OBAMA’S OPPOSITES
Is it just me or does Obama say something then end up doing the exact opposite?
I watched his press conference where he was touting his “jobs program”, which is simply another tax and spend program. He said, paraphrasing, that he was not promoting class warfare and in the next sentence, promoted class warfare.
He said raising taxes during these economic times was absolutely the wrong thing to do….now he is proposing a tax increase.
He said his administration would be the most transparent in history, but it’s turned out to be one of the most secretive.
He rails against “crony capitalism” and says the rich should pay their fair share, but when his big donors promote a failed “green business” (Solyndra) his administration cooks the books, manipulates federal law, and quite possibly commits fraud to save his big donars millions and stick the American taxpayer with a bill for billions of dollars.
Does this guy ever do anything he says?
The Other Side Says: September 23rd, 2011 at 3:32 am
it is just you buck. you see him saying one thing and doing another because you and other tea partiers absolutely can not see anything positive from obama. nothing he does will ever appease your ilk. no matter how far he moves to the center, he will always be wrong. and that is why the tea party is dangerous.
obama needs to raise taxes on the rich because it works. reagan and clinton raised taxes on the rich during recessions and it worked…jobs were created. bush lowered taxes and look where our economy is. we can’t afford to not raise taxes. tax rates are the lowest in decades and the amount we are taking in from tax revenue is also low. when bush lowered taxes, jobs were not created. so why do republicans think that lowering taxes will work?
and its not class warfare. tell me why republicans are saying it is class warfare to raise taxes on the rich…like reagan did.
how has obama be secretive? how has obama committed fraud? will anyone answer or will people just avoid any political debate? that seems to be a popular tactic by the tea party…completely lie and avoid debate by ignoring or yelling loudly. just look at the republican debates and how much they lie.
Buck Says: September 23rd, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Other Side,
The difference between Reagan, Clinton and Obama is the difference between the economy then and now.
First things first. No president can raise taxes. They can propose a budget to congress for approval that includes tax increases, but only congress can vote to raise taxes.
Reagan entered office and proposed dramatic CUTS in taxes. Congress complied. He later either proposed or signed off on raising taxes, 11 different times in fact, for various reasons. But the times were different then.
Bill Clinton proposed raising taxes. Congress complied. Clinton also worked with congress to bring about a massive overhaul and reduction of welfare, leading to a budget surplus. The first in decades. But those were different times.
Reagans dramatic tax cuts and deregulation unloosed the greatest expansion of our economy ever. Once the economy was booming Reagan saw there was a place for tax increases to fund certain government programs, namely increased defense spending and large payroll tax increases to fund social security and medicare.
Clinton’s tax increases also came at an opportune time. Cold War defense spending was tapering off, the dot com/internet explosion was just launching on Wall Street and Clinton’s modest tax increases coincided with a booming economy.
You can’t seriously talk about tax increases or decreases as the only factor that moves an economy. That is just totally unrealistic and a simple minded view of how macro economics really work.
Now Bush. The evil Bush. Wasn’t it Obama that said near the end of last year that eliminating the Bush tax cuts in this economy is just the wrong thing to do? Almost a direct quote I believe. Has something changed?
And yes, it is election year class warefare to say the rich don’t pay their “fair share”. 86% of all income taxes paid are paid by the top 25% of earners. The rich. No matter how it is measured, the rich are paying way more than the middlle class. In fact when broken down by percentile categories, the bottom 405 of earners actually have a net negative income tax bill, meaning they actually receive more in tax credits and refunds than they pay in.
If you go back and research, you’ll find that Reagan and Clinton didn’t villify the rich for being rich. The proposed tax increases to accomplish specific goals. Obama isn’t even in the same league with either of them. Also if you research the last couple of days you’ll see where Bill Clinton said now is not he right time to raise taxes.
Obama is a failure as president. He lacks the skill, courage and imagination, and most of all the will to lead. I would trade Obama for Bill Clinton in hearbeat, or even Hillary Clinton for that matter.
