Obama's Economic Town Hall Meeting

[Shady]

Anybody else see his town hall meeting yesterday? Seems like many people have soured on the 'hope n change.'

"I'm Exhausted of Defending You"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHv1ENYAulY&feature=player_embedded

Not only that, but believe it or not, Chris Matthews actually made a great point from a great observation of Obama's performance.

"Stop saying cutting taxes is giving people money!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY0x5OzKE7I

[The_Squid]

Anyone who thought that the disaster that was 8 years of GWB could be turned around in 2 years, or even a full term, is completely delusional. It may take several terms to dig America out of the hole that it is in. And that is only if Americans don't elect another GWB-like imbecile and a Senate and Congress that go along....

There was a budget surplus when GWB took office... a SURPLUS!!

And this whole taxation business is completely assinine in America. It is one of the least taxed nations in the G20, with the least amount of social programs. To say that they are "over-taxed" is simply not the case. One day there is going to have to be a president that makes some very hard and unpopular decisions about taxation in the USA to dig it out of the deficit spending.

[sharkman]

I don't think the "blame Dubya" strategy is going to help the Dems in November. Too many people like those in the Town Hall meeting are seeing through it.

[The_Squid]

I don't think the "blame Dubya" strategy is going to help the Dems in November. Too many people like those in the Town Hall meeting are seeing through it.

What is there to see through? Who created this mess? Obama? Nope... Clinton? Nope. hmmmm... there was a President in between those two who went from a surplus budget to the biggest deficit in USA history. WWII and the Vietnam war didn't even drain the coffers like GWB's policies did. Incredible how far the USA has fallen. You can stick your head in the sand about it all you want.... it's a very obvious reason for the economic and social ills that plague America today.

Let's hope that it can pick itself up sooner rather than later, since Canada's economy is partially dependant upon America's economy....

Edited September 21, 2010 by The_Squid

[dre]

Anyone who thought that the disaster that was 8 years of GWB could be turned around in 2 years, or even a full term, is completely delusional. It may take several terms to dig America out of the hole that it is in. And that is only if Americans don't elect another GWB-like imbecile and a Senate and Congress that go along....

There was a budget surplus when GWB took office... a SURPLUS!!

And this whole taxation business is completely assinine in America. It is one of the least taxed nations in the G20, with the least amount of social programs. To say that they are "over-taxed" is simply not the case. One day there is going to have to be a president that makes some very hard and unpopular decisions about taxation in the USA to dig it out of the deficit spending.

Todays generation is clueless and just dont want to pay their share.

Take a look at historical tax rates in the US. Theyre lower than they have been since 1930! The rich have cut their own taxes nearly 70% in just the last 3 decades or so.

The result: The national debt and the current accounts defecit.

Heres top and bottom tax rates for the last 100 years or so.

1913-1915 - 1% 7% IRS

1916 - 2% 15% IRS

1917 - 2% 67% IRS

1918 - 6% 77% IRS

1919-1920 - 4% 73% IRS

1921 - 4% 73% IRS

1922 - 4% 56% IRS

1923 - 3% 56% IRS

1924 - 1.5% 46% IRS

1925-1928 - 1.5% 25% IRS

1929 - 0.375% 24% IRS

1930-1931 - 1.125% 25% IRS

1932-1933 - 4% 63% IRS

1934-1935 - 4% 63% IRS

1936-1939 - 4% 79% IRS

1940 - 4.4% 81.1% IRS

1941 - 10% 81% IRS

1942-1943 - 19% 88% IRS

1944-1945 - 23% 94% IRS

1946-1947 - 19% 86.45% IRS

1948-1949 - 16.6% 82.13% IRS

1950 - 17.4% 84.36% IRS

1951 - 20.4% 91% IRS

1952-1953 - 22.2% 92% IRS

1954-1963 - 20% 91% IRS

1964 - 16% 77% IRS

1965-1967 - 14% 70% IRS

1968 - 14% 75.25% IRS

1969 - 14% 77% IRS

1970 - 14% 71.75% IRS

1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS

1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS

1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS

1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 28% IRS

1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS

1993-2000 5 brackets 15% 39.6% IRS

2001 5 brackets 15% 39.1% IRS

2002 6 brackets 10% 38.6% IRS

2003-2009 6 brackets 10% 35% Tax Foundation

Now take a look at this graph...

http://www.foolsandsages.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/inflation-adjusted-national-debt.gif

That shows the inflation adjusted national debt on a graph. Just for fun Id like you mentally superimpose the national debt graph onto that list of tax rates.

Notice how on the National Debt Graph the line is pretty much flat between 1945 and 1984? And then after 1984 starts to SKYROCKET and never stops (even durin a number of different republic and democratic administrations).

Well... lets go back to tax rates. What happened to tax rates shortly before that graph starts spiking through the roof?

1970 - 14% 71.75% IRS

1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS

1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS

1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS

1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 28% IRS

The top bracket tax rate was slashed. I mean gutted. 72% down to 38%!!! And immediately the defecit and nation debt starting wilding spiking.

