NY Times " Obama Not Up To The Task"

[CPT Savajo]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

And do you know a large percentage of those on food stamps are working people who during the Clinton years proudly consider themselves middle class, but due to the fuck ups by Bush they became eligible for food stamps- great going GOP!!!!

They are working class people. Due to printing money, inflation, and higher energy prices the people who would have been considered middle class during the clinton era are joining the ranks of the poor. You can't leave out the Obama administration either, under him the Fed has printed trillions of dollars. The never ending wars are also dragging down our country. The one's that are being hurt the most are the people on the threshold of living paycheck to paycheck or their already there. Their about to join the ranks of the poor. Thats not good at all.

The interesting thing is, is that if you fastforward that debtclock to 2015 at the current pace on the top righthand of that page it estimates about 78 million food stamp recipients. www.debtclock.org. It's hard to say if that would be possible but if big inflation hits our economy for any reasons that number will definitely be reached.

The thing that doesn't match up in 2015 is the unemployment number! If that debtclock is estimating 78 million food stamp recipients for 2015 at the current pace then I would expect a big jump in unemployment and inflation. To me jobs are one area that program cannot compute for accurately in the future, thats a huge gray area. If the current trends say anything then I would have to imagine that jobs are going to become more scarce 4 years from now. The current banking sector in the U.S. is a mess and Europe is a mess.

[Whirlaway]

By MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN (voted/supported Obama in 2008).

The rising impatience with the leadership of President Obama was epitomized on Aug. 8 in the middle of one of the now-habitual Wall Street roller coasters. His speech on the economy was 53 minutes late. What showed on TV screens was an empty White House podium, an image suggestive of the absence of leadership. When the president did speak, the best he could come up with was "We've always been and always will be a triple-A country." The market's response was a Bronx cheer, a drop of another 300 points.

Mr. Obama seems unable to get a firm grip on the toughest issue facing his presidency and the country—the economy. He now asserts he is going to "pivot" to jobs. Now we pivot to jobs? When there are already 25 million Americans who are either unemployed or cannot find full-time work? Does this president not appreciate what is going on?

Fewer Americans are working full-time today than when Mr. Obama took office. We have lost over 900,000 full-time jobs in the last four months alone, and long-term unemployment is at a post-World War II high. The public's faith in his ability to deal with the economy has plunged. As Doyle McManus of the L.A. Times put it, "Can this president persuade voters to let him keep his job when so many have lost theirs?"

Even Jimmy Carter didn't plumb the depths of national dissatisfaction revealed in the stunning Gallup poll taken Aug. 11-13. The president's approval rating was only 39% with a mere 26% approving of his handling of the economy.

Meanwhile, everyone in the business world is pleading for some kind of adult supervision to build a national platform for sustained growth that includes a long-term fiscal plan that addresses our ballooning debt. They are desperate for strong leadership and feel that all we are getting out of Washington is a lot of noise as Democrats and Republicans blame one another.

Since the president is the one who represents all of America and all Americans, the buck stops with him rather than with the Congress. It is the president's job to offer a coherent program for the twin threats of a static economy and an unsustainable explosion of our debts and deficits. But the only core issue on which he took a clear position in the recent debt-ceiling negotiations was that it would have to include new taxes on the wealthy—and he didn't even hold to that.

He made the politically tested and calculated statement that if you raise taxes on billionaires and millionaires you could solve the problem. This is not so. Even for those who support higher taxes on the wealthy, as I do, we must remember that we have an income tax system in which fully half the "taxpayers" pay no tax at all, and in which the variety of loopholes cries out for a real reform of the tax code.

Even if the government instituted a 100% tax on both corporate profits and personal incomes above $250,000 per year, it would yield enough revenue to run the government for only six months. Why? Because under Mr. Obama's presidency, government spending has swelled to 24% of GDP from 18%.

We need real reform of the tax code in which everyone is asked to make some contribution, however small. Hardly anyone on either side of the aisle has a good word to say for the present hodgepodge of selective punishment of the middle class—replete with exceptions, loopholes, and special allowances. Worse, there are no serious proposals being canvassed among the White House, the Congress and the Treasury.