The Other Side Says: September 26th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
its good to know that there is a tea partier out there that thinks there are appropriate times to raise taxes. continually hearing from republicans that taxes should never be raised makes them seem out of touch and irrational…like they care more about their ideology than america’s best interests.
if, like you say, reagan’s deregulation led to expansion, then bush’s deregulation sure did the opposite. and yes i’m bringing up bush because his destructive policies have brought us to where we are today. and how can conservatives say that obama’s economic policies have hampered recovery? obama has never been able to fully implement truely progressive recovery measures because of republican obstruction.
during clinton and reagan’s eras there wasn’t as much income disparity as there is today. forcing the poor and neediest americans to pay down the debt is lowering their incomes. continually giving tax breaks to the rich is going to raise their incomes. the disparity between the lower and upper classes is growing. thats not going to change unless we tax those who have the wealth. its obvious that they’re not creating jobs with their extra money so giving them more tax breaks will not stimulate the economy.
its not class warfare. the rich have so many advocates for their selfish needs (republicans, the kochs, unlimited corporate money in politics) that they don’t need more protection. on the other hand, the poorest americans have no voice and they are being taken advantage of by republicans. unions are being busted, government programs are being cut through austerity and unemployment benefits are not being given. obama is speaking for americans who are being callously treated by republicans and need help. the poor have no voice in america and are being taken advantage of being selfish rich people need more money.
if anything, its class warfare on the part of republicans. its only sacrifice on the lower classes but nothing from the rich. republicans call for shared sacrifice, but protect the rich. why? because republicans care more about their wealthy donors than america. and they care more about re-election than trying to boost america’s economy.
Buck Says: September 26th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
Otherside,
I genuinely believe that revenue is not our problem. Spending is our problem. One thing I think we can both agree on is that government policy is designed to benefit the rich. Republican’s and Democrats alike will 99 times out of 100 stack the deck in favor of their rich doners and benefactors.
That’s why I am conservative. I want the government to have less sway over the free market so the rich can rise and fall on their own.
What I really hope to see is a top down reform of the federal government with more and more authority returned back to the states. One of those reforms should be a completely reformed income tax system that takes the advantage away from the rich by eliminating loop-holes that only the rich with layers and accountants can take advantage of.
I’d like to see a combination system of a flat income tax rate and a VAT tax. VAT would not apply to food, housing, healthcare or transportation.
$30,000 or less in income no tax. VAT only.
$30,000 to $100,000 10% PLUS VAT
$100,000 up 15% PLUS VAT
No loopholes, no deductions, no write-offs, no depreciating this and that. Flat Tax Period.
Tax corporations exactly the same way.
As for Payroll taxes for Social Security. Two choices. Opt-in and have a deduction with guaranteed payout at retirement. Opt out but require but require some kind of set aside for retirement that is self-directed.
Same for Healthcare payroll deductions. Opt-in for minimum or opt-out with required minimum deduction for coverage of your choosing.
The rich can pay their own way.
TAxes need reforming
HealthCare needs reforming and ObamaCare is not the answer.
The federal government needs reforming.
My State representative lives 20 miles from me. Me and my neighbors can put a lot more pressure on her to vote to protect my interests than I can on my U.S. Representative. It’s time to give the power back to the states, back to the people and streamline our Federal government to do what it’s best at. Provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare of it’s citizens.
The Other Side Says: October 10th, 2011 at 2:25 am
fair enough buck, and thanks for stating your views instead of just attacking liberals.
your proposed tax rates are going to remove more revenue from an already stretched budget. what is going to be cut in your budget? how is america going to pay for its necessities under your tax code?
america has a revenue problem. taxes and revenue are at their lowest rates in decades. we need spending on infrastructure, education, health care and to stimulate job growth. our roads and bridges are crumbling (i live in minnesota and a bridge fell down here). our children are losing ground with education. for profit companies are making sickness un-affordable for many people…to the point of bankrupcy. and because people and corporations aren’t spending money (even though corporations are sitting out trillions) then its the role of the government to step in (who else will?).
all of these things cost money. we have reached a point where all of this issues are becoming alarming and no one but the government has been acting. the debt is a serious issue, but this isn’t the time to deal with it. why now? only because a democrat is in office?
so again, with everything in america needing funding, what would conservatives cut in order to reduce government? do you disagree that these are issues? how can your budget pay for roads, make kids smarter and get people back to work?
our ideologies are different and thats okay. but by spending money is worth it to promote general welfare of america’s citizens. how does conservative ideology allow for america to grow?
The Informer Says: October 10th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
You say that it is the role of the government to step in when corporations are sitting on massive revenue.
WRONG SIR.
The government may not legally interfere with a corporation which is supported by stockholders. The only way that they can hope to do the things which you propse in order to create jobs is to tax the life out of them. Now personally I don’t care if the walmart down my street gets taxed to oblivion, but higher taxes on job-providing companies means less revenue, means less pay, less jobs, and higher prices.
Companies sit on their saving that way in order to provide for their workers during economic depression.
You also say that all the proposed ideas will cost money.