So what gives?

The result of the decision to gut tax rates without decreasing spending under Ronald Reagan (The grandfather of Americas defecit/debt), was that Americans would no longer fund their own government, and instead would force the rest of the world to fund it by deflating the US dollar.

The fact is that GENERATION USELESS doesnt want to pay their share! They inherited a fantastic modern country in tip top shape, but they have not assumed the same responsibility or sacrifice that Americans w ho came before them did.

Edited September 21, 2010 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

The fact is that GENERATION USELESS doesnt want to pay their share! They inherited a fantastic modern country in tip top shape, but they have not assumed the same responsibility or sacrifice that Americans w ho came before them did.

I'd be interested in seeing a graph of assets and debt over time.

[bud]

once the american people realize that it's okay to vote outside of the democrat/republican candidates that the media and corporations keep shoving in their faces, then 'change' will be seen.

[punked]

Gotcha Obama's town hall meeting on CNBC or the business network went poorly because he didn't promise billionaires tax cuts. Nice spin Shady now take it to the public.

I think he made his point very clear Shady.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'd be interested in seeing a graph of assets and debt over time.

The tax rate changes are meaningless without income levels actually subject to the income tax. It has already been demonstrated that post WW2, US federal tax revenues have always stayed within a very narrow percentage of domestic GDP (~ 19.5%), regardless of marginal tax rates.

Hauser's Law

Edited September 21, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

The tax rate changes are meaningless without income levels actually subject to the income tax. It has already been demonstrated that post WW2, US federal tax revenues have always stayed within a very narrow percentage of domestic GDP (~ 19.5%), regardless of marginal tax rates.

Hauser's Law

Ok. So how is the upper income tax cut supported ? Are others paying more, or is it a taller pie ?

[punked]

Ok. So how is the upper income tax cut supported ? Are others paying more, or is it a taller pie ?

No the issue isn't if the upper income bracket will get a cut they will get a cut(see it is only the GOP saying they wont because they will) the issue how big that cut will be. The GOP wants it to be huge.

[Michael Hardner]

No the issue isn't if the upper income bracket will get a cut they will get a cut(see it is only the GOP saying they wont because they will) the issue how big that cut will be. The GOP wants it to be huge.

I'm not really interested in that, since it hasn't changed since around FDR. The highest earners want a tax cut all the time.

I'm more interested in how the revenue stays the same over time.

[Pliny]

I don't think the "blame Dubya" strategy is going to help the Dems in November. Too many people like those in the Town Hall meeting are seeing through it.

I don't think the "blame Dubya" strategy is going to help the Dems in November.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think the "blame Dubya" strategy is going to help the Dems in November.

I don't think so either. But if the Republicans win the house then will there be an agreement on how to move forward ? Clinton was able to deal with Gingrich but... we'll see I suppose.

[August1991]

Anyone who thought that the disaster that was 8 years of GWB could be turned around in 2 years, or even a full term, is completely delusional.

That's the answer that you will hear ad nauseum...

I will add something else. If you look at Rasmussen Polls, Obama has a solid hard-core vote of about 30%. These people will not desert him. (For example, the woman in the OP video will vote Obama in 2012 despite what she says.) To win in 2012, Obama "merely" has to add another 20% of the electorate and I think he can do that.

OTOH, the Democratic Party is another story. Obama may do fine but the Dems will take a beating. They used to say that about Clinton: he only cared about Clinton.

Well, they'll say about Obama is that he has no coattails.

[BubberMiley]

I think the "blame Dubya" strategy is going to help the Dems in November.

[ironstone]

What is there to see through? Who created this mess? Obama? Nope... Clinton? Nope. hmmmm... there was a President in between those two who went from a surplus budget to the biggest deficit in USA history. WWII and the Vietnam war didn't even drain the coffers like GWB's policies did. Incredible how far the USA has fallen. You can stick your head in the sand about it all you want.... it's a very obvious reason for the economic and social ills that plague America today.

Let's hope that it can pick itself up sooner rather than later, since Canada's economy is partially dependant upon America's economy....

Is it a fair assumption that as long as the US economy remains stagnant,it will be entirely the fault of George W. Bush but if the situation improves it will be entirely because of Barrack Hussein Obama?

[punked]

Is it a fair assumption that as long as the US economy remains stagnant,it will be entirely the fault of George W. Bush but if the situation improves it will be entirely because of Barrack Hussein Obama?

I don't know but a Study about the Bush tax cuts says it took 3 trillion out of the pockets of Americans.

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument

[Shady]

I don't know but a Study about the Bush tax cuts says it took 3 trillion out of the pockets of Americans.

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument

Only a lunatic would suggest that people keeping more of their own money somehow took money out of their pockets. Unless of course you think the people's pockets and the government's pockets are the same.

