The 2nd half of Obama's Presidency

[reformeddaytrader]

Dec 27, 2010 22:23:43 GMT -5 @goldenrun said:

RDT said: "Obama has little choice to narrow his liberalism or socialism "

Please explain how President Obama is a socialist. Give examples and please be specific. Thanks.

You misrepresented what I said, i.e., Obama has little choice but to narrow his liberalism or socialism refers to his economic policies for the past two years and it doesn't equate to him being a socialist but rather his economics policies during the first two years were government over reach or far left liberalism and/ or socialism.My contention remains that if Obama doesn't move from far left economic liberalism or socialism, then his administration will be deadlocked with the conservatives who will control the House with increased numbers in the senate. Does Obama want to continue government over reach or move more to the center? Will he remain on the far left with his economics liberalism/socialism?

With that being said let's think about this potential dilemma and look to what is next. I think what is next refers to the current economic situation and includes deflation, unemployment, access to credit, domestic economic policy (liberalism or socialism) and global issues and how next will they will all play out.

And if I knew the answer to that question I would have to be a PhD in economics and not a sometimes successful Reformeddaytrader.

I do believe fully in all of our Free Markets and American economic systems but they were hampered during the first two years of the Obama administration because of its over reach and lack of coordination with business. Obama is trying to improve his relationship with business after the 02 Nov election.

As I said before recovery will take time and the tax cuts might just be more beneficial than we have assumed.. how is that for being optimistic?

[ugonow]

Obama is a socialist. Libs point to the fact there were record coporate profits recently as vindication,but the fact is, those profits were a result of the knowledge republicans were taking back control.

[reformeddaytrader]

Obama needs to take the Political Sprectum Test.. and I bet it will show he is a Socialist/Communist with a -2.5/-3.0 on the Rector Scale..

[goldenrun]

RDT: Obama has little choice but to narrow his liberalism or socialism

This is your statement. The meaning of this is: Obama is liberal and/or socialist and must "narrow" this trait/philosphy/practice. So, in your reply, you say that you're referring to his economic policies and that he "over reached" in his first two years.
How, exactly, did he "over reach?"
When he took office, the Bush administration had already spent the surplus and increased the debt by $4.9 trillion. The great Ponzi scheme was collapsing - the toxic assets which had been bundled and sold and sold and sold had reached the end and banks were on the verge of collapse. The Bush administration inititated the bank bail outs. Auto manufactures were on the verge of bankruptcy, unemployment had skyrocketed.
Enter Barack Obama.
Do you seriously think that this mess was going to be turned around in 2 years? Especially with the Republicans stoppin most every initiative he put forward to pump money into the economy?
The banks, the big ones anyway, have recovered. They're sitting on lots of money. And they're not lending. Their CEO's are back to their huge bonuses and, for them, it seems to be business as usual. We, the taxpayers, saved their butts.
The auto industry has been saved and, perhaps, have gotten a bit smarter about the products they put out.
But all is not well. American business has created 1.4 million new jobs - off shore. Thanks to the tax breaks they've received for doing just that. Here at home, unemployment is still staggering.
I don't see any "socialism" at work here. In fact, I don't see much "liberalism" at work here. I see the same old/same old capitalism.
One percent of the population has the vast majority of wealth. The gap between rich and middle class has widened beyond what is bearable for the middle class. And rather than raise revenue to address the deficit, the Republicans filibustered for 2 years to protect those whom George W. Bush described as his base: "the have's and the have more's." Instead, the republicans are sharpening their knives to come after the middle class - again.
So where's Obama's "socialism?" Where, in fact, is his "liberalism?"
Seems to me that we're living on the Animal Farm.

[deziloooooo]

Golden...I reread your post trying to see what I could add to it..couldn't add much if anything, a Karma to you and thumbs up. good post..though don't expect universal acceptence ..

oops, karma used up again.{sigh} raincheck?

There ya go, raincheck over

[floridayankee]

And they're not lending.

Correction...they are lending but you have to be <gasp> qualified.

Dec 31, 2010 12:10:22 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Golden...I reread your post trying to see what I could add to it..

How 'bout there never was a surplus anywhere except paper and even that "paper surplus" was achieved by slight of hand.

As for the rest...left wing talking points that have been shot down...some repeatedly like the Clinton surplus myth.