So does obama’s multi-billion dollar jobs plan which he cannot even get the DEMOCRATS to support. Yes, the debt is a terrible issue. Know how we can start fighting it now? Cutting spending on useless things such as obama’s bill of billions.
Everything in America does not need funding. We do not need bailouts, and we do not need big brother to hold our hand while we work. What we need is to be able to succeed on our own. We need a flat tax. More importantly, we need to pull out of iraq and adapt an isolationist policy.
“our ideologies are different and thats okay. but by spending money is worth it to promote general welfare of america’s citizens. how does conservative ideology allow for america to grow?”
Yes, different views are aceptable as we are not a fascist country. However, how can you say that spending money is the way to help America’s citizens when it is so much of the citizen’s money which you are spending? The conservative policy is to not focus on the economic growth of the entire country at one time, but to promote the growth of the individual citizens INSIDE the country.
***Cain for president***
The Other Side Says: October 10th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
one of the main reasons for tax cuts is that it give revenue to job creators. the job creators use that money to invest in the workforce and create jobs. but when corporations aren’t creating jobs, how are jobs supposed to be created in america? jobs are being outsourced to countries where less wages are acceptable and that takes jobs away from americans. historically the federal government has stepped in (see the great depression and the great recession) and has stimulated growth and has lifted the economy out of struggles.
so the government isn’t supposed to tax corporations because the cost will be passed onto the consumers? how fair is that? it would be one thing if those corporations passed down money to their employees (not ceos) or hired unemployed americans. but they aren’t. its frustrating to see bank of america charging fees on debit cards when their ceos are making millions. i understand that corporations are there to make money, and thats fine. but when they make huge profits no matter what and not caring about people in need, it generates the frustration we see with occupy wall street.
obama’s plan hasn’t been signed into law so not passing it wouldn’t cut the deficit.
i agree that we don’t need bailouts. saving banks that were irresponsible and caused the recession isn’t fair.
a snapshot of society is how they treat the least among them. there are more and more americans that have no chance at success because of the times we live in. no matter how much they try and lift themselves up by their bootstraps they cannot do it. it is the responsibility of the greatest nation in the world to help those people. no matter how much you try and allow for individual success, some people cannot move past their situations and need help. and that help costs money.
these solutions need to happen quickly because people are desperate. how will conservative economics help america’s economy grow? and rememeber that conservative economics under the bush administration did not work.
The Informer Says: October 11th, 2011 at 2:19 am
The great depression’s demise is still questionable. The left states that the country was brought back by FDR’s “new deal” while the right states that the production of jobs caused by the second world war were the reason. Both have significant points, however, and the contreversy surrounding the subject is merely another result of the fact that the left and right fail to agree on anything. Ever.
You are correct though. The outsourcing of jobs to other countries is a problem. One might very the reason that companies outsource jobs for cheaper labour is to compensate for higher taxes over recent years. One might ALSO think that the reason the copanies do so is simply to enlarge their revenue. Again, it’s leftist views versus conservative views.
To be fair, it was never large corporations responsibility to care for people in need. What corporations need are hard workers who have a decent enough education to succeed at their specified job. If not, there is no legal or moral reason to hire someone just because their income is low or their background is rough. Is it cold and perhaps even cruel to the unfortunate? Perhaps, but it’s the more practical thing to do.
“obama’s plan hasn’t been signed into law so not passing it wouldn’t cut the deficit.”
Yep. But passing it would raise the deficit. It’s much like not spending money on something you don’t need. It may not lower the deficit, but it won’t raise it either.
“a snapshot of society is how they treat the least among them. there are more and more americans that have no chance at success because of the times we live in.”
Well… yeah. Perhaps that’s why they refer to it as a ‘depression’.
And no, the bush administration’s economic standings were… well they were disapointing. But the conservative population did not support the bush bailouts, ergo, they weren’t necessarily conservative policy.
What we need is Reaganomics.
The Other Side Says: October 11th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
the beginning of the informer’s response is a cop-out. its not a matter of which side’s argument is based on facts and critical thought, its about both sides believing they are right. and because both sides are equally correct, according to the informer, then we get a stalemate which is unavoidable.
but both sides are not equally correct. those who are against torture are right. those who are against racism are right. those against killing babies are right. there is no “well i guess those who believe in torture believe it strongly so i guess they won’t resolve it.” no, one side is clearly right and one side is clearly wrong. that’s not to say that everything is so cut and dry. but the belief that we just can’t agree because both sides are valid isn’t acceptable.