Erskine Bowles, co-chair of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission appointed by the president in 2010 to devise a plan for dealing with the fiscal crisis, put it well: "It is one that is completely predictable and from which there is no escape." The president said he would stand by his commission, but as of today he's remained silent on its many proposals, seemingly unable to speak honestly on the subject.

Everyone recognizes that as populations age, the ratio of worker-to-retiree dependency plummets. Remember that the first baby boomers statistically retired on Jan. 1 of this year. There are now 79 million more of them to be supported in their retirement and with their medical requirements. This has obvious implications for our debts and deficits. How are we to meet this obligation in the face of long-term deficits that stem from approximately $60 trillion of unfunded entitlement liabilities?

It is no surprise that many have begun to doubt the president's leadership qualities. J.P. Morgan calls it the "competency crisis." The president is not seen fighting for his own concrete goals, nor finding the right allies, especially leaders of business big or small. Instead, his latent hostility to the business community has provoked a mutual response of disrespect. This is lamentable given the unique role that small business especially plays in creating jobs.

The president appears to consider himself immune from error and asserts the fault always lies elsewhere—be it in the opposition in Congress or the Japanese tsunami or in the failure of his audience to fully understand the wisdom and benefits of his proposals. But in politics, the failure of communication is invariably the fault of the communicator.

Many voters who supported him are no longer elated by the historic novelty of his candidacy and presidency. They hoped for a president who would be effective. Remember "Yes We Can"? Now many of his sharpest critics are his former supporters. Witness Bill Broyles, a one-time admirer who recently wrote in Newsweek that "Americans aren't inspired by well-meaning weakness."

The president who first inspired with great speeches on red and blue America now seems to lack the ability to communicate any sense of resolve for a program, or any realization of the urgency of what might befall us. The teleprompter he almost always uses symbolizes and compounds his emotional distance from his audience.

We lack a coherent and muscular economic strategy, as Mr. Obama and his staff seem almost completely focused on his re-election. He should be spending most of his time on the nitty-gritty of the job instead of on fund raisers, bus tours and visits to diners, which essentially are in service of his political interests. Increasingly his solutions seem to boil down to Vote for Me.

Clearly the president will have to raise his game to win a second term, especially if the Republicans find a real candidate. Will voters be willing to give him another four years? Like many Americans who supported him, I long for a triple-A president to run a triple-A country.

Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

By MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN (voted/supported Obama in 2008).

The rising impatience with the leadership of President Obama was epitomized on Aug. 8 in the middle of one of the now-habitual Wall Street roller coasters. His speech on the economy was 53 minutes late. What showed on TV screens was an empty White House podium, an image suggestive of the absence of leadership. When the president did speak, the best he could come up with was "We've always been and always will be a triple-A country." The market's response was a Bronx cheer, a drop of another 300 points.

Mr. Obama seems unable to get a firm grip on the toughest issue facing his presidency and the country—the economy. He now asserts he is going to "pivot" to jobs. Now we pivot to jobs? When there are already 25 million Americans who are either unemployed or cannot find full-time work? Does this president not appreciate what is going on?

Fewer Americans are working full-time today than when Mr. Obama took office. We have lost over 900,000 full-time jobs in the last four months alone, and long-term unemployment is at a post-World War II high. The public's faith in his ability to deal with the economy has plunged. As Doyle McManus of the L.A. Times put it, "Can this president persuade voters to let him keep his job when so many have lost theirs?"

Even Jimmy Carter didn't plumb the depths of national dissatisfaction revealed in the stunning Gallup poll taken Aug. 11-13. The president's approval rating was only 39% with a mere 26% approving of his handling of the economy.

Meanwhile, everyone in the business world is pleading for some kind of adult supervision to build a national platform for sustained growth that includes a long-term fiscal plan that addresses our ballooning debt. They are desperate for strong leadership and feel that all we are getting out of Washington is a lot of noise as Democrats and Republicans blame one another.

Since the president is the one who represents all of America and all Americans, the buck stops with him rather than with the Congress. It is the president's job to offer a coherent program for the twin threats of a static economy and an unsustainable explosion of our debts and deficits. But the only core issue on which he took a clear position in the recent debt-ceiling negotiations was that it would have to include new taxes on the wealthy—and he didn't even hold to that.