[goldenrun]

floridayankee:

"As for the rest...left wing talking points that have been shot down...some repeatedly like the Clinton surplus myth."

I thought this particular right-wing talking point had finally faded into the mythology from wence it came. But keep on trying it if you want. Doesn't change the facts.

[goldenrun]

"Correction...they are lending but you have to be <gasp> qualified."

They're not lending to small businesses. They ARE sending out offers for credit cards again, to anyone on their mailing list.

[floridayankee]

Dec 31, 2010 13:34:40 GMT -5 @goldenrun said:

"Correction...they are lending but you have to be <gasp> qualified."

They're not lending to small businesses.

I'm sure the SBO's that I personally know drawing on their lines of credit will be shocked to hear that.

I'll wait 'til Monday to tell them. Wouldn't want to ruin their good time at the party tonight.

[floridayankee]

Dec 31, 2010 13:32:57 GMT -5 @goldenrun said:

I thought this particular right-wing talking point had finally faded into the mythology from wence it came. But keep on trying it if you want. Doesn't change the facts.

Feel free to explain how a POTUS with a surplus still increases the deficit.

I'll check back Monday. That should be plenty of time to find an answer.

ETA: I always said Clinton had come the closest to balancing the budget than any potus in quite a long time. He just never quite got there.....

[deziloooooo]

"How 'bout there never was a surplus anywhere except paper and even that "paper surplus" was achieved by slight of hand.

As for the rest...left wing talking points that have been shot down...some repeatedly like the Clinton surplus myth"
=================================================

Picky, picky...to me, a surplus, it's right there in so many posts..just google..as far as getting any of it, when I went to for my share , I was told I don't have the right to it{sigh}..selfish burocrats..

[goldenrun]

www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
February 3, 2008
Updated: February 11, 2008
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.
The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.
Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
NOTE: A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

[deziloooooo]

There is just no way to be even close to a balanced if we go to war, forget the should we or shouldn't we argument , and not have tax increases to pay for it.
I would also suggest some programs such {sigh} the part D . RX program, [thank you Mr Bush] ...but wars with there tremendous costs, the replacement of and the long term ramifications of..I wonder what our little excursions into Granada and Panama cost.

[goldenrun]

Excerpted from The Washington Post
Clinton: Devote Surplus To Social Security
President Clinton begins his State of the Union address Tuesday night. (Reuters)
By John Harris, Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, January 20, 1999; Page A1
After nearly two decades during which chronic deficits shadowed nearly all domestic policy discussions, the debate now is what to do with a prosperity-driven surplus that last fiscal year exceeded $70 billion. Starting at last year's State of the Union address, Clinton fended off GOP plans to use the surplus for an across-the-board tax cut with his vow to "Save Social Security First."
If there was no Clinton budget surplus, why did Republicans have plans on how to use the surplus? Perhaps they were going to use a mythological surplus? That would be strange.

(full article at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/president012099.htm )

[deziloooooo]

", why did Republicans have plans on how to use the surplus? Perhaps they were going to use a mythological surplus? "

;D

[goldenrun]

Clinton's presidency included a great period of economic growth in America's history. According to David Greenberg, a professor of history and media studies at Rutgers University:

The Clinton years were unquestionably a time of progress, especially on the economy [...] Clinton's 1992 slogan, 'Putting people first,' and his stress on 'the economy, stupid,' pitched an optimistic if still gritty populism at a middle class that had suffered under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. [...] By the end of the Clinton presidency, the numbers were uniformly impressive. Besides the record-high surpluses and the record-low poverty rates, the economy could boast the longest economic expansion in history; the lowest unemployment since the early 1970s; and the lowest poverty rates for single mothers, black Americans, and the aged.[44]
In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[45] It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.[46]

Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, as it were, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. In fact, it took Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill.[47] After extensive lobbying by the Clinton Administration, the House narrowly voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 218 to 216.[48] The budget package expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as relief to low-income families. It reduced the amount they paid in federal income and Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA), providing $21 billion in relief for 15 million low-income families. Improved economic conditions and policies served to encourage investors in the bond market, leading to a decline in long-term interest rates. The bill contributed to dramatic decline of the budget deficit in the years following its enactment–in 1998, for the first time since 1969, the nation achieved a budget surplus.