fdr’s spending started to help pull the economy out of the great depression by increasing employment. it wasn’t until conservatives goaded fdr in cutting spending (because the debt was increasing) that the economy started to sputter again. but ultimately ww2 lifted america out of the great depression. so really, both fdr’s economics and the war helped america’s economy. that covers both sides.
there is clear evidence to support liberal economics and clear evidence to dismiss reaganomics. fdr helped america. obama’s stimulus helped us out of a recession. on the other side, bush economics (which were more than the bailouts) did not work. deregulation and tax cuts did not lead to growth. they led to wall street failing and needing a bailout and tax cuts are adding to the growing inequality of the upper and lower classes.
and to completely absolve bush’s economics because they weren’t 100% conservative because of the bailouts is skirting the issue. reagonomics has led to the largest increases in the national debt (under reagan, bush 1 and bush 2). someone who can defend reaganomics but still be concerned with the national debt is being dishonest.
the current debate in congress for how to grow the economy is pathetic because republicans hold on to the informer’s view of non-debate and no compromise. they have to compromise and put their oath to protect america above their ideology. not debating and not evolving your position and ideas is making america stoopider and making democracy a joke.
R. Stanton Scott Says: December 11th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Either New Deal government spending or World War II government spending ended the Great Depression. The point is that it was government spending. Indeed, it was heavy government spending — GI Bills and homeowner subsidies and science research to keep up with the Russkies — that supported the most explosive economy known, before or since.
You can rightfully debate the wisdom of doing so. But the idea the government spending grows economies is all but empirically proven.
Castor Says: December 12th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
They said the same thing about man-made global warming, Scott.
Buck Says: December 12th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
R. Scott’s contention that government spending brought us out of the Great Depression is an opinion, not fact. That government spending stimulates the economy is an empirical fact, is also an opinion.
Many if not most economist and historians believe that government spending and over-regulation prolonged the depression and made recovery longer and more difficult. The make work programs of the WPA and other New Deal projects did little put American’s back to work. Take the Hoover Dam, for instance. Often touted as the gold standard for government invest and job creation, it was a project actually concieved by private businesses and executed by private contractors hiring their own employees.
It is also revisionist history to say government spending from the post World Wars fueled the most explosive economy known to man. In fact, it’s pure poppycock! There were many catalyst including the explosive growth of radio, then air travel and other new technologies developed by private entrapenuers.
Government spending is a misnomer. It is the people’s money, the peoples wealth, that has to be given to the government or leveraged through government borrowing in order for government spending to occur.
What I see and what American’s have grown wear of, is that time and again, the government, those we elect to run it, spend our money foolishly and in corrupted ways.
The Other Side Says: December 12th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
what brought america out of the great depression is very complicated and up for debate. but government spending helps put money into people’s pockets which is directly re-invested into the economy. it is undeniable that when people who are in need get extra income, they spend it on clothing and groceries. that more directly impacts the economy compared to tax cuts. and the recent stimulus helped bring america out of the great recession.
if conservative economics work so well, then why are they the cause of most of our national debt? why hasn’t the lower taxes of the bush administration created jobs? why is income inequality so great? why did the stock market crumble during the bush administration?
republicans have had numerous opportunities to demonstrate that their economics work but they have failed. democrats have had no chance recently to legislate their economic policies so how do you know that their policies won’t work? the debate about what is fact an opinion rages on, but it is surely a fact that republicans have had a chance to benefit the economy…and they ruined it. it is also a fact that democratic policies have not had a chance to work because of republican obstructionism.
it would be a fair debate if there was equal evidence on both sides. but democrats have little to show because they have not been able to implement any legislation or had the time to see anything work. why do republicans think that they can obstruct democratic ideas, say they don’t work then tought their own failed policies? that is quite audacious.
YIRMASTER Says: January 29th, 2012 at 8:34 am
WOW!!! “The other side” is so far detached from reality I’m not sure it’s worth it to even comment.
This person sounds like a recording of Obama talking out of one side of his mouth while he does the opposite but says he not doing whatever it is he IS doing and saying it enough times that his idiot sheeple jump on the bandwagon. Uhhg!!! Morons!!!
Maybe that statement in itself should be the extent of my rebuttal.
The Other Side Says: January 30th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
say more yirmaster…you seem to have some very strong opinions that are opposite of mine. defend your views and provide evidence to refute my statements.
are you going to be like every other tea partier by shouting and screaming without actually contributing to the debate? or are you just so ill informed that you can use knowledge to defend your “rebuttal?”
Castor Says: February 7th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Liberals don’t know how to take an insult.
Thought I was gonna say joke? Nah.