He made the politically tested and calculated statement that if you raise taxes on billionaires and millionaires you could solve the problem. This is not so. Even for those who support higher taxes on the wealthy, as I do, we must remember that we have an income tax system in which fully half the "taxpayers" pay no tax at all, and in which the variety of loopholes cries out for a real reform of the tax code.

Even if the government instituted a 100% tax on both corporate profits and personal incomes above $250,000 per year, it would yield enough revenue to run the government for only six months. Why? Because under Mr. Obama's presidency, government spending has swelled to 24% of GDP from 18%.

We need real reform of the tax code in which everyone is asked to make some contribution, however small. Hardly anyone on either side of the aisle has a good word to say for the present hodgepodge of selective punishment of the middle class—replete with exceptions, loopholes, and special allowances. Worse, there are no serious proposals being canvassed among the White House, the Congress and the Treasury.

Erskine Bowles, co-chair of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission appointed by the president in 2010 to devise a plan for dealing with the fiscal crisis, put it well: "It is one that is completely predictable and from which there is no escape." The president said he would stand by his commission, but as of today he's remained silent on its many proposals, seemingly unable to speak honestly on the subject.

Everyone recognizes that as populations age, the ratio of worker-to-retiree dependency plummets. Remember that the first baby boomers statistically retired on Jan. 1 of this year. There are now 79 million more of them to be supported in their retirement and with their medical requirements. This has obvious implications for our debts and deficits. How are we to meet this obligation in the face of long-term deficits that stem from approximately $60 trillion of unfunded entitlement liabilities?

It is no surprise that many have begun to doubt the president's leadership qualities. J.P. Morgan calls it the "competency crisis." The president is not seen fighting for his own concrete goals, nor finding the right allies, especially leaders of business big or small. Instead, his latent hostility to the business community has provoked a mutual response of disrespect. This is lamentable given the unique role that small business especially plays in creating jobs.

The president appears to consider himself immune from error and asserts the fault always lies elsewhere—be it in the opposition in Congress or the Japanese tsunami or in the failure of his audience to fully understand the wisdom and benefits of his proposals. But in politics, the failure of communication is invariably the fault of the communicator.

Many voters who supported him are no longer elated by the historic novelty of his candidacy and presidency. They hoped for a president who would be effective. Remember "Yes We Can"? Now many of his sharpest critics are his former supporters. Witness Bill Broyles, a one-time admirer who recently wrote in Newsweek that "Americans aren't inspired by well-meaning weakness."

The president who first inspired with great speeches on red and blue America now seems to lack the ability to communicate any sense of resolve for a program, or any realization of the urgency of what might befall us. The teleprompter he almost always uses symbolizes and compounds his emotional distance from his audience.

We lack a coherent and muscular economic strategy, as Mr. Obama and his staff seem almost completely focused on his re-election. He should be spending most of his time on the nitty-gritty of the job instead of on fund raisers, bus tours and visits to diners, which essentially are in service of his political interests. Increasingly his solutions seem to boil down to Vote for Me.

Clearly the president will have to raise his game to win a second term, especially if the Republicans find a real candidate. Will voters be willing to give him another four years? Like many Americans who supported him, I long for a triple-A president to run a triple-A country.

Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.