Anyways, great new ad directed toward the Dems. It's apporpriately titled 'Mourning In America.' A reference to the great Reagan ad from the 80's, 'Morning In America.' However, if you're in a good mood, you may want to pass on watching it. It's kind of depressing.

[The_Squid]

Is it a fair assumption that as long as the US economy remains stagnant,it will be entirely the fault of George W. Bush but if the situation improves it will be entirely because of Barrack Hussein Obama?

No, it isn't a fair assumption. Don't assume anything. Just read what I actually said.

GWB took a surplus and turned it into the most massive deficit that the USA has ever seen through failed policies and a failed war.

IF Barrack Hussein Obama's policies help turn this around, then great. If not, then the USA will keep digging a hole for itself that started in 2000. Certainly any recovery won't be the result of anything GW ever did, obviously..... I would think one term as President will not be enough time to fix this. Maybe 2 or 3 terms of sound fiscal policies will do it. Maybe....

This has been the largest economic meltdown since the "Great Depression". That lasted about a decade....

Edited September 27, 2010 by The_Squid

[Shady]

I would think one term as President will not be enough time to fix this. Maybe 2 or 3 terms of sound fiscal policies will do it. Maybe....

Nope. A pro-growth fiscal policy would have the economy producing jobs relatively quickly. Companies are sitting on some 3 trillion dollars waiting to spend and invest. But they're scared to do so, because of Obama's anti-growth, punishing policies. Providing a good economic environment and eliminating the government caused uncertainty would help improve things significantly.

This has been the largest economic meltdown since the "Great Depression".

Nope. The recession of the late-70's/early 80's was worse. Unemployment was higher then.

[bush_cheney2004]

GWB took a surplus and turned it into the most massive deficit that the USA has ever seen through failed policies and a failed war....

This is patently false, as the largest US federal budget deficits adjusted for current dollars and % of GDP occurred during WW2. More importantly, the Obama administration's FY2010 budget deficit continued and expanded Bush Jr. administration policies.

[GostHacked]

This is patently false, as the largest US federal budget deficits adjusted for current dollars and % of GDP occurred during WW2. More importantly, the Obama administration's FY2010 budget deficit continued and expanded Bush Jr. administration policies.

Which was more than expected in my view. I guess it could mean it will get worse before it gets better. But how much worse will be tolerated is unknown. But the trend Bush put the US in cannot be ignored. I don't know why people are so quick to dismiss that. In my view Bush was bad, and Obama is worse. The trend is not good for who takes the office next.

Shady

Only a lunatic would suggest that people keeping more of their own money somehow took money out of their pockets. Unless of course you think the people's pockets and the government's pockets are the same.

Without the people's pocket getting tapped by taxes, you would not have a government pocket. One supplies the other. So I view it as the same pocket.

[Shady]

Without the people's pocket getting tapped by taxes, you would not have a government pocket.

Exactly. So how can you say they're the same pocket?

One supplies the other. So I view it as the same pocket.

How so? If somebody sees their taxes go up, does that mean they have more or less money in their pocket?

[bush_cheney2004]

Which was more than expected in my view. I guess it could mean it will get worse before it gets better. But how much worse will be tolerated is unknown. But the trend Bush put the US in cannot be ignored. I don't know why people are so quick to dismiss that. In my view Bush was bad, and Obama is worse. The trend is not good for who takes the office next.

It's not so quickly dismissed, and alienated fiscal conservatives during Bush's tenure. Bush's numbers as a percentage of GDP are not unusual:

Year    GDP    Debt %  Note

1970	1038.3	0.27	a
1971	1126.8	2.04	a
1972	1237.9	1.89	a
1973	1382.3	1.08	a
1974	1499.5	0.41	a
1975	1637.7	3.25	a
1976	1824.6	4.04	a
1977	2030.1	2.64	a
1978	2293.8	2.58	a
1979	2562.2	1.59	a
1980	2788.1	2.65	a
1981	3126.8	2.53	a
1982	3253.2	3.93	a
1983	3534.6	5.88	a
1984	3930.9	4.72	a
1985	4217.5	5.03	a
1986	4460.1	4.96	a
1987	4736.4	3.16	a
1988	5100.4	3.04	a
1989	5482.1	2.78	a
1990	5800.5	3.81	a
1991	5992.1	4.49	a
1992	6342.3	4.58	a
1993	6667.4	3.83	a
1994	7085.2	2.87	a
1995	7414.7	2.21	a
1996	7838.5	1.37	a
1997	8332.4	0.26	a
1998	8793.5	-0.79	a
1999	9353.5	-1.34	a
2000	9951.5	-2.37	a
2001	10286.2	-1.25	a
2002	10642.3	1.48	a
2003	11142.1	3.39	a
2004	11867.8	3.48	a
2005	12638.4	2.52	a
2006	13398.9	1.85	a
2007	14077.6	1.14	a
2008	14441.4	3.18	a
2009	14258.2	9.91	a
2010	14623.9	10.64	b

Legend:
a - actual reported
i - interpolated between actual reported values