl!

Quote from: erfalf on September 05, 2012, 05:14:05 PM
And the whole tax the rich thing is so old. They can say everyone needs to pay their fair share until the cows come home, but what are they really going to do about it, they're rich too. Does no one find it comical to have a rich dude (Obama or Romney) telling me (a not rich dude) that the rich need to pay their fair share. Seriously.

Obama is pretty wealthy at this point, but not terrifically so like Romney. Obama's money so far has come from book sales. Granted, once he is no longer in office he will probably make a mint on speaking fees. Nonetheless, I don't really see the comedy in a rich guy telling me he should be required to pay more taxes. Seems pretty serious to me.

And once again, Fannie and Freddie were not into subprime in any big way (compared to the size of their book and the market, anyway). Their market share was abysmal in 2006-2008. Countrywide and others managed quite well on their own, just as they had been for the decade since LTCM. (LTCM's failure triggered a subprime meltdown, but the subprime market was tiny at that point)

Quote from: Hoss on September 05, 2012, 05:16:34 PM
Yeah.  Especially when one of those rich dudes shelters a smile-load of his money offshore.  The gawl!

Which as far as I know is perfectly legal. Maybe you should redirect your anger at the reason people do those sorts of things.

Quote from: erfalf on September 05, 2012, 05:36:27 PM
Which as far as I know is perfectly legal. Maybe you should redirect your anger at the reason people do those sorts of things.

What, that people are too greedy to pay even 14% tax?

Quote from: erfalf on September 05, 2012, 05:36:27 PM
Which as far as I know is perfectly legal. Maybe you should redirect your anger at the reason people do those sorts of things.

I don't mind that he does it, but why is he hiding it?

Quote from: nathanm on September 05, 2012, 05:36:07 PM
Obama is pretty wealthy at this point, but not terrifically so like Romney. Obama's money so far has come from book sales. Granted, once he is no longer in office he will probably make a mint on speaking fees. Nonetheless, I don't really see the comedy in a rich guy telling me he should be required to pay more taxes. Seems pretty serious to me.

And once again, Fannie and Freddie were not into subprime in any big way (compared to the size of their book and the market, anyway). Their market share was abysmal in 2006-2008. Countrywide and others managed quite well on their own, just as they had been for the decade since LTCM. (LTCM's failure triggered a subprime meltdown, but the subprime market was tiny at that point)

The two own a huge portion of the home loans and were extremely adversly effected. In addition, there is some extremely lax accounting standards within the two GSE with many re-statements.

Quote from: nathanm on September 05, 2012, 05:37:35 PM
What, that people are too greedy to pay even 14% tax?

Maybe that regulations are far more favorable to have operations/finances in offshore accounts. Coincidentally, I'd say at least a good chunk of the PE firms out there are based out of the Caymens. Just like virtually every corporation is a Delaware corporation. The rules are more favorable. Not because they can break the law easier (although some will no matter the location).

Quote from: Hoss on September 05, 2012, 05:38:43 PM
I don't mind that he does it, but why is he hiding it?

Just because he has accounts offshore does not mean he is hiding it for nefarious reasons. I wish that distrust of public figures was equally applied.  ;)

Quote from: erfalf on September 05, 2012, 05:45:07 PM
Just because he has accounts offshore does not mean he is hiding it for nefarious reasons. I wish that distrust of public figures was equally applied.  ;)

Spill what you know then..what?  You say you don't?   :o

Quote from: Hoss on September 05, 2012, 05:47:49 PM
Spill what you know then..what?  You say you don't?   :o

All I am saying is that having offshore accounts does NOT equal hiding something illegal.

It would be along the lines of me saying that because Obama grew up in Indonesia and went to a Muslim school that he is a Muslim that wasn't born in this country. One does not necessarily mean that the other occurred.

Quote from: erfalf on September 05, 2012, 05:52:21 PM
All I am saying is that having offshore accounts does NOT equal hiding something illegal.

It would be along the lines of me saying that because Obama grew up in Indonesia and went to a Muslim school that he is a Muslim that wasn't born in this country. One does not necessarily mean that the other occurred.

And all I'm saying is 'why doesn't he release the returns?'  Oh that's right, he got his wife to say they weren't releasing any more.  Got it.

Quote from: Hoss on September 05, 2012, 05:58:14 PM
And all I'm saying is 'why doesn't he release the returns?'  Oh that's right, he got his wife to say they weren't releasing any more.  Got it.

I don't remember, were you one of those birthers in 2008?

Quote from: erfalf on September 05, 2012, 05:59:32 PM
I don't remember, were you one of those birthers in 2008?

And this question is relevant how?

Quote from: Hoss on September 05, 2012, 06:00:51 PM
And this question is relevant how?

Well, a President being born in this country is decidedly more important than what is on a person's tax return. And if you think there is something illegal, I would advise against it. I would think it would be extremely unlikely that he hasn't been audited multiple times over the years. And I'm sure there is a zillion people that "know someone at the IRS" that would love to get there hands on something like that.

Quote from: erfalf on September 05, 2012, 06:02:55 PM
Well, a President being born in this country is decidedly more important than what is on a person's tax return. And if you think there is, I would advise against it. I would think it would be extremely unlikely that he hasn't been audited multiple times over the years. And I'm sure there is a zillion people that "know someone at the IRS" that would love to get there hands on something like that.

Oh good heavens.  Really?  Did you believe he wasn't?  I mean the guy was in the Illinois state house for quite a while, a US Senator for a term, and a Presidental candidate.  He produced a perfectly legal Hawaii BC.  No one ever asked John McCain to do so, even though he was born in the Canal Zone (which still makes him a legal US citizen).

And then the nutters continued calling him Muslim, a Kenyan, a Communist, also asking for him to provide his original birth certificate....but somehow asking Mittens to release more of his tax returns when he is running on his business acumen as a reason he should be president...when other Presidents have released up to 12 years or more....is not fair?

Really?  Wow.  That KoolAid must be really tasty where you live.

My grandfather once again, used to tell me 'where there's smoke, there is usually fire'.  In this case, the refrain from releasing the returns and outright stating they won't is something that is going to dog him until November.  Do I think he's done something illegal?  Probably not.  Do I think he's hiding the real amount of taxes he's paid over the years?

Once again. 'where there's smoke'....

Quote from: Conan71 on September 05, 2012, 03:45:22 PM
Now we are getting somewhere.  Thank you RM & Gaspar.  I'll take a turn now.

Yes, this will astound some people who know me, but I'd even be in favor of temporary price controls as a way to help free up cash for consumers to spend in other parts of the economy.

I believe that was tried by Nixon in the 70s.  The resulting gas lines probably used more gasoline than low tire pressure and bad tune ups combined.  I was fortunate enough to be a volunteer fireman in the Va Beach area and was able to buy some (limited quantities) of gasoline from the City of Va Beach if I couldn't get gasoline elsewhere.  Also, if you were a regular at a gas station, you were frequently allowed to fill up rather than just buy a few gallons depending on how much gas the station had available.

I think reining in the speculators is a good idea. Make them pay 100% up front for whatever they want to buy for the future.

Quote from: erfalf on September 05, 2012, 05:40:40 PM
The two own a huge portion of the home loans and were extremely adversly effected. In addition, there is some extremely lax accounting standards within the two GSE with many re-statements.

Yes, they were very much affected by the housing bubble. I didn't say there aren't/weren't problems there, I said they didn't cause the subprime implosion that set off the crisis. They just didn't buy that many subprime loans relative to other market players. They were simply more valuable as part of a CDO than they would have been as plain MBS issued by Fannie and Freddie. A CDO could be arranged to get a AAA rating, even if it was mostly subprime. A bare subprime MBS, however, did not have that feature.