FACT CHECK: Recession is culprit in high US debt


By TOM RAUM

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- It's the loud and clear consensus of Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail: Runaway government spending is the problem, not taxes.
But the math isn't so simple.
The number at the heart of the battle cry of the Republicans and their tea party allies - that federal spending has risen to an alarming 25 percent of the economy - is skewed by recession dynamics.
In recessions, federal spending always goes up and tax revenues go down. And the economy contracts in recessions, shrinking the gross domestic product, which is the total output of goods and services and the broadest measure of the economy's health.
Republicans are calling for sweeping spending cuts and want to hold the line on taxes, even as the U.S. struggles through one of its slowest recoveries since the Great Depression. The jobless rate has been stuck for months at more than 9 percent. With the economy slowing again, the odds of a new recession seem to be increasing.
While spending's share of the GDP might be at a post-World War II high, tax revenues have fallen to 14.4 percent of the index, the lowest since 1950.
This disparity between what comes in and what goes out plays into the Republican argument about runaway spending.
But it also reflects the mathematical reality that during recessions, tax revenues go down sharply because people and companies make less money and so pay less in taxes. Federal spending goes up, even before stimulus programs, with an increasing demand for government help from food stamps and unemployment compensation and other safety-net programs.
At the same time, the negative economic growth associated with recessions lowers the GDP number on the bottom of the equation, further boosting the ratio of spending to GDP.
Since 1970, federal spending has averaged just over 21 percent of GDP while tax revenues have averaged over 19 percent.
The last time since World War II that federal spending exceeded 23 percent of GDP was in 1982 and 1983, when it rose to 23.1 percent and 23.5 percent, respectively, during what was then called the worst recession since the Great Depression. A Republican, Ronald Reagan, was president, and he was hardly anyone's idea of a tax-and-spend liberal.
Federal spending is even higher now as a percentage of GDP, but not by much - just between 1 and 2 percentage points. That reflects the fact that the most recent recession was far deeper than the 1981-82 downturn, which lasted 16 months.
Much of the present large gap between tax revenues and federal spending comes not from political decisions but from what happens to a nation's finances during any deep recession, economists suggest.
But you wouldn't know it from some of the recent campaign rhetoric. The Republican candidates all want to shrink government's role by slashing spending and taxes, and repealing or suspending regulations.
-Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney asserted that, because of the rise of the ratio of government spending to GDP on President Barack Obama's watch, "We're inches away from no longer having a free economy."
-Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum: "We're now at almost 25 percent (of GDP) ... the problem is spending, not taxes."
-Reps. Ron Paul of Texas and Michele Bachmann of Minnesota insisted they would never vote to raise the U.S. debt limit and they decried the rise in federal spending. The recent bipartisan debt deal, which includes a big spending-cut component, won the support of many tea party-aligned lawmakers, however.
-Texas Gov. Rick Perry said that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke would commit a "treasonous" act if he "prints more money" before next November's elections. "We would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas," Perry told an Iowa audience. Economists generally credit Bernanke with helping save the nation's financial system by stimulating it with a flood of new money.

Economist Bruce Bartlett, who worked in the administrations of both Reagan and President George H.W. Bush, said some of the statements by Republicans make him cringe. "And what sometimes makes me cringe more is the silence from their competitors."
Bartlett includes the solid opposition to any tax increases from the entire GOP field, citing the recent debate when not a single Republican participant would agree to accept even a mix of $1 in new taxes for every $10 in spending cuts.
"It's the cowardice of people who know they're wrong when they say these things that disturbs me more than the fact that some people say crazy things," Bartlett said. He said the Republicans were clearly playing to the party's conservative base for the primary elections "but when you repeat these things, they tend to get solidified."
He added, "The same is true in both parties. It's just that there's no primary race on the Democratic side."
The intense focus by Republicans and some conservative Democrats on cutting spending to reduce the national debt, now at nearly $14.5 trillion, helped put deficit reduction high on the priority list for both parties.
But polls continue to show that people are more concerned about the lack of jobs than they are the deficit. Nearly 15 million are jobless in the U.S.
Obama, now on vacation, plans a major speech on the economy after Congress returns in September, trying to emphasize jobs and help the poor and middle class, aides said. The plan is expected to contain a mix of tax cuts, construction projects and steps to help the long-term unemployed.
Even though the pace of recovery is painfully slow, any improvements in the jobs situation will help spur stronger economic growth, leading to more tax revenues and lower federal spending.
"If the economy starts to get better, then everything gets better," said Democratic strategist Mark Mellman.
But it will be a slog.
As the recession that began in December 2007 intensified, federal spending increased from 20.7 percent of GDP in 2008 to 25.0 percent in 2009, according to figures compiled by the White House budget office. And while the recession was officially declared over in early summer 2009, overall federal spending was 23.8 percent of GDP last year and is projected to come in at 25.3 percent for 2011 amid fears of a new, or "double dip," recession.


Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/19/v-fullstory/2366538/fact-check-recession-is-culprit.html#ixzz1WRs5sHhM

[Doove]

Here.

