President Barack Obama's approval rating is below George W. Bush

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 44
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER
    min0 lee's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Bronx, NYC
    Posts
    44,753
    Rep Points
    812984759

    President Barack Obama's approval rating is below George W. Bush






    This one's gotta hurt. President Obama's approval rating has dipped below, gulp, George W. Bush.

    The ex-President's approval rating rose to 47% in recent weeks according to a Gallup poll released Monday, which is one point higher than Obama's rating in a survey also taken this week.

    The poll results represent a surprising rebound for the once fiercely unpopular Bush, whose approval rating was just 25% just a little over a year ago.

    Politico speculates the unexpected boomerang could be a result of the positive reviews Bush's recently released memoir, "Decision Points," has received in addition to the former commander-in-chief's opening of a presidential library in Texas.

    That coupled with criticism over Obama's handling of the economy and stinging Democratic losses in the midterm elections, may have affected Americans' views of the President.

    Before the release of his memoir, Bush had a 44% approval rating. The most recent survey numbers mark the highest for him since 2005 - before Hurricane Katrina - CBS News reported. Bush's highest rating was 87%, immediately following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

    Still, it's not all good news for the former President. His disapproval rating, (51%) is still higher than his approval rating, a similarity he shares with Richard Nixon, whose approval rating is just 29%.

    Obama's disapproval rating (47%) is just one point higher than his approval rating.

    John F. Kennedy remains the most popular President in Gallup's annual poll with 85% approval. Ronald Reagan came in second with 74%, followed by Bill Clinton's 69%.

    ashahid@nydailynews.com



    Read more: President Barack Obama's approval rating is below George W. Bush: Gallup Poll
    .

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    BOARD REP
    irish_2003's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    on the boards
    Posts
    5,439
    Rep Points
    326974655

    i never ever doubted for a second that Barry Hussein would be rated the worst president ever.......he is very good at getting individuals together in the ghetto in the projects and getting more free shit from taxpayers and hardworker americans though
    www.euroking-gear.net
    please know and follow the laws of your country regarding aas

  3. #3
    Registered User
    GearsMcGilf's Avatar


    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    AL
    Posts
    5,823
    Rep Points
    589696610

    He'll be a one termer fo sho. He's Jimmy Carter Jr. If he runs to the center, like Bill, he might have a chance. But, I don't see that happening. His liberal base would be irate.

  4. #4
    Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
    LAM's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas & Florida & St. Croix
    Posts
    16,355
    Rep Points
    962148245

    Quote Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf View Post
    He'll be a one termer fo sho. He's Jimmy Carter Jr. If he runs to the center, like Bill, he might have a chance. But, I don't see that happening. His liberal base would be irate.
    not if Palin runs and wins the GOP nomination...the more she talks the less any people want here anywhere near another political office. only the far right likes to elect idiots to office.
    William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    GearsMcGilf's Avatar


    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    AL
    Posts
    5,823
    Rep Points
    589696610

    She won't get it. But, IDK about only far right electing idiots. If that's the case, explain why Pelosi is back in as house minority leader.

  6. #6
    Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
    LAM's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas & Florida & St. Croix
    Posts
    16,355
    Rep Points
    962148245

    Quote Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf View Post
    She won't get it. But, IDK about only far right electing idiots. If that's the case, explain why Pelosi is back in as house minority leader.
    would have been nice if GWB had left the next POTUS some actual money to work with but that has always been the trend. GOP POTUS run up great deficits then the DEM POUTS have to come in and try to clean up the mess. we would be the exact same economic situation if not worst if McCain and the retard had won. the fact that GWB created the least amount of jobs of any pres since WWII certainly hasn't helped out the employment situation. Obama didn't have a chance as the grand old pussies stated when he won they were going to do whatever it takes to see him fail, apparently that means screwing the average american for the sake of politics.
    William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

  7. #7
    primeau
    lnvanry's Avatar


    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    4,276
    Rep Points
    54346477

    Quote Originally Posted by LAM View Post
    would have been nice if GWB had left the next POTUS some actual money to work with but that has always been the trend. GOP POTUS run up great deficits then the DEM POUTS have to come in and try to clean up the mess. we would be the exact same economic situation if not worst if McCain and the retard had won. the fact that GWB created the least amount of jobs of any pres since WWII certainly hasn't helped out the employment situation. Obama didn't have a chance as the grand old pussies stated when he won they were going to do whatever it takes to see him fail, apparently that means screwing the average american for the sake of politics.
    Its not a GOP trend...its a modern president trend. Clinton was the outlier




    I'm not blindly defending the GOP, but you come off as so jaded against the GOP that you blindly endorse the "other option"....which really isn't much different at when it comes to the two biggest issues: monetary policy and foreign policy.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    GearsMcGilf's Avatar


    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    AL
    Posts
    5,823
    Rep Points
    589696610

    Once again, sounds like two wrongs somehow make a right. If Bush let spending get out of control, somehow that makes it a good thing when Obama takes it to an unprecedented level. If he's trying to clean anything up, why is he not doing the opposite of what was done in the last admin? Why is unemployment still rising two years into this admin? Obama doesn't seem like he needs anyone's help as far as failing.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER
    min0 lee's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Bronx, NYC
    Posts
    44,753
    Rep Points
    812984759

    Extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy seals the raw deal for taxpayers

    So basically they would OK if the rich also got a tax break which they don't need....wow.
    Nice to know the GOP's priority but then again if they don't give the pampered breaks then they won't get the votes and gifts the rich give out.

    Throw down some beats, please. Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner must be ready to shimmy after President Obama's compromise to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

    Call it the tax-break dance. And set it to a James Brown soundtrack:

    "I got mine and don't worry 'bout his

    Get on up and shake your moneymaker!

    Yeah, shake your moneymaker!"

    Yep, individuals who make over $200,000 a year won't have to give that extra 4% to Uncle Sam. That includes all the billionaires on the Forbes 400 list - and 4% of a billion adds up.

    Our lawmakers aren't listening. Last week, 50% of Americans The Associated Press and CNBC polled said they wanted Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy to end Dec. 31.

    Conservatives might argue, and the folks who sent stocks briefly soaring Tuesday would seem to agree; you know, the rich will spend this government bonus and it'll trickle down on us.

    Let's follow the money:

    You're a rich guy and with the tax breaks, you're going to stay that way. Where do you go? Manhattan Motor Cars, of course, to pick up the 2011 - Lamborghini Gallardo Superleggera.

    It's only $262,655. Jeff Drajin, the company's manager of luxury brands, says the extension of the Bush tax cuts should make sales even better.

    "No fear of the unknown now," he says. "Customers know that, at least for the next two years, they'll have the tax cuts."

    Even in the depths of this year's recession, Drajin sold 20 Lambos.

    So what did he do with his pretty penny?

    "I bought a house," he says. "And I got Wolf and KitchenAid appliances."

    Okay, both are made in the U.S.A., but what about John Cuccolo, the 34-year-old salesman at Topline Appliances in Westfield, N.J., where Drajin made his buys?

    "I'm married, and we have a 2-year-old girl," Cuccolo says. "I have to be more cautious now. I'm going to save at least half of it."

    So the buck stops here. With the middle class. And that stinks!

    We're simply not getting our proportionate share, as people did after World War II. The distribution of wealth isn't a pyramid anymore - it's like a top-heavy mushroom.

    The Federal Reserve says last year the richest 25% of U.S. households owned 87% of all the wealth. The middle class - 50% - owned only 13%, and the poor - the bottom 25% - forget about it.

    Not all rich people are greedy. Warren Buffett followed his friend Bill Gates' lead and gave $31 billion to Gates' foundation to help children's health and education.

    So here's a challenge to the rich conservatives who pushed these tax breaks for people who don't need them: We challenge you to take some of your tax break and give it back to the Treasury.

    Thousands of Americans, from schoolchildren to ordinary workers, have done so. This year, they sent in $2,840,466.75. "Usually in amounts of 10, 20, 30 dollars," a Treasury spokeswoman says.

    Conservatives claim they're worried about the deficit, which as of Tuesday was damn near $14 trillion. They never seem to want to pay it off.

    They have what we call short-arms - they can't reach the table when the check comes. That deficit's gonna swell like Bristol Palin's stomach.

    But, they sing along with James Brown: "I got mine and don't worry 'bout his."

    jmolloy@nydailynews.com
    Read more: Extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy seals the raw deal for taxpayers

  10. #10
    Registered User
    bio-chem's Avatar


    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    9,204
    Rep Points
    349837105

    I hate the idea that because people have money that means that they should be taxed for it. the thought that the poor are somehow entitled to the riches money through taxation and government entitlements is so bassackwards stupid fucking thinking that it makes me sick. anyone want to tell me what percentage of taxes the richest 1% of americans pay as a percentage of the whole? The 200k and up club pay their "fair share", and the "fair share" of a lot of other people too. I'm realistic to understand that that is the only way the system is going to work. But demonizing the rich for being wealthy is such a load of shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by LAM View Post
    Sheep get their news from the media, I get my news from Facebook. That's where the real unbiased news is found. any everyone from IM that is friends with me on FB knows this.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    BOARD REP
    irish_2003's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    on the boards
    Posts
    5,439
    Rep Points
    326974655

    if i was in the "rich" bracket and taxed more, i definitely would look into moving my businesses overseas.....americans have been spoiled with "funny money" for the last 40 years....now it's time to cut spending/borrowing and pay up......wah wah wah dems.....america IS NOT A HOUSING PROJECT.......but we are a WELFARE NATION unfortunately
    www.euroking-gear.net
    please know and follow the laws of your country regarding aas

  12. #12
    Registered User
    GearsMcGilf's Avatar


    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    AL
    Posts
    5,823
    Rep Points
    589696610

    There's not a single economist who'd claim that raising taxes in the midst of the worst economic downturn in 75 years is healthy. Those evil rich are the very people that pay the majority of all Fed income tax and create the jobs. If the govt takes (and squanders, as it would) more cash out of circulation, it will stifle growth. Businesses particularly small to midsized ones, drive the economy. Therefore, if it's bad for business, it's bad for all of us; regardless of how much some on the left hate business.

    It seems many folks on the left couldn't care less what this tax increase would have had on the economy, but were more anxious to sock it to the wealthy. It's not like any of the additional revenue would've been used to pay off debt or shut off the deficit. Your taxes aren't going either, so quit moaning about what someone else is paying. It's NOYFB.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER
    min0 lee's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Bronx, NYC
    Posts
    44,753
    Rep Points
    812984759

    Quote Originally Posted by bio-chem View Post
    I hate the idea that because people have money that means that they should be taxed for it. the thought that the poor are somehow entitled to the riches money through taxation and government entitlements is so bassackwards stupid fucking thinking that it makes me sick. anyone want to tell me what percentage of taxes the richest 1% of americans pay as a percentage of the whole? The 200k and up club pay their "fair share", and the "fair share" of a lot of other people too. I'm realistic to understand that that is the only way the system is going to work. But demonizing the rich for being wealthy is such a load of shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by irish_2003 View Post
    if i was in the "rich" bracket and taxed more, i definitely would look into moving my businesses overseas.....americans have been spoiled with "funny money" for the last 40 years....now it's time to cut spending/borrowing and pay up......wah wah wah dems.....america IS NOT A HOUSING PROJECT.......but we are a WELFARE NATION unfortunately
    Who is talking about more taxes for the rich which I am sure neither of the two are, my opinion is that they don't need this tax break now....I am pretty sure they are not starving.

    This was actually a decent year for us money wise, we almost made 200k and we are about to buy a house.......in NYC, where the taxes are one of the highest.
    Trust me, I don't hate on the rich....I don't think they need it as bad as some of the middle class.

    Irish, that's a part of the reason we are hurting. Those bastards already sent middle and low class jobs overseas.

  14. #14
    Creator of Chaos
    MODERATOR
    juggernaut's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    11,420
    Rep Points
    319172539

    I used to have a network admin job that was done in NJ. The fucking economy went to shit right after 911 and then my job was handed over to a jerkoff that cant say America and lives a third world country because it's cheaper to pay him.
    Disclaimer: All health, fitness, diet, nutrition, anabolic steroid & supplement information posted here is intended for educational and informational purposes only, and is not intended as a substitute for proper medical advice from a medical doctor. We do not condone the use of anabolic steroids (AAS), all information about AAS is for educational and entertainment purposes only. If you choose to use AAS it's your responsibility to know the laws of the country that you live in. Consult your physician or health care professional before performing any of the exercises, or following any diet, nutrition or supplement advice described on this website.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER
    min0 lee's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Bronx, NYC
    Posts
    44,753
    Rep Points
    812984759

    You guys do know that they have their own interests at hand, these guys are only looking out for themselves.....not you Bio nor Irish. Open your eyes.


    How the White House cut its deal and lost its base
    By Ezra Klein


    If you look at the numbers alone, the tax cut deal looks to have robbed Republicans blind. The GOP got around $95 billion in tax cuts for wealthy Americans and $30 billion in estate tax cuts. Democrats got $120 billion in payroll-tax cuts, $40 billion in refundable tax credits (Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and education tax credits), $56 billion in unemployment insurance, and, depending on how you count it, about $180 billion (two-year cost) or $30 billion (10-year cost) in new tax incentives for businesses to invest.

    But that's not how it's being understood. Republicans are treating it as a victory, and liberals as a defeat. Which raises two separate questions: Why did Republicans give Obama so much? And why aren't Democrats happier about it?

    Let's start with the Republicans. For one thing, the things they wanted were things they really, really wanted. A number of sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations have fingered the estate tax as the major player in the size of the deal. "Republicans were extremely eager to get benefits for the top tenth of a percent of Americans," says one senior administration official.

    It was the estate tax, in this telling, that secured Republican support for, among other things, the two-year extension of the refundable tax credits and the payroll tax cut. Republicans believe that the two-year extension of the estate tax at Lincoln-Kyl levels will turn into a permanent extension of the estate tax at Lincoln-Kyl levels. So they attached much more importance to it than the price tag might suggest.

    And it went beyond the estate tax: Conservatives saw the extension of the tax cuts as an important pivot point in American politics -- full stop. As my colleague Jennifer Rubin puts it, Republicans "won the philosophical point (tax hikes impede economic growth) and, candidly, are more than delighted to have a repeat of this debate for the presidential campaign in 2012." The Obama administration didn't see the tax cuts as a philosophical point, and is similarly convinced that a repeat of this debate in 2012 -- when the economy is better and the deficit is worse -- will favor their side. So rightly or wrongly, they judged the two-year extension as much less of a loss than the Republicans judged it a win -- and that gave the Democrats leverage on the rest of the package.

    Meanwhile, the partisan electricity of the past year had obscured a simple fact: Much of what the Obama administration wanted was not that noxious to conservatives. They were tax cuts, many of them for businesses. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels had previously proposed both a payroll tax cut for 2011 and the tax breaks for business investment. Republicans have frequently said that they don't even oppose unemployment insurance.

    In all these cases, Republicans have argued that it's not the policies they oppose -- it's that Democrats aren't paying for them. But perhaps the most important enabler of the deal is that Republicans don't care about paying for them, either. The basic deal was that if the Obama White House would give the Republicans their unpaid-for tax cuts, Republicans would give the Obama White House their unpaid-for tax cuts.

    To put this in perspective, consider that last week, all Washington could talk about was the potential for a deal on deficit reduction. This week, it actually got a big deficit deal -- but it was a deficit-expansion deal. In the world that politicians claim they live in -- where the deficit is the overriding issue -- the deal couldn't have worked. But we don't live in that world. In this world, tax cuts, not deficits, are the Republicans' central concern, and stimulus, not deficits, obsesses the Democrats.

    Which brings us to the liberals. My conversations with various progressives over the past 24 hours have convinced me that the problem is less the specifics of the deal -- though liberals legitimately dislike the tax cuts for the rich, and rightly point out that Obama swore to let them expire -- than the way in which it was reached. Put simply, Obama and the Democrats didn't fight for them. There were no veto threats or serious effort to take the case to the public.

    Instead, the White House disappeared into a closed room with the Republicans and cut a deal that they'd made no effort to sell to progressives. When the deal was cut, the president took an oblique shot at their preferences, saying "the American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories." And this came a mere week or two after the White House announced a federal pay freeze. The pattern, for progressives, seems clear: The White House uses them during elections, but doesn't listen to, or consult them, while governing. In fact, it insults them, and then tells them to quiet down, they got the best bargain possible, even if it wasn't the one they'd asked for, or been promised.

    If you're worried about stimulus, joblessness and the working poor, this is probably a better deal than you thought you were going to get. "It’s a bigger deal than anyone expected," says Bob Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Both sides gave more expected and both sides got more than expected." The White House walked out of the negotiations with more stimulus than anyone had seen coming. But they did it in a way that made their staunchest allies feel left behind, and in many cases, utterly betrayed.

    That the Obama administration has turned out to be fairly good at the inside Washington game of negotiations and legislative compromise and quite bad at communicating to the public and keeping their base excited is not what most would have predicted during the 2008 campaign. But it's true.
    Photo credit: J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

  16. #16
    Bohemian Extraordinaire
    ELITE MEMBER
    maniclion's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Mēns Incognita
    Posts
    27,150
    Rep Points
    973953420

    Quote Originally Posted by irish_2003 View Post
    if i was in the "rich" bracket and taxed more, i definitely would look into moving my businesses overseas.....americans have been spoiled with "funny money" for the last 40 years....now it's time to cut spending/borrowing and pay up......wah wah wah dems.....america IS NOT A HOUSING PROJECT.......but we are a WELFARE NATION unfortunately
    Maybe that's what we need to do, drive the rest of the disloyal businesses to other countries, rather than wait around for them to slowly move and outsource and start fresh with businesses who remain loyal to the country, give them all the incentives and tax breaks and rebuild our economy on a solid foundation......

    Businesses who won't bail on us through outsourcing and using cheap(not inexpensive actually CHEAP) parts from China and want to see the nation rise again by manufacturing quality well built American goods are what this country needs to build upon...The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is one step in that right direction, I have seen so many solar manufacturers building new plants all over these United States....SMA in Colorado, Kyocera in Cali., SolarWorld in Cali and Oregon(largest PV plant in the nation) and many more....Any company who would bail on us because they have to pay more taxes doesn't deserve shit from us.....I would think conservatives would be vehement (thats an odd word to say while stoned) about companies not being loyal to the country where they were allowed to grow....
    Coarse edged youth, the irish pendants string from their smiles
    not yet plucked as to slacken the seams
    and drag down the features of age,
    no folds or creases from unkempt wear
    eyes of tranquilty, crystalline-beads
    no sign of despair in their hair, nor their hearts
    but oh they have yet to be experienced and that makes aging so very worth it...ML circa2012

  17. #17
    Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
    LAM's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas & Florida & St. Croix
    Posts
    16,355
    Rep Points
    962148245

    Quote Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf View Post
    There's not a single economist who'd claim that raising taxes in the midst of the worst economic downturn in 75 years is healthy. Those evil rich are the very people that pay the majority of all Fed income tax and create the jobs. If the govt takes (and squanders, as it would) more cash out of circulation, it will stifle growth. Businesses particularly small to midsized ones, drive the economy. Therefore, if it's bad for business, it's bad for all of us; regardless of how much some on the left hate business.

    It seems many folks on the left couldn't care less what this tax increase would have had on the economy, but were more anxious to sock it to the wealthy. It's not like any of the additional revenue would've been used to pay off debt or shut off the deficit. Your taxes aren't going either, so quit moaning about what someone else is paying. It's NOYFB.
    it's not a tax raise, simply restoring the tax rate to pre-Bush levels. Bush claimed they would stimulate R&D and create jobs of which they did neither in 8 years, only added billions to the budget deficit.

    tax cuts for the rich don't stimulate the economy only a fool would believe that bs. they simply have more monies to save and invest more, they already have plenty of extra money to spend.
    William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

  18. #18
    Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
    LAM's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas & Florida & St. Croix
    Posts
    16,355
    Rep Points
    962148245

    Quote Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf View Post
    If Bush let spending get out of control, somehow that makes it a good thing when Obama takes it to an unprecedented level.
    where is the data to support this statement? what exactly did he spend the money on? what pieces of legislation were passed which caused an increase to the budget deficit?

    98% of the deficit is carry over from 8 years of GWB.

    National Debt Increased by 81% under Bush:

    2001 - $5.871 trillion
    2008 - $10.640 trillion

    National Debt Increased 24% Under Obama:

    Jan 31st 2009 = $10.569-Tr*illion
    June 30st 2010 = $13.149-Tr*illion

    But of the $2.6-trill*ion increase, 98% was carry over from Bush programs:

    Bush: $607-billi*on = Interest on Debt 2009/2010
    Bush: $240-billi*on = Iraq War Spending 2009/2010
    Bush: $319-billi*on = TARP/Bailo*ut Balance from 2008 (as of May 2010)
    Bush: $419-billi*on = Bush Recession Caused Drop in taxes
    Bush: $127-billi*on = Bush Medicare Drug Program 2009/2010
    Bush: $141-billi*on = Bush Meicare Part-D 2009/2010
    Bush: $514-billi*on = Bush Tax Cuts 2009/2010

    Bush's contributi*ons:

    2001 to 2008: $4.769-tri*llion
    2009 to 2010: $2.367-tri*llion
    Total: $7.136-tri*llion

    Obama only contributi*on: $580-billi*on = Stimulus Spending (as of May 2010).

    $1.24 trillion in cash sitting in U.S. companies’ coffers.
    Payrolls at non-financ*ial companies dropped 3.75 percent in 2009.
    Unemployme*nt reached a 26-year high of 10.1 percent in October.
    General Electric Co. last month raised its quarterly dividend by 20 percent.
    William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER
    min0 lee's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Bronx, NYC
    Posts
    44,753
    Rep Points
    812984759

    Quote Originally Posted by LAM View Post

    tax cuts for the rich don't stimulate the economy only a fool would believe that bs. they simply have more monies to save and invest more, they already have plenty of extra money to spend.
    This.

  20. #20
    Registered User
    GearsMcGilf's Avatar


    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    AL
    Posts
    5,823
    Rep Points
    589696610

    But of the $2.6-trill*ion increase, 98% was carry over from Bush programs:

    Bush: $607-billi*on = Interest on Debt 2009/2010
    Bush: $240-billi*on = Iraq War Spending 2009/2010
    Bush: $319-billi*on = TARP/Bailo*ut Balance from 2008 (as of May 2010)
    Bush: $419-billi*on = Bush Recession Caused Drop in taxes
    Bush: $127-billi*on = Bush Medicare Drug Program 2009/2010
    Bush: $141-billi*on = Bush Meicare Part-D 2009/2010
    Bush: $514-billi*on = Bush Tax Cuts 2009/2010
    Let's take a more honest look at these #s. What issue of the NY Times did you pulls these from? Just curious.

    Anyhoo, there's no date noted on the $419B of lost revenue due to the "Bush Recession." If it was 2009/2010, then this begs the question of when does this become Obama's economy. He's been pres for two years and for two years, he's used the same lame excuse. He just can't blame Bush for the next 2 years of his presidency.
    The $514B "spent" on Bush's tax cuts was not spent $. It was money the govt did not collect. It was not new spending.

    Obama only contributi*on: $580-billi*on = Stimulus Spending (as of May 2010).

    $1.24 trillion in cash sitting in U.S. companies’ coffers.
    Payrolls at non-financ*ial companies dropped 3.75 percent in 2009.
    Unemployme*nt reached a 26-year high of 10.1 percent in October.
    General Electric Co. last month raised its quarterly dividend by 20 percent.
    The stimuls plan was $787B, not $580. Even though not all has been spent, it has already been allocated, just like the $26B jobs bill and the $1trillion+ healthcare reform. Why no mention of this?

  21. #21
    Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
    LAM's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas & Florida & St. Croix
    Posts
    16,355
    Rep Points
    962148245

    Quote Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf View Post
    If it was 2009/2010, then this begs the question of when does this become Obama's economy. He's been pres for two years and for two years, he's used the same lame excuse. He just can't blame Bush for the next 2 years of his presidency.
    one would have to look at the legislation passed under his administration and when the effects of that legislation are real.

    * looks like American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is the first piece which effected the budget

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. S.J.RES.3 : A joint resolution ensuring that the compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of the Interior are those which were in effect on January 1, 2005.

    2. S.181 : A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.

    3. H.R.2 : To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

    4. S.352 : A bill to postpone the DTV transition date.

    5. H.R.1 : Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

    6. H.J.RES.38 : Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes.

    7. S.234 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2105 East Cook Street in Springfield, Illinois, as the "Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building".

    8. H.R.1105 : Making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

    9. H.R.1127 : To extend certain immigration programs.

    10. H.R.1541 : To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.

    11. H.R.146 : An act to designate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes.

    12. H.R.1512 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes.

    13. H.R.1388 : A bill entitled "The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws."

    14. S.520 : A bill to designate the United States courthouse under construction at 327 South Church Street, Rockford, Illinois, as the "Stanley J. Roszkowski United States Courthouse".

    15. S.383 : A bill to amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (division A of Public Law 110-343) to provide the Special Inspector General with additional authorities and responsibilities, and for other purposes.

    16. H.R.1626 : To make technical amendments to laws containing time periods affecting judicial proceedings.

    17. S.J.RES.8 : A joint resolution providing for the appointment of David M. Rubenstein as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    18. S.39 : A bill to repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the "Bennett Freeze".

    19. H.R.586 : To direct the Librarian of Congress and the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to carry out a joint project at the Library of Congress and the National Museum of African American History and Culture to collect video and audio recordings of personal histories and testimonials of individuals who participated in the Civil Rights movement, and for other purposes.

    20. S.735 : A bill to ensure States receive adoption incentive payments for fiscal year 2008 in accordance with the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008.

    21. S.386 : An Act to improve enforcement of mortgage fraud, securities and commodities fraud, financial institution fraud, and other frauds related to Federal assistance and relief programs, for the recovery of funds lost to these frauds, and for other purposes.

    22. S.896 : A bill to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability.

    23. S.454 : A bill to improve the organization and procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapon systems, and for other purposes.

    24. H.R.627 : To amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes.

    25. H.R.131 : To establish the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission.

    26. H.R.663 : To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12877 Broad Street in Sparta, Georgia, as the "Yv
    Source(s):
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...d/d111pl.lst:1[1-32]%28Public_Laws%29|TOM:/bss/d111query.html|
    Last edited by LAM; 12-08-2010 at 04:05 PM.
    William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

  22. #22
    Moderator
    MODERATOR
    Dale Mabry's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Elsewhere
    Posts
    15,580
    Rep Points
    247492144

    Quote Originally Posted by LAM View Post
    one would have to look at the legislation passed under his administration and when the effects of that legislation are real.

    * looks like American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is the first piece which effected the budget

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. S.J.RES.3 : A joint resolution ensuring that the compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of the Interior are those which were in effect on January 1, 2005.

    2. S.181 : A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.

    3. H.R.2 : To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

    4. S.352 : A bill to postpone the DTV transition date.

    5. H.R.1 : Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

    6. H.J.RES.38 : Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes.

    7. S.234 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2105 East Cook Street in Springfield, Illinois, as the "Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building".

    8. H.R.1105 : Making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

    9. H.R.1127 : To extend certain immigration programs.

    10. H.R.1541 : To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.

    11. H.R.146 : An act to designate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes.

    12. H.R.1512 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes.

    13. H.R.1388 : A bill entitled "The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws."

    14. S.520 : A bill to designate the United States courthouse under construction at 327 South Church Street, Rockford, Illinois, as the "Stanley J. Roszkowski United States Courthouse".

    15. S.383 : A bill to amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (division A of Public Law 110-343) to provide the Special Inspector General with additional authorities and responsibilities, and for other purposes.

    16. H.R.1626 : To make technical amendments to laws containing time periods affecting judicial proceedings.

    17. S.J.RES.8 : A joint resolution providing for the appointment of David M. Rubenstein as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    18. S.39 : A bill to repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the "Bennett Freeze".

    19. H.R.586 : To direct the Librarian of Congress and the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to carry out a joint project at the Library of Congress and the National Museum of African American History and Culture to collect video and audio recordings of personal histories and testimonials of individuals who participated in the Civil Rights movement, and for other purposes.

    20. S.735 : A bill to ensure States receive adoption incentive payments for fiscal year 2008 in accordance with the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008.

    21. S.386 : An Act to improve enforcement of mortgage fraud, securities and commodities fraud, financial institution fraud, and other frauds related to Federal assistance and relief programs, for the recovery of funds lost to these frauds, and for other purposes.

    22. S.896 : A bill to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability.

    23. S.454 : A bill to improve the organization and procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapon systems, and for other purposes.

    24. H.R.627 : To amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes.

    25. H.R.131 : To establish the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission.

    26. H.R.663 : To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12877 Broad Street in Sparta, Georgia, as the "Yv
    Source(s):
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...d/d111pl.lst:1[1-32]%28Public_Laws%29|TOM:/bss/d111query.html|
    Why do you even bother, no matter how compelling the evidence, even if it were irrefutable, he would still question it and provide no evidence of why he disagrees. It's GOP 101.
    If sense were common, everyone would have it.

    4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

    Check out my world famous Bob Loblaw's Law Blog at http://www.synergyhw.blogspot.com/...Just kidding, it's a health and wellness blog.

  23. #23
    primeau
    lnvanry's Avatar


    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    4,276
    Rep Points
    54346477

    Quote Originally Posted by LAM View Post
    where is the data to support this statement? what exactly did he spend the money on? what pieces of legislation were passed which caused an increase to the budget deficit?

    98% of the deficit is carry over from 8 years of GWB.

    National Debt Increased by 81% under Bush:

    2001 - $5.871 trillion
    2008 - $10.640 trillion

    National Debt Increased 24% Under Obama:

    Jan 31st 2009 = $10.569-Tr*illion
    June 30st 2010 = $13.149-Tr*illion

    But of the $2.6-trill*ion increase, 98% was carry over from Bush programs:

    Bush: $607-billi*on = Interest on Debt 2009/2010
    Bush: $240-billi*on = Iraq War Spending 2009/2010
    Bush: $319-billi*on = TARP/Bailo*ut Balance from 2008 (as of May 2010)
    Bush: $419-billi*on = Bush Recession Caused Drop in taxes
    Bush: $127-