Quote from: Hoss on September 05, 2012, 06:08:56 PM
Oh good heavens.  Really?  Did you believe he wasn't?  I mean the guy was in the Illinois state house for quite a while, a US Senator for a term,

I never believed he was not a natural born citizen of the US but being a natural born citizen is not a requirement for the Illinois State House or the US Senate.

Quote...but somehow asking Mittens to release more of his tax returns when he is running on his business acumen as a reason he should be president...

Why are you and other taxreturners not more interested in the tax returns of the companies he ran than his personal income tax.  That would be more indicative of his business success regardless of his personal success.

Quote from: nathanm on September 05, 2012, 04:32:00 PM
You can see where FRED gets its data. It's the same place. ;)

You may note that there is a difference between median household income and personal income. For someone who regularly poo-poohs any idea that income inequality is a problem, you sure seem rather interested in the median income today. Oh, that's right, it's something you can use to beat Obama about the head with. You really think that's something that Mitt Romney is going to do anything about?

You may be interested to know that the average wage of production and nonsupervisory workers is also up significantly since Obama took office. It was a hair over $18.40 an hour at the time, now it's a hair over $19.80. Yes, unemployment is high. For those who are working, however, the economy is looking surprisingly good, especially when compared to the rest of the world, where declining wages are the norm, outside of China and Australia, anyway.

I'll look at the study later and see if I can divine exactly where the divergence is.

I can save you some time.  Personal income includes all classes including the exceedingly rich.  FRED graphs are interesting but include little interpretation of data which makes it dangerous to swing them around like a battle axe.  ;)  

It's important to point out that the middle class has lost $4000 a year in income while gas is $2.00 higher per gallon higher, and the average family is paying $3000 more per year in health insurance premiums than they were in Jan. 2009 and their groceries, clothing, and anything else dependent on fuel to get to market is higher.  Their buying power is worse now than it was four years ago.  That's a considerable reason why the economy is still staggering.

I personally don't care about income inequality.  I don't obsess about it.  I've personally had two of my better years the last two income-wise.  I can also say it's not been a specific policy of Obama's which resulted in it.  Investment from the oil patch independent of any federal action still fuels the Oklahoma economy.  Actually, from a purely selfish standpoint I'd love to see much tighter emissions restrictions on any gas burning appliance of over a 1 million BTU per hour firing rate.  I'd also love to see more incentives for Bio-D and ethanol.  Again, because my company is uniquely positioned to take advantage of such things.  I realize the country is bigger than me and my profit/retirement motives though.  Tougher emissions restrictions would result in more small businesses either suffering high costs to comply, cutting costs to comply, or simply closing shop.

What concerns me, and why it's important to keep the statistics at the forefront is that it worries me people would really turn around and vote for someone who promised he would improve the condition of the middle class while the exact opposite has happened.  I don't see a single result of the last four years which appears to show the middle class has improved under the Obama administration.  That's a key talking point of Democrats and it shows an abject failure.  

I'm not holding President responsible for any of these metrics any different than any other presidents have benefitted from them or been castigated by them.

Funny that you're suddenly concerned about a trend that you not only have poo-poohed previously, but did in this very post. A trend that has continued unabated since about 1978. Again, average wages for nonsupervisory employees are up. Yes, there are many unemployed dragging household income numbers lower. The average job, however, is paying more. This bodes well for the condition of the middle class should we manage to get job growth to a more reasonable level for the current unemployment rate. It would help if the Europeans would stop screwing around and fix their problems, but they're too stuck on austerity.

It's also a little funny that you blame Obama for the meltdown that occurred on his predecessor's watch. I grant that there has been less progress than I (or most anyone) would like in repairing the damage, but we have gone from an actively shrinking economy to an actively growing one, if not quite robustly. More would be better, but it's hard to do more when the House won't even consider any proposal that has a chance at helping anything before the election.

Quote from: nathanm on September 05, 2012, 10:41:44 PM
Funny that you're suddenly concerned about a trend that you not only have poo-poohed previously, but did in this very post. A trend that has continued unabated since about 1978. Again, average wages for nonsupervisory employees are up. Yes, there are many unemployed dragging household income numbers lower. The average job, however, is paying more. This bodes well for the condition of the middle class should we manage to get job growth to a more reasonable level for the current unemployment rate. It would help if the Europeans would stop screwing around and fix their problems, but they're too stuck on austerity.

It's also a little funny that you blame Obama for the meltdown that occurred on his predecessor's watch. I grant that there has been less progress than I (or most anyone) would like in repairing the damage, but we have gone from an actively shrinking economy to an actively growing one, if not quite robustly. More would be better, but it's hard to do more when the House won't even consider any proposal that has a chance at helping anything before the election.

But you have to remember that to many of the Republicans, of which I keep hearing them call Obama the "Messiah", he should be able to spin silk from a sow's ear.  See what I did there?

I defended other presidents on this as well (including Republicans).  Presidents can influence the purse strings, but they don't control them.  I've never been able to get a tea party loon to understand that.

Quote from: Hoss on September 05, 2012, 10:46:40 PM
Presidents can influence the purse strings, but they don't control them. 

Except, of course, GW Bush who single handedly destroyed life as we know it in the USA without any outside factors to assist him.

Here's a great message coming from the convention...

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/09/05/death-threat-from-dnc-delegate-mitt-romney-i-would-like-to-kill-him/

The new Democrat symbol:

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9i3iamHPa1rumxjjo1_500.gif)

Quote from: erfalf on September 05, 2012, 06:02:55 PM
Well, a President being born in this country is decidedly more important than what is on a person's tax return.

No. It is not.

Did you ask to see John McCain's birth certificate? No you didn't. He was born in Panama.
Romney's father ran for President and he was born in Mexico.

Obama has provided his birth certificate. If you mention this again, you will hereby labeled erfool.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 06, 2012, 06:23:11 AM
Well, a President being born in this country is decidedly more important than what is on a person's tax return.

No. It is not.

Did you ask to see John McCain's birth certificate? No you didn't. He was born in Panama.
Romney's father ran for President and he was born in Mexico.

You may not think it is more important but it is a legal requirement for the President of the USA to be a natural born citizen of the USA.  That does not mean the candidate had to be born in the USA.  Having  parents (I think even just one qualifies) that are US citizens is good enough.

If that were the case then why did the birthers drag this out (and continue to do so since 2008).  The brain wiring must be defective.

The point was that harping on Romney's tax returns is akin to harping on the birth certificates. They are both crazy and it is highly unlikely that anything would come of either of them.

There are a few words that just send Obamanauts crazy.

Quote from: erfalf on September 06, 2012, 08:25:56 AM
The point was that harping on Romney's tax returns is akin to harping on the birth certificates. They are both crazy and it is highly unlikely that anything would come of either of them.

There are a few words that just send Obamanauts crazy.

Apple, meet orange.

One has been proven (birth certificate).

The other hasn't been released, i.e., not proven.

Quote from: Hoss on September 06, 2012, 08:27:20 AM
Apple, meet orange.

One has been proven (birth certificate).

The other hasn't been released, i.e., not proven.

Be patient, Romney has 3 years to release his tax returns by your standards.  ;D

Quote from: erfalf on September 06, 2012, 08:29:33 AM
Be patient, Romney has 3 years to release his tax returns by your standards.  ;D

If its not an issue though then why does the media still talk about it?  Oh, double standard.  That's right.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

Quote from: Hoss on September 06, 2012, 08:33:32 AM
If its not an issue though then why does the media still talk about it?  Oh, double standard.  That's right.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

Who outside of Tingles still talks about the birth certificate in the media?

Quote from: erfalf on September 06, 2012, 08:34:23 AM
Who outside of Tingles still talks about the birth certificate in the media?