[Laz]

Clinton was the luckiest president in recent history and Obama is probably the unluckiest as far as the economic hand they were dealt. Bush also inherited a mess but he had the ability to stabalize the economy with significant tax reductions that helped. His problem was that he grew the size of the federal government and overspent. He also failed to address the mortgage bubble that was building. While he did try he did not try hard enough.

Obama inherited the financial mess of the mortgage bubble bursting and two wars ongoing without any capabilty to stimulate through tax reductions. His problem is that he basically continued Bush's policies on increased growth of the federal government, passed a new entitlement that will never reduce the cost of health care except possibly by rationing, focused on green jobs at the expense of even more jobs in the oil and gas industry, threw billions of dollars at big business and unions to bail them out, sent billions of dollars to the states to bail them out, none of these items will help turn the economy around.

He has to start looking for ways the government can make it easier for businesses to function and reduce the amount of money the federal government is spending. Things like letting oil companies drill which creates jobs and revenue to the goverment through income taxes and royalty payments. It could potentially lower the cost of oil which would increase the amount of discretionary spending in a household resulting in more potential jobs.

Reducing the corporate tax rate makes operating in the US more profitable which increases employment which increases government income and reduces government expeditures. The amount given up in corporate taxes would most likely be less than the government would gain. I know I can't prove that because it has not been tried yet but look at how companies migrate to states with a lower cost of doing business.

Instead of Obamacare how about a more limited effort that focuses on lowering the cost of health care such as tort reform, more support of high deductable insurance with a HSA account to encourage people to shop around for the most cost effective provider, seperating insurance from an employee benefit to a policy tied to the insured so that it is portable, allow the medical industry to find inexpensive ways to provide healthcare. A good example is the city I know that self insures. If you go to an expensive doctor they charge a co-pay. If you go to a clinic with a nurse that can handle most of the problems a person has it is free. They incent people to choose a lower cost provider option which keeps the cost lower for everyone. Ther are probably thousands of good ideas out there that would enable people to get health care at a much lower cost. None of them will be helped by Obamacare.

The bottom line is that no Obama did not create this mess but his policies are making it worse not better.

[Headkeeper]

Laz - The above post is the most intelligent post I've seen on the subject. Thanks for taking time to write.

[Guest040616]

Whirly, I am almost certain I have never met you but let me hazard a guess. Your neck is a very distinct shade of red, isn't it?

[CPT Savajo]

Originally Posted by Doove

Here.

Doove thats an inaccurate chart you posted! Thats a chart many people wish the Dow Jones Industrial Average would be on, a 45 degree angle. Plus it's from the government, not a trustworthy source. It is designed to misslead people. Obama himself has spent more than 4 trillion since he has taken over the helm as Commander in Chief and counting. Welcome to the Depression! Granted the health of the economy wasn't exactly in tip-top shape when Obama took over but how can we leave Clinton out of the equation. Didn't he start NAFTA? Thats done a lot of great things! They all have a part in this, especially Nixon. Not to mention the dismantling of the Glass Steagal Act which happened on Obamas watch. Correct me if I'm wrong.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/ This is the projected picture graph from March 2009!

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/28/...s-in-pictures/ This is the updated graph from July 2011, enjoy!

www.usdebtclock.org rewind the clock back to 2008. Besides it's known that Obama has added more than 4 trillion to the National Debt. Welcome to the Depression baby! By the way I like your avatar with the clapping joker! I believe this next decade is going to truly test the American spirit. I just hope that it doesn't break!

[Laz]

Originally Posted by Headkeeper

Laz - The above post is the most intelligent post I've seen on the subject. Thanks for taking time to write.

Thanks for the complement.

[CPT Savajo]

The numbers and deficit spending are startling to say the least. The nation is in the hole.

[Whirlaway]

The reply of a knuckle-dragger who has no intellect to argue the facts........if you want to duel; at least man-up and state your own positions and argue your ideas.

Originally Posted by bigtex

Whirly, I am almost certain I have never met you but let me hazard a guess. Your neck is a very distinct shade of red, isn't it?

[cptjohnstone]

this says it best

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...hFLc&vq=medium

[CuteOldGuy]

LOL! That's beautiful!