[dmsm]

I get tired of that word socialist being thrown around. Use public transportation? Socialist. A goverment program? socialist. Of course if you like Obama you are also called a communist and any other neg word they can find. You had eight years to take this county into the red and you expect someone else to fix it immediatly. Where were you when he was taking the economy into the red? Borrowing to go to war. Losing billions in Iraq? Illegal /immoral war? No where not a word.

[goldenrun]

And, yes, I've seen all of the sites on Google which promote the idea that this budget surplus was a "myth." But it wasn't. You ight have that notion because the surplus disappeared so quickly once Geo. W. took office. Now you see it/Now you don't!

[goldenrun]

dmsm, right you are! They not only voted for the borrow and spend guy once, they voted for him twice!
Gotta love those borrow and spend republicans.

[dmsm]

Trying to get anything done with the party of no has been an up hill battle. Republicans have said right up front they did not plan on working with this POTUS and would do all possible to sink him..I guess this shows how much they really care for this country. It actually makes as angry as I have ever been. Working together never was on the table. If that makes some happy is it sad.

[ungenteel]

Correction ... 2nd quarter of Obama's presidency

[deziloooooo]

Agree with all of you on the above , but still am upset with those on the ultra left who seem to have turned against the man because he in doing Presidntial things..which are at times a working with the opposition, are not only disoplaying their displeasure but actually talk about removing their support from him..their way or the high way.
Possible they think Beck and his supporters will welcome them and give them his support of what they want.

[verrip1]

This must be the epitome of a loaded AND a compound question. "Are the next two years going to be economically positive? Is Obama's presidency to be positive over the next two years?"

Who said that the President controls the economy? That's a ridiculous assumption. Bush W didn't control it, Carter didn't control it, Reagan didn't control it, Clinton didn't control it. Each of them affected the economy, but none of them controlled the economy. Lots of other things beyond the control of a US President control the overall economy. You guys know this, right?

Anybody disagree that the President cannot completely change the direction of the economy by himself? If not, please describe why and how Obama hasn't fixed everything yet.

And please try to minimize the "Great American Hero" analogy, in which Big O got the suit, but lost the owners' manual.

[warsaw (banned)]

Everything is fine, and Dems will come back in 2012. tyvm.... Remain calm.

[floridayankee]

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

Straight from the (unbiased) US Treasury website....raw numbers don't lie. Please pick the year the federal deficit decreased and was erased.
Date --------- Federal Deficit
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

[deziloooooo]

You make to much of the thing of proving what ever..there are sites that show a different point then yours, but all we get into is a thing young males may play , "mine is bigger then yours , oh yeah well ---" or young mixed also play , i''ll show you mine if you'll show me yours.
This is a neat site, words from the man himself , pretty plain, actually even to day one of the highes ratings by the American populace for dor their former POTUS since the end of the big war, which is cool. possible not your best buddy, but for many of us..not to shabby.
www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Bill_Clinton_Budget_+_Economy.htm

[deziloooooo]

1993 budget signaled the return of fiscal responsibility
Bill's economic plan [finally passed in August 1993]. Before the vote, I had spoken with wavering Democrats. In the end, not a single Republican voted for the balanced budget package. It squeaked through the House by one vote, and Al Gore had to vote to break a 50-50 vote tie.
The plan wasn't everything the Administration had wanted, but it signaled the return of fiscal responsibility for the government and the beginning of an economic turnaround for the country, unprecedented in American history. The plan slashed the deficit in half; extended the life of Medicare Trust Fund; expanded a tax cut called the Earned Income Tax Credit, which benefited fifteen million lower-income working Americans' reformed the student loan program, saving taxpayers billions of dollars; and created empowerment zones an enterprise communities that provided tax incentives for investing in distressed communities. To pay for these reforms, the plan raised taxes on gasoline and on highest-income Americans

Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=politics&thread=271&page=2#ixzz1A68Hk8xG








In 1995, Bill decided to balance the budget in ten years because “the pain we’d inflict on our elderly, our students, and our economy” in the GOP 7-year plan “just isn’t worth it.” He promised to cut taxes on the middle class rather than the rich, and he drew sharp distinctions between his way and the GOP way, particularly on Medicare-cost savings. He insisted the GOP wanted to raise health care premiums for the elderly, while he planned to cut Medicare costs by reducing payments to hospitals

In the summer of 1996, Clinton's grand first-term dreams had shriveled into a set of proposals. He would spend all of 1997 working on a balanced-budget agreement with the Republicans.
The 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement--the first nominally balanced budget in 30 years--received insufficient attention. It was, in a way, the ultimate demonstration of the New Clintonism. The real victory wasn't in the "zero" at the bottom line, but in the dozens of line-item skirmishes won.