I'm talking about the tax returns.

But while we're on it, anytime the Hairpiece speaks, it's usually about this.  Because he can't stand to be out of the spotlight.

Do you know who started the tradition of presidential candidates releasing tax returns? He thought it important for candidates to be open with the American people.

George Romney

When a candidate builds his campaign on taxes, his personal taxes are relevant.

If Obama builds a campaign on birthing children, his birth certificate would become relevant.

Quote from: swake on September 06, 2012, 08:43:34 AM
Do you know who started the tradition of presidential candidates releasing tax returns? He thought it important for candidates to be open with the American people.

George Romney

Or Adlai Stevenson 15 years earlier, but who's counting. Ironically it was the crook Nixon who cajoled them into it.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 06, 2012, 08:45:38 AM
When a candidate builds his campaign on taxes, his personal taxes are relevant.

How so? If he pays the legal amount required by law. How does his tax return have anything to do with what he thinks taxes should or shouldn't be?

Do you not believe people have not seen his tax returns? Thousands of IRS employees have access to his returns.

There must be something really damaging for him to refuse to release them.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 06, 2012, 09:02:44 AM
Do you not believe people have not seen his tax returns? Thousands of IRS employees have access to his returns.

There must be something really damaging for him to refuse to release them.

If he releases them, it becomes more fodder to try and distract people's attention from:

-23 million unemployed or under-employed
-A shrinking middle class
-$6 Trillion in new debt
-$4.00 gasoline

etc. ad nauseum.

We already know the wealthy have many ways to shelter income and I suspect Romney has exploited every legal means possible to do so as is his legal right.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 06, 2012, 09:02:44 AM
Do you not believe people have not seen his tax returns? Thousands of IRS employees have access to his returns.

There must be something really damaging for him to refuse to release them.

Exactly, thousands of IRS employees have seen them and have nothing to report.

The only thing likely in those returns is that Romney is handsomely wealthy, which to date is still perfectly legal.

IRS employees can't leak them without being fired.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 06, 2012, 09:15:02 AM
IRS employees can't leak them without being fired.

I think you just answered your own question. There's nothing to see.

Quote from: erfalf on September 06, 2012, 09:11:43 AM
Exactly, thousands of IRS employees have seen them and have nothing to report.

The only thing likely in those returns is that Romney is handsomely wealthy, which to date is still perfectly legal.

We have the Mother Teresa syndrome. Our President can be somewhat wealthy, just not to much.
He would still be POTUS. Just the P would stand for Pauper.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 06, 2012, 09:15:02 AM
IRS employees can't leak them without being fired.

He was required to file SF278 with the FEC to be approved for candidacy. This lists all assets, liabilities, and valuations including tax liabilities.  It also requires him to list all business dealings, assets and liabilities outside of the United states.  The FEC seems to have approved the guy.

I think asking a candidate to splay his tax returns or medical records or college records is quite discriminatory, and is not a requirement for candidacy. As long as his dealings, and filings deemed ethical and legal by the FEC, thats good with me.  

The requirement for public biopsy of a candidate would only serve to eliminate many good candidates from the field though public discrimination.  I think that anyone who feels a candidate is unworthy of office because they choose not to disclose private information should probably not vote for that candidate.

Ultimately when you are voting, your responsibility is to vote your conscious.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 06, 2012, 09:51:52 AM
He was required to file SF278 with the FEC to be approved for candidacy. This lists all assets, liabilities, and valuations including tax liabilities.  It also requires him to list all business dealings, assets and liabilities outside of the United states.  The FEC seems to have approved the guy.

I think asking a candidate to splay his tax returns or medical records or college records is quite discriminatory, and is not a requirement for candidacy. As long as his dealings, and filings deemed ethical and legal by the FEC, thats good with me.  

The requirement for public biopsy of a candidate would only serve to eliminate many good candidates from the field though public discrimination.  I think that anyone who feels a candidate is unworthy of office because they choose not to disclose private information should probably not vote for that candidate.

Ultimately when you are voting, your responsibility is to vote your conscious.

Which is why I say he probably didn't do anything illegal.

However, what is (and what was in the past) his effective tax rate?  For someone who is running on his business record, he's being awfully secretive about his taxes.

Quote from: Hoss on September 06, 2012, 09:53:49 AM
Which is why I say he probably didn't do anything illegal.

However, what is (and what was in the past) his effective tax rate?  For someone who is running on his business record, he's being awfully secretive about his taxes.

Again, the two have nothing to do with each other. A personal tax rate and a person's business savvy are not linked in any way. Trust me, I know tons of business savvy types who couldn't find their way around a 1040 without a map.



Edit: Besides, do you think Romney prepared his own tax return. His tax return is more an indications of PWC's competence than of Romney's.

Quote from: Hoss on September 06, 2012, 09:53:49 AM
Which is why I say he probably didn't do anything illegal.

However, what is (and what was in the past) his effective tax rate?  For someone who is running on his business record, he's being awfully secretive about his taxes.

If he's paid over 20% I'll be disappointed and probably not vote for him.  With all of the deductions, loop-holes, and shelters in the 6,000 pages of tax code we have, I would expect a good business man to do his best to take advantage of that.

When someone who is very wealthy is calling for tax cuts to the tax rates on the wealthy when as a wealthy person he's already paying a rate lower than many in the middle class, his taxes are an issue. Period.

When I apply for a job I have to agree to a credit check, this is no different. He should show his taxes with all the tax dodges only the very wealthy have access to. He's obviously ashamed of these tax dodges, he should be. And shame on him for largely running on lowering his own taxes even more.

Worse than that, Romney wants to finance those cuts on the wealthy by removing tax deductions. There are only two deductions anywhere close to large enough to help close that gap. Charitable giving and Mortgage Interest Paid. Those will directly increase my taxes. Will increase taxes on most of the middle class. By a large amount.

Romney is apply for a job. If he gets this job he wants to decrease his taxes by raising mine. On a personal level, screw him. From an economic perspective, screw him and the horse he rode in on.  Removing the mortgage interest deduction will increase the cost of owning an existing home and will drive thousands, maybe millions more people into foreclosure by making existing home loans much more expensive. It will create the environment for another Great Depression. Make no mistake, that's what we were staring at four years ago, and his plan would take us there again.

Lets break that down. . .

Quote from: swake on September 06, 2012, 10:31:03 AM
When someone who is very wealthy is calling for tax cuts to the tax rates on the wealthy when as a wealthy person he's already paying a rate lower than many in the middle class, his taxes are an issue. Period. He's proposing tax breaks for everyone.  He pays the exact taxes that the law requires him to. Why should he pay more than what he is legally responsible for?

When I apply for a job I have to agree to a credit check, this is no different. He should show his taxes with all the tax dodges only the very wealthy have access to. He's obviously ashamed of these tax dodges, he should be. And shame on him for largely running on lowering his own taxes even more. When he applied to be a candidate he filed SF278 and supplied all of that information.  Again, he's running on lowering taxes for everyone because it preserves capital in the private sector.

Worse than that, Romney wants to finance those cuts on the wealthy by removing tax deductions. There are only two deductions anywhere close to large enough to help close that gap. Charitable giving and Mortgage Interest Paid. Those will directly increase my taxes. Will increase taxes on most of the middle class. By a large amount. Way to cherry pick, he's proposing a general simplification of the over 6,000 page tax code, something that needs to be done.  His plan calls for across the board reduction in taxes of 20% Eliminate the death tax, and the alternative minimum tax. Our 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, and he intends to lower that to 25% to make American business more competitive.  Additionally, if you make less than $200,000 a year, under his plan you wouldn't' be taxed on intrest and dividends.  That is designed to encourage the middle class to invest more.  As for your comment on charitable giving, that's not part of his platform.

Romney is apply for a job. If he gets this job he wants to decrease his taxes by raising mine. On a personal level, screw him. From an economic perspective, screw him and the horse he rode in on.  Removing the mortgage interest deduction will increase the cost of owning an existing home and will drive thousands, maybe millions more people into foreclosure by making existing home loans much more expensive. It will create the environment for another Great Depression. Make no mistake, that's what we were staring at four years ago, and his plan would take us there again.That is of course quite ridiculous, his plan calls for no tax increases on you.  It does however promise a 20% tax decrease.  Unless you file a long form taking advantage of hundreds of deductions, shelters, and loop holes, your taxes will go down. 

Here is the text of his proposed plan:
Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the nation's tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation's tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.


America's individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

• Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
• Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate the Death Tax
• Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

The U.S. economy's 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation's businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

• Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
• Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
• Switch to a territorial tax system
• Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Quote from: Gaspar on September 06, 2012, 10:59:16 AM
Lets break that down. . .

Here is the text of his proposed plan:
Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the nation's tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation's tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.

Individual Taxes

America's individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

• Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
• Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate the Death Tax
• Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy's 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation's businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

• Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
• Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
• Switch to a territorial tax system
• Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Your new avatar is quite appropriate.  It appears to be spinning...sheesh.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 06, 2012, 10:59:16 AM
Lets break that down. . .

Here is the text of his proposed plan:
Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the nation's tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation's tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.

Individual Taxes

America's individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

• Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
• Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate the Death Tax
• Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy's 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation's businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

• Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
• Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
• Switch to a territorial tax system
• Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Paying for his tax cuts by simplifying the tax code means removing deductions.  That's what makes the tax code complicated, all the deductions. The problem is that there are only two deductions that are large enough to come anywhere close to closing the gap in the budget his tax cuts create. Interest Tax Deduction and Charitable giving deduction.

He would cut my taxes by 20% while taking away these important deductions. That will raise my personal taxes, by a lot. And I am far from alone in that.

The next biggest deduction is retirement savings. That would probably have to go too. No more 401k, no more Roth IRA. Combine that will a voucher system for in place of Medicare and retirement is going to be fun. 

Even if you removed all these deductions from the code his tax cuts will still blow a $5 trillion hole in the budget. How exactly is that conservative again?

Quote from: swake on September 06, 2012, 10:31:03 AM
When someone who is very wealthy is calling for tax cuts to the tax rates on the wealthy when as a wealthy person he's already paying a rate lower than many in the middle class, his taxes are an issue. Period.

They are not listening.

They keep changing the topic to tax laws and not on Romney and his obligation to be open about what he pays the government. The standards are different when you run for President.

This issue will cost him the election. Period.

Quote from: swake on September 06, 2012, 11:21:00 AM


Paying for his tax cuts by simplifying the tax code means removing deductions.  That's what makes the tax code complicated, all the deductions. The problem is that there are only two deductions that are large enough to come anywhere close to closing the gap in the budget his tax cuts create. Interest Tax Deduction and Charitable giving deduction.

He would cut my taxes by 20% while taking away these important deductions. That will raise my personal taxes, by a lot. And I am far from alone in that.

The next biggest deduction is retirement savings. That would probably have to go too. No more 401k, no more Roth IRA. Combine that will a voucher system for in place of Medicare and retirement is going to be fun. 

Even if you removed all these deductions from the code his tax cuts will still blow a $5 trillion hole in the budget. How exactly is that conservative again?

He's not paying for his tax cuts by simplifying the tax code.  He is paying for his tax cuts by cutting spending.  Simplifying the tax code is mutually exclusive and simply needs to be done for a multitude of reasons that both political parties can agree on.

This is how he intends to "pay for" his tax cuts:

Mitt's Plan
         

After three years of President Obama, many now question whether we can ever return to fiscal sanity, let alone fiscal strength. A point of no return may well be approaching — a decade of huge deficits could drive our principal payments and interest rates beyond our reach while starving the economy of the capital it needs to grow.


Fortunately, the American economy's tremendous capacity for growth gives the country one more chance to correct course. Mitt Romney has spent his career executing turnarounds in the private sector, the Olympics, and state government. He will bring to Washington the turnaround philosophy it so badly needs.


Set Honest Goals: Cap Spending At 20 Percent Of GDP


Any turnaround must begin with clear and realistic goals. Optimistic projections cannot wish a problem away, they can only make it worse. As president, Mitt's goal will be to bring federal spending below 20 percent of GDP by the end of his first term:

• Reduced from 24.3 percent last year; in line with the historical trend between 18 and 20 percent
  
• Close to the tax revenue generated by the economy when healthy
  
• Requires spending cuts of approximately $500 billion per year in 2016 assuming robust economic recovery with 4% annual growth, and reversal of irresponsible Obama-era defense cuts
  

Take Immediate Action: Return Non-Security Discretionary Spending To Below 2008 Levels


Any turnaround must also stop the bleeding and reverse the most recent and dramatic damage:

• Send Congress a bill on Day One that cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board
  
• Pass the House Republican Budget proposal, rolling back President Obama's government expansion by capping non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels
  

Follow A Clear Roadmap: Build A Simpler, Smaller, Smarter Government


Most importantly, any turnaround must have a thoughtful, structured approach to achieving its goals. Mitt will attack the bloated budget from three angles:

• The Federal Government Should Stop Doing Things The American People Can't Afford, For Instance:
  
  
  
  • Repeal Obamacare — Savings: $95 Billion. President Obama's costly takeover of the health care system imposes an enormous and unaffordable obligation on the federal government while intervening in a matter that should be left to the states. Mitt will begin his efforts to repeal this legislation on Day One.
    
  • Privatize Amtrak — Savings: $1.6 Billion. Despite requirement that Amtrak operate on a for-profit basis, it continues to receive about $1.6 billion in taxpayer funds each year. Forty-one of Amtrak's 44 routes lost money in 2008 with losses ranging from $5 to $462 per passenger.
    
  • Reduce Subsidies For The National Endowments For The Arts And Humanities, The Corporation For Public Broadcasting, And The Legal Services Corporation — Savings: $600 Million. NEA, NEH, and CPB provide grants to supplement other sources of funding. LSC funds services mostly duplicative of those already offered by states, localities, bar associations and private organizations.
    
  • Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding — Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.
    
  • Reduce Foreign Aid — Savings: $100 Million. Stop borrowing money from countries that oppose America's interests in order to give it back to them in the form of foreign aid.
    
  
  If pursued with focus and discipline, Mitt's approach provides a roadmap to rescue the federal government from its present precipice. But that respite will be short-lived without a plan for the looming long-term threat posed by the unsustainable nature of existing entitlement obligations. Learn more about Mitt's proposals for entitlement reform: Medicare (http://www.mittromney.com/issues/medicare) and Social Security (http://www.mittromney.com/issues/social-security).
  
  
• Empower States To Innovate — Savings: >$100 billion
  
  
  
  • Block grants have huge potential to generate both superior results and cost savings by establishing local control and promoting innovation in areas such as Medicaid and Worker Retraining. Medicaid spending should be capped and increased each year by CPI + 1%. Department of Labor retraining spending should be capped and will increase in future years. These funds should then be given to the states to spend on their own residents. States will be free from Washington micromanagement, allowing them to develop innovative approaches that improve quality and reduce cost.
    
• Improve Efficiency And Effectiveness. Where the federal government should act, it must do a better job. For instance:
  
  
  
  • Reduce Waste And Fraud — Savings: $60 Billion. The federal government made $125 billion in improper payments last year. Cutting that amount in half through stricter enforcement and harsher penalties yields returns many times over on the investment.
    
  • Align Federal Employee Compensation With The Private Sector — Savings: $47 Billion. Federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent when benefits are taken into account. This must be corrected.
    
  • Repeal The Davis-Bacon Act — Savings: $11 Billion. Davis-Bacon forces the government to pay above-market wages, insulating labor unions from competition and driving up project costs by approximately 10 percent.
    
  • Reduce The Federal Workforce By 10 Percent Via Attrition — Savings: $4 Billion. Despite widespread layoffs in the private sector, President Obama has continued to grow the federal payrolls. The federal workforce can be reduced by 10 percent through a "1-for-2" system of attrition, thereby reducing the number of federal employees while allowing the introduction of new talent into the federal service.
    
  • Consolidate agencies and streamline processes to cut costs and improve results in everything from energy permitting to worker retraining to trade negotiation.
    

         
   

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 06, 2012, 11:51:28 AM
They keep changing the topic to tax laws and not on Romney and his obligation to be open about what he pays the government.

Do you have a legal reference for that "obligation"?   I understand tradition but tradition does not make an obligation.

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 06, 2012, 12:13:27 PM
Do you have a legal reference for that "obligation"?   I understand tradition but tradition does not make an obligation.

ob·li·ga·tion   
NOUN:

The act of binding oneself by a social, legal, or moral tie.

A social, legal, or moral requirement, such as a duty, contract, or promise that compels one to follow or avoid a particular course of action.

A course of action imposed by society, law, or conscience by which one is bound or restricted.

He wants people to trust him...look at that first example each time.

Quote from: swake on September 06, 2012, 11:21:00 AM
He would cut my taxes by 20% while taking away these important deductions. That will raise my personal taxes, by a lot. And I am far from alone in that.

Have you actually done the math?  I use the standard deduction.

I do the math every year I do my taxes.

It's a myth that Republicans are good for the economy. Romney's plan is more failed right wing garbage that will do nothing to help our current job problems.


Here's the real historical facts. Unemployment started going up as we entered the recession at 5% in April 2008 when there were 146.1 jobs in the economy, by Obama's first full month in office, Feb '09 the rate was up to 8.3% with 141.6 million jobs, 4.5 million less than in April. The unemployment rate peaked in Oct '09 when Obama had been in office for seven months at 10% with 138.4 million jobs. The rate has been falling since and is back down to 8.3% but now with 142.2 million jobs.

Bush entered office with 136.6 million jobs in the economy, eight years later even before the full weight of the recession that was created under his watch was felt we were only at 142.2 million jobs in Bush's last month in office. Only 4.6 million jobs were created in his eight years. Millions more were lost right after he left office bottoming out at 138 million jobs in December '09, just 1.4 million more than when Bush entered office.

Since Obama took office we have only added 600k jobs but if you look at the number since the bottom in Dec '09 we have added 4.2 million jobs in three years as compared to Bush's 4.6 million in eight.

Other presidents:
Clinton is the gold standard and created 18.5 million jobs in 8 years
Bush I created a paltry 2.3 million jobs in 4 years
Reagan did very well creating 16.5 million jobs in 8 years
Carter actually did pretty well with 9.7 million jobs in 4 years
Nixon/Ford were also pretty mediocre with only 11.3 million jobs in 8 years

Tell me again which party is good for business and the economy? From 1971 to 2001 Democrats were in office for 12 years and created 28.2 million jobs for an average of 2.35 million per year in office. Republicans were in office for 20 years and only created 30.1 million jobs for an average of 1.5 million per year. Obama and Bush II would bring down these averages but the recession was created under Bush's watch.

Republicans aren't good for business

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 06, 2012, 12:17:24 PM
ob·li·ga·tion   
NOUN:
The act of binding oneself by a social, legal, or moral tie.
A social, legal, or moral requirement, such as a duty, contract, or promise that compels one to follow or avoid a particular course of action.
A course of action imposed by society, law, or conscience by which one is bound or restricted.
He wants people to trust him...look at that first example each time.

I see a lot of want by you and others for the tax returns but we will have to disagree on obligation.

Now, just for comparison, lets look at how President Obama addresses the exact same two issues of taxation and spending.

His platform for taxes from his website:
President Obama has cut taxes for middle-class families and small businesses. One of the first things he did in office was cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. He has also signed 18 tax cuts for small businesses and extended the payroll tax cut for all American workers and their families, putting an extra $1,000 in the typical middle-class family's pocket.
For too long, the U.S. tax code has benefited the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. A third of the 400 highest income taxpayers paid an average rate of 15 percent or less in 2008.

That's why President Obama proposed the Buffett Rule, asking millionaires and billionaires to do their fair share. But if you're one of the 98 percent of American families who make under $250,000 a year, your taxes won't go up.

The President has asked Congress to take action to reform our tax code and close tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires, as well as hedge fund managers, private jet owners, and oil companies.

He proposes to leave the system as is for you, and raise taxes on the wealthy and on businesses.  So, by comparison, you would see your rate reduced by 20% under Romney.  Using the typical Democrat logic (the absence of a cuts equals raises) you can argue that President Obama is going to raise taxes on the poor and middle class by 20% over Romney.

His platform for spending from his website:
There is no such part of the Obama platform.

Spending is obviously unimportant to him as long as he is engaged in class warfare.  His list of issues only offers very thin explanations (a paragraph or so) with no details:
Jobs and the Economy
Education
Energy and the Environment
Equal Rights
Health Care
National Security
Taxes
Women's Health

The presentation of his platform is very similar to his speeches, and the "budget frameworks" presented to congress.  They are vague, emotional, and devoid of detail.  When pushed for action or more granular facts, President Obama resorts to the formation of a committee, or study.  When presented with such detail by said committee, he refutes and relapses back to vague and emotional stances.  

He is jello, and jello is hard to pin to the wall.

Quote from: swake on September 06, 2012, 12:22:07 PM
I do the math every year I do my taxes.

Every year you do the comparison of a 20% cut in taxes vs. removing the mortgage deduction and charitable giving deduction?

You must be way over extended on your house payments.  I may not like the charities you are giving to and thereby raising my taxes to make up for your deduction.  You need to post on TNF what charities you give to and how much.

Mr Gold Standard Clinton was fortunate during his terms to have a tech bubble.  Jimmy Carter was dealt a bad hand but was unable to fix the problems.  Manufacturing in some segments in the US was already on the way down at the end of Clinton's 2nd term.  I have stated before that I considered voting for Algore so they would get the proper credit for that downturn.  I couldn't actually do it at the election though.  

Quote from: Gaspar on September 06, 2012, 12:30:21 PM
The President has asked Congress to take action to reform our tax code and close tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires, as well as hedge fund managers, private jet owners, and oil companies.

He must have buddies with big yachts.  Lucky for me my airplane has a piston engine. (And not a very big one at that.)

Quote from: swake on September 06, 2012, 12:22:07 PM
I do the math every year I do my taxes.

It's a myth that Republicans are good for the economy. Romney's plan is more failed right wing garbage that will do nothing to help our current job problems.


Here's the real historical facts. Unemployment started going up as we entered the recession at 5% in April 2008 when there were 146.1 jobs in the economy, by Obama's first full month in office, Feb '09 the rate was up to 8.3% with 141.6 million jobs, 4.5 million less than in April. The unemployment rate peaked in Oct '09 when Obama had been in office for seven months at 10% with 138.4 million jobs. The rate has been falling since and is back down to 8.3% but now with 142.2 million jobs.

Bush entered office with 136.6 million jobs in the economy, eight years later even before the full weight of the recession that was created under his watch was felt we were only at 142.2 million jobs in Bush's last month in office. Only 4.6 million jobs were created in his eight years. Millions more were lost right after he left office bottoming out at 138 million jobs in December '09, just 1.4 million more than when Bush entered office.

Since Obama took office we have only added 600k jobs but if you look at the number since the bottom in Dec '09 we have added 4.2 million jobs in three years as compared to Bush's 4.6 million in eight.

Other presidents:
Clinton is the gold standard and created 18.5 million jobs in 8 years
Bush I created a paltry 2.3 million jobs in 4 years
Reagan did very well creating 16.5 million jobs in 8 years
Carter actually did pretty well with 9.7 million jobs in 4 years
Nixon/Ford were also pretty mediocre with only 11.3 million jobs in 8 years

Tell me again which party is good for business and the economy? From 1971 to 2001 Democrats were in office for 12 years and created 28.2 million jobs for an average of 2.35 million per year in office. Republicans were in office for 20 years and only created 30.1 million jobs for an average of 1.5 million per year. Obama and Bush II would bring down these averages but the recession was created under Bush's watch.

Republicans aren't good for business

President	Took office	Jobs at start	Jobs at end	Change	Pct. change
Truman	4/12/1945	41,443,000	50,145,000	8,702,000	21%
Eisenhower	1/20/1953	50,145,000	53,683,000	3,538,000	7%
Kennedy	1/20/1961	53,683,000	57,255,000	3,572,000	7%
Johnson	11/22/1963	57,255,000	69,438,000	12,183,000	21%
Nixon	1/20/1969	69,438,000	78,619,000	9,181,000	13%
Ford	8/9/1974	78,619,000	80,692,000	2,073,000	3%
Carter	1/20/1977	80,692,000	91,031,000	10,339,000	13%
Reagan	1/20/1981	91,031,000	107,133,000	16,102,000	18%
Bush	1/20/1989	107,133,000	109,725,000	2,592,000	2%
Clinton	1/20/1993	109,725,000	132,469,000	22,744,000	21%
Bush	1/20/2001	132,469,000	133,549,000	1,080,000	1%
Obama	1/20/2009	133,549,000	130,462,000	-3,087,000	-2%

I'd rather use the figures from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.   

Considering Clinton left office at the peak of a tech bubble, it is actually quit remarkable that the economy was able to more or less keep the number of jobs constant over that first term of Bush II. That being said, I would like to know exactly what policies are bad for the economy, you know the Republican ones that have never worked.  :)

And as much as I would like to see the federal government run a balanced budget, running a deficit is actually not harmful on the economy as long as the credit worthiness of the government remains in tact (which it is tetering). It is the spending that most directly effects the overall economy. And generally speaking more government spending causes more dislocation within the economy, thus hindering the effectiveness of the private economy. Unfortunately neither party seems to keen on actually doing things that would rectify this, but here's hoping.

You know, I'm really impressed with the detail that Romney presents on the issues.  I don't think I have ever seen a candidates website that spells out the positions so clearly with so much detail.  http://www.mittromney.com/issues

Really worth doing a comparison between Romney and Obama on how they offer their positions to the public.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 06, 2012, 12:46:19 PM

President	Took office	Jobs at start	Jobs at end	Change	Pct. change
Truman	4/12/1945	41,443,000	50,145,000	8,702,000	21%
Eisenhower	1/20/1953	50,145,000	53,683,000	3,538,000	7%
Kennedy	1/20/1961	53,683,000	57,255,000	3,572,000	7%
Johnson	11/22/1963	57,255,000	69,438,000	12,183,000	21%
Nixon	1/20/1969	69,438,000	78,619,000	9,181,000	13%
Ford	8/9/1974	78,619,000	80,692,000	2,073,000	3%
Carter	1/20/1977	80,692,000	91,031,000	10,339,000	13%
Reagan	1/20/1981	91,031,000	107,133,000	16,102,000	18%
Bush	1/20/1989	107,133,000	109,725,000	2,592,000	2%
Clinton	1/20/1993	109,725,000	132,469,000	22,744,000	21%
Bush	1/20/2001	132,469,000	133,549,000	1,080,000	1%
Obama	1/20/2009	133,549,000	130,462,000	-3,087,000	-2%

I'd rather use the figures from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.   

No problem:

  President          Took office          Jobs at start          Jobs at end          Change          Pct. change   
    Truman          4/12/1945          41,443,000          50,145,000          8,702,000          21%   
    Eisenhower          1/20/1953          50,145,000          53,683,000          3,538,000          7%   
    Kennedy          1/20/1961          53,683,000          57,255,000          3,572,000          7%   
    Johnson          11/22/1963          57,255,000          69,438,000          12,183,000          21%   
    Nixon          1/20/1969          69,438,000          78,619,000          9,181,000          13%   
    Ford          8/9/1974          78,619,000          80,692,000          2,073,000          3%   
    Carter          1/20/1977          80,692,000          91,031,000          10,339,000          13%   
    Reagan            1/20/1981          91,031,000          107,133,000          16,102,000          18%   
    Bush          1/20/1989          107,133,000          109,725,000          2,592,000          2%   
    Clinton          1/20/1993          109,725,000          132,469,000          22,744,000          21%   
    Bush          1/20/2001          132,469,000          133,549,000          1,080,000          1%   
    Obama          1/20/2009          133,549,000          130,462,000          -3,087,000          -2%   

I don't have a problem with these number, mine were from Google Analytics.

But let's leave out the Bush II/Obama piece for now and Bush's responsibility in his stewardship of a crash that happened under his watch but was mostly felt under Obama.

Let's look at your numbers:

Johnson – 21% in 5+ years – 4.0% per year
Carter – 13% in 4 years – 3.3% per year
Truman – 21% in just under 8 years. – 2.7% per year
Clinton - 21% in 8 years – 2.6% per year
Kennedy – 7% in 2+ years – 2.5% per year
Nixon – 13% in 5+ years – 2.4% per year
Reagan – 18% in 8 years – 2.3% per year
Ford – 3% in 2.5 years – 1.2% per year
Eisenhower – 7% in 8 years – 0.9% per year
Bush I – 2% in 4 years – .5% per year
Bush II – 1% in 8 years - .1% per year, and that's NOT taking any credit for the jobs lost in the first few months under Obama

Reagan and Nixon were the only Republican presidents do well with jobs. And they created them slower than  every other Democratic president since WWII other than Obama, and Obama's job losses came entirely in his first 10 months in office, mostly in the first six. The last three years Obama's job creation numbers have been somewhere between Reagan and Ford rate. In other words, even with this terrible economy he's creating more jobs now than 4 of the 6 Republican presidents since WWII.

Republicans are bad at economics and are bad for business.

Statistics are funny things. Some might say that Democrats are bad for the economy if you were to look at the following

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives.PNG)

Of the last 62 years, Republicans have had control of the house for a grand total of 12 of the. All consecutively, and a good chunk during the Clinton term. Who truly is responsible for the economy?

That is why some of us want the government out of it all together.

Government intervention in general is bad for the economy.  It doesn't matter wether it is Democrat or Republican.  Those are simply terms used to describe two different wolves who want different forms of central planning.

Quote from: Gaspar on September 06, 2012, 03:18:45 PM
Government intervention in general is bad for the economy.

Hello Mr. Hoover. You're looking rather well for a zombie.

"Republicans do poorly because of circumstance, while Democrats do poorly because they do everything wrong." Such BS.

Quote from: erfalf on September 06, 2012, 02:40:10 PM
Statistics are funny things. Some might say that Democrats are bad for the economy if you were to look at the following

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives.PNG)

Of the last 62 years, Republicans have had control of the house for a grand total of 12 of the. All consecutively, and a good chunk during the Clinton term. Who truly is responsible for the economy?

That is why some of us want the government out of it all together.

Interesting chart. So the only two periods in the last 100 years where Republicans were had both the house and the presidency  were from 1921 to  1933 and 2001 to 2007. The Great Depression started in 1929 after the Republicans had been in power for eight years and the Great Recession which started in 2008 just a year after the Republicans lost the house after holding it for six years.

The Republicans created both but still held power after the start of Great Depression and didn't stop the collapse, so 1929 was worse. The difference in 2008 was that Republicans weren't fully in power when the eventual collapse happened and quickly lost power entirely allowing Obama to attack the collapse and stop us from sinking into a second and maybe even worse depression.

Since the Great Depression Democrats have embraced Keynesian economics and this country because the most powerful economic power in the history of the world. The two periods when Republicans held complete power in the last 100 years BOTH periods led right up to the two worst economic calamities this nation has had in that time.

Did you know that before Roosevelt and the rise of Keynesian economics depressions were common in this country? There were several in the 19th century but only one during the 20th century and that one was created by Republican economic policy.

Quote from: swake on September 06, 2012, 05:05:28 PM
Did you know that before Roosevelt and the rise of Keynesian economics depressions were common in this country?

It's not an unreasonable argument that what put a stop to the almost yearly banking panics was the implementation of a strong central bank (and later, deposit insurance). I think Keynesian policies are well proven, if sometimes mismanaged, but it's hard to say that they are solely responsible for the relative stability we have enjoyed since the Depression.

What convinces me of the unseriousness of some of the economic "thinkers" on the right is their tax cut uber alles philosophy. They seem to be unable to square themselves with the fact that tax cuts are inflationary, just like anything that pumps money into the real economy.

Quote from: swake on September 06, 2012, 02:30:41 PM

Republicans are bad at economics and are bad for business.

I think we all know which meme card swake got in exchange for his latest contribution to the DNC.

No, my minor in college was in Economics. The right today drives me nuts from a economic perspective because they usually don't do anything based on economic theory in claiming to act on what is good or bad for the economy. The only time they ever want to talk about economic theory they bring up the Austrian School, which isn't really an economic theory at all, It's really more philosophy than economics.

The driving economic theory of the right is cut taxes and give the military all the money they want and more, period. That's not a real plan, it's certainly not conservative. I have long thought myself socially liberal and economically conservative, I am certainly a capitalist and pro business.

Quote from: swake on September 06, 2012, 06:11:02 PM
No, my minor in college was in Economics.

That explains a lot.   ;D

Quote from: Gaspar on September 06, 2012, 12:46:19 PM

President	Took office	Jobs at start	Jobs at end	Change	Pct. change
Truman	4/12/1945	41,443,000	50,145,000	8,702,000	21%
Eisenhower	1/20/1953	50,145,000	53,683,000	3,538,000	7%
Kennedy	1/20/1961	53,683,000	57,255,000	3,572,000	7%
Johnson	11/22/1963	57,255,000	69,438,000	12,183,000	21%
Nixon	1/20/1969	69,438,000	78,619,000	9,181,000	13%
Ford	8/9/1974	78,619,000	80,692,000	2,073,000	3%
Carter	1/20/1977	80,692,000	91,031,000	10,339,000	13%
Reagan	1/20/1981	91,031,000	107,133,000	16,102,000	18%
Bush	1/20/1989	107,133,000	109,725,000	2,592,000	2%
Clinton	1/20/1993	109,725,000	132,469,000	22,744,000	21%
Bush	1/20/2001	132,469,000	133,549,000	1,080,000	1%
Obama	1/20/2009	133,549,000	130,462,000	-3,087,000	-2%

I'd rather use the figures from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.   

It would be interesting to see the unemployment figures for the same periods.

FRED has the data back to 1948. You can draw your own conclusions:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=UNRATE

Quote from: nathanm on September 06, 2012, 10:14:37 PM
FRED has the data back to 1948. You can draw your own conclusions:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=UNRATE

It would appear that the Civilian Unemployment Rate alone is insufficient to draw valid conclusions.  The number of civilians working has more than tripled since 1945 which makes the same number of change of job numbers a lesser percentage now than then.  Timing of recessions will appear to help some Presidents more than others when the number of jobs is only considered at the beginning and end of their time in office. 

The comparisons/charts got me thinking. So I did some digging and put some stuff together to show a little more effectively what is happening. Let me disclaim this by saying you can draw your own conclusions. I mostly was interested because I always see these charts that compare Democrat & Republican Presidents. I wanted to see them by congressional power.

So I went to the Department of Labor statistics website and took Total Workforce Numbers and Total Employment at the end of each year since 1948 (the furthest back it would go). Here is what I came up with.

This first one is the average increase in unemployment per year.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8313/7952644160_b65e45b32d_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/82103044@N05/7952644160/)

The next one is the average change in the percentage of total employment to total workforce per year.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8182/7952643954_d1ae1b02b9_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/82103044@N05/7952643954/)

That's interesting. Definitely food for thought.

Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 09:38:59 PM
That's interesting. Definitely food for thought.

Really?  I would have expected you to call outright BS.  You must be getting soft in your old age.   ;D

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 07, 2012, 09:45:32 PM
Really?  I would have expected you to call outright BS.  You must be getting soft in your old age.   ;D

I've said before that, in general, I think it's best if Congress and the Presidency are divided most of the time. I happen to think that the present is an exceptional case where the Republicans have been moving so far to the right and become so obstinate that it's not good right this second, but the party hasn't been permeated by loons forever.

The only real quibbles I have off the top of my head are that a) I don't think the downward slide that was already in progress when Obama took office should be counted against him and b) In the past, Republicans didn't reflexively dismiss some branches of economics, even during the Reagan years all the way through to the Tea Party. As I've noted previously, I think that Keynesians, Monetarists, and others all have ideas that work in various economic/regulatory/tax climates. Friedmanite hatred for taxes was almost certainly appropriate when the top income tax rate was north of 50%. Keynesian economics has been well proven to work in a deflationary and stagnant economy. Monetarism ended stagflation.

The current crop of Republicans refuses to acknowledge that the rest of the universe of thought has anything to offer, hence my incredibly strong opposition to them. I would love it if the Republican Party would move back to where it was in the 70s and 80s, but that would be pretty hard given that the Clintonite third way Democrats have pretty much moved the party into that space.

Just to be clear, I didn't mean for this to be misleading. It is what it is. Statistics. I didn't have the desire to go through and make a determination who deserved what. I used dates as the cutoff only. I also understand that throwing Obama in there is what it is. It's a short time span, and that leads to inconclusive results in statistics.

I really didn't know what the results were going to be before I started. I was fairly surprised.

Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 10:00:25 PM
I've said before that, in general, I think it's best if Congress and the Presidency are divided most of the time. I happen to think that the present is an exceptional case where the Republicans have been moving so far to the right and become so obstinate that it's not good right this second, but the party hasn't been permeated by loons forever.

Nor do I believe that the Democratic Party is permeated by the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Boxster, and a few other loons whose names I don't remember at the moment. Unfortunately, they are in the spotlight the same as some of the loons on the right.

Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 10:00:25 PM
II don't think the downward slide that was already in progress when Obama took office should be counted against him

Actually, I don't.  What I hold against him is the inability to fix the situation in a more timely manner than he has.  I attribute it to his philosophy of robbing the rich to pay the poor.  That doesn't mean I don't believe in safety nets.

QuoteIn the past, Republicans didn't reflexively dismiss some branches of economics,

You will have to allow for some honest differences of opinion whether you agree or not.

QuoteThe current crop of Republicans refuses to acknowledge that the rest of the universe of thought has anything to offer, hence my incredibly strong opposition to them.

I hate to spin this back on you but I will.  The deadlock in Congress is not entirely one sided.

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 07, 2012, 10:15:22 PM
Unfortunately, they are in the spotlight the same as some of the loons on the right.

The difference is that the Tea Party faction has successfully primaried a large number of moderate Republican incumbents. There's been a small bit of that (2 or 3) on the Democrats' side, but the folks from Daily Kos have not had the widespread success the Tea Party has. There's little love lost between the "progressive" wing of the party and the leadership. There was some of the same in the Republican Party at the beginning of the Tea Party movement, but that didn't last very long. We have had Tea Party icons as VP choices on the Republican ticket two cycles in a row now.

It seems like pretty much the same thing as when the religious right took over the party in the late 70s/early 80s, just with a new group even farther to the right. I don't have any personal memories of that time, though, so feel free to correct me.

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 07, 2012, 10:29:28 PM
What I hold against him is the inability to fix the situation in a more timely manner than he has.

The American Jobs Act will have been pending before Congress an entire year tomorrow. Unfortunately, the Republicans filibustered it and the attempts to pass pieces of it as separate legislation.

Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 10:33:44 PM
It seems like pretty much the same thing as when the religious right took over the party in the late 70s/early 80s, just with a new group even farther to the right. I don't have any personal memories of that time, though, so feel free to correct me.

I have never cared (positively) for the religious right as compared to the rest of the right.  I just don't see the candidates offered by the Democratic party to date as an acceptable alternative for the most part.  Herion and I have been through this several times so there is no sense in trying to bring up details.  Like a lot of voters (in my opinion) I frequently vote for the lesser of two or more evils rather than someone I can really support.  No details on request.  As Hoss says, I am not obligated to answer anything.

I'm just curious..would you like it if you didn't have to vote strategically, allowing you to vote for third (or fourth, or fifth) party candidates without risking throwing an election to the Democrats?

Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 10:45:06 PM
I'm just curious..would you like it if you didn't have to vote strategically, allowing you to vote for third (or fourth, or fifth) party candidates without risking throwing an election to the Democrats?

It is not an impossibility given your presumption of not throwing the election.  I will not specify any particular candidates though.

How about you?

Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 10:33:44 PM
The difference is that the Tea Party faction has successfully primaried a large number of moderate Republican incumbents. There's been a small bit of that (2 or 3) on the Democrats' side, but the folks from Daily Kos have not had the widespread success the Tea Party has. There's little love lost between the "progressive" wing of the party and the leadership. There was some of the same in the Republican Party at the beginning of the Tea Party movement, but that didn't last very long. We have had Tea Party icons as VP choices on the Republican ticket two cycles in a row now.

It seems like pretty much the same thing as when the religious right took over the party in the late 70s/early 80s, just with a new group even farther to the right. I don't have any personal memories of that time, though, so feel free to correct me.

The American Jobs Act will have been pending before Congress an entire year tomorrow. Unfortunately, the Republicans filibustered it and the attempts to pass pieces of it as separate legislation.

And that's one example (big example) of what I was trying to say about who holds the purse strings in another thread.

Moody's said it would create 1.9 million jobs

The Economic Policy institute said it would create 2.6 million jobs and protect 1.6 million already existing jobs

Goldman Sachs also said it would add 1.5 percent to the GDP.

The Republicans filibustered it.  One month after it was introduced.

Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 10:33:44 PM
The American Jobs Act will have been pending before Congress an entire year tomorrow. Unfortunately, the Republicans filibustered it and the attempts to pass pieces of it as separate legislation.

Like most Americans, I will have to depend on my representatives in the House and Senate to protect me from sh!tburgers.  I have not read the act and distrust the administration's spin on what's in it.

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 07, 2012, 10:48:24 PM
It is not an impossibility given your presumption of not throwing the election.  I will not specify any particular candidates though.

How about you?

I would love that option, although I don't know who I'd vote for this year. Sadly, I've been too focused on anti-Romney. I was curious because I want to gauge whether or not anyone would actually vote for a third party candidate if strategic voting wasn't a factor. I may have mentioned it before, but I'd like to see preference voting or IRV or a similar system rather than first past the post. Not much sense in putting forth the effort to get the necessary law passed if everyone else is reflexively and intractably against it, though.

Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 11:21:59 PM
I would love that option, although I don't know who I'd vote for this year. Sadly, I've been too focused on anti-Romney. I was curious because I want to gauge whether or not anyone would actually vote for a third party candidate if strategic voting wasn't a factor. I may have mentioned it before, but I'd like to see preference voting or IRV or a similar system rather than first past the post. Not much sense in putting forth the effort to get the necessary law passed if everyone else is reflexively and intractably against it, though.

Ultimately, I cannot personally accept a mere plurality to elect a President.  At best, we would need a run-off election.  Wow, extending the election cycle even longer than it is presently.  Not cool.

Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 10:45:06 PM
I'm just curious..would you like it if you didn't have to vote strategically, allowing you to vote for third (or fourth, or fifth) party candidates without risking throwing an election to the Democrats?

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/377704_465542630135109_935199846_n.jpg)

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 07, 2012, 11:30:15 PM
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/377704_465542630135109_935199846_n.jpg)

What viable alternative do you offer to the present system?

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 07, 2012, 11:28:26 PM
Ultimately, I cannot personally accept a mere plurality to elect a President.  At best, we would need a run-off election.  Wow, extending the election cycle even longer than it is presently.  Not cool.

In instant runoff voting, a candidate must get a majority to win. The runoff is just done by asking voters to rank candidates in order of preference when they vote, but it otherwise works just like one or more runoff elections would now. There are others that are even better at pleasing the most people the most possible, but even IRV cracks the third party spoiler problem.

Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 11:44:58 PM
In instant runoff voting, a candidate must get a majority to win. The runoff is just done by asking voters to rank candidates in order of preference when they vote, but it otherwise works just like one or more runoff elections would now.

Interesting but I would need to spend some time on it.  Hardcore Democrats would vote D, 3rd Party, R.  Hardcore Republicans would vote R, 3rd Party, D.  A really strong candidate could pull out a single election win but I don't really see that happening.

Quote from: Red Arrow on September 07, 2012, 11:55:33 PM
Interesting but I would need to spend some time on it.  Hardcore Democrats would vote D, 3rd Party, R.  Hardcore Republicans would vote R, 3rd Party, D.  A really strong candidate could pull out a single election win but I don't really see that happening.

Sure, but people who want to vote for a third party as their first preference will because it won't almost inevitably lead to giving the election to their last choice. As I said, there are other alternative systems that do even better at representing the actual preferences of the electorate, but they are more complex in operation and don't really matter unless there are more than three or four potentially competitive candidates, but the voter input remains the same in any case.

I think we should use scratch-off tickets to pick our leaders. Or maybe tenth caller.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 08, 2012, 07:06:57 AM
I think we should use scratch-off tickets to pick our leaders. Or maybe tenth caller.

Here here! Who was it that said Congress would be better off if it were compiled of people randomly selected out of the phone book. Maybe we should do a draft for congress. Bills would certainly be a heck of a lot simpler.

Going back and reading a few of the threads this is usually how it goes:

Well, out guy is less crazy than your guy, or our guy is not as bad as your guy.

Quote from: Hoss on September 07, 2012, 10:53:20 PM
And that's one example (big example) of what I was trying to say about who holds the purse strings in another thread.

Moody's said it would create 1.9 million jobs

The Economic Policy institute said it would create 2.6 million jobs and protect 1.6 million already existing jobs

Goldman Sachs also said it would add 1.5 percent to the GDP.

The Republicans filibustered it.  One month after it was introduced.

I believe the opposition is a tad more bipartisan than the support. Many Dems have voiced opposition to the original bill. They thought there were too many tax cuts (1/2 the bill was tax cuts). Heck, even Reid put it on the back burner initially. In addition, parts of the original bill were included in other legislation, that have passed.