There was the more than $30 billion in new tax credits for higher education. There was also $24 billion for a children's health program. He also was able to make the welfare reform revisions he had promised.

.



The 1997 BBA was an achievement ignored by Clinton's critics on the left (who wanted bigger social programs), on the right (who wanted less spending), in the press (who mostly didn't notice), and in academia. "These aren't big pieces of legislation. These are scraps off the table," said one critic.

Source: The Natural, by Joe Klein, p.158-160 Feb 11, 2003

Clinton's next statement, however, brought an explosion of bipartisan cheers: "For three decades, six presidents have come before you to warn of the damage deficits pose to our nation. Tonight, I come before you to announce that the federal deficit--once so incomprehensibly large that it had eleven zeroes--will be, simply, zero."
The President basked in the cheers, his jaw set, smiling slightly. For a moment, the Lewinsky business seemed very far away. And now, he was ready to take his big gamble: "If we balance the budget for the next year, it is projected that we'll have a sizable surplus in the years that immediately follow. What should we do with the projected surplus?" He paused for effect. "I have a simple four word answer: Save...Social...Security...First!"

Source: The Natural, by Joe Klein, p. 18 Feb 11, 2003

1995 budget impasse blamed on Republican intransigence
In the 1995 budget impasse, almost everyone on the White House staff still believed that presidential passivity was the best tactic: Let them suffocate under the weight of their own proposal. But the President was spiritually--and politically--uneasy wit that course. He said that he might well propose his own version of a balanced budget. With his own balanced budget proposal in place that autumn, Clinton was free to attack the Republicans much harder, and more confidently than he would have it he'd followed his staff's advice.
The Gingrich Republicans proved perfect opponents for the President. They refused to compromise on the budget. The new fiscal year began without an agreement and the federal government, consequently, shut down for lack of funds in October; then, after interim negotiations, it shut down for a second time in December. The President, of course, was complicit in this, but the Republicans, who had flaunted their intransigence throughout the year, were blamed for the spectacle.

Source: The Natural, by Joe Klein, p.144-146 Feb 11, 2003


In 1992, the Federal budget deficit was $290 billion - the largest dollar deficit in American history. In January 1993, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would grow to $455 billion by 2000. The Office of Management and Budget is now projecting a $211 billion surplus for 2000 - the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation.
In 1998 and 1999, the debt held by the public was reduced by $140 billion, and the government is projected to pay down an additional $184 billion in public debt this fiscal year alone. Debt reduction brings real benefits for the American people -- a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments. Reduced debt also means lower interest rates and reduced payments on car loans and student loans. With the President’s plan, we are now on track to eliminate the nation’s publicly held debt by 2012.

[floridayankee]

Jan 4, 2011 14:41:38 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

You make to much of the thing of proving what ever..there are sites that show a different point then yours,

Spin however you want....Tough to argue numbers dezi. It's impossible to have a balanced budget AND an increase in the federal deficit in the same year. It's not spin, it's not hype, it's not opinion, and it's not a bash on Clinton. It's simple math. If I owe a dollar at the end of this year and two dollars at the end of next year, I had a deficit, not a surplus. Is simple addition/subtraction really that difficult to grasp any more?

[EVT1]

Reread the difference between deficit and debt- sheesh man-it is simple math. If I earn more than I spend in a given year, my total debt can still rise due to interest-it just rises less. Perhaps the problem is that paying down the national debt was not a budget item- and please note the enormous concern of 'fiscal conservatives' who were quick to use it for anything but paying down the debt. The guy had a budget surplus- although when your this deep in debt what does it really matter.

[floridayankee]

Jan 4, 2011 22:20:43 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Perhaps the problem is that paying down the national debt was not a budget item-

I'll give you that one. I look at finances and budgeting from a business perspective where every expense is accounted for in the budgeting process where current debt and interest liability being the most easily predictable expenses. This is not the case with government budgeting considering if all debt / interest / unfunded liabilities were to be accounted for, our federal deficit would likely be at the $100 trillion dollar mark (and then some) rather than the $14 trillion dollar mark they now say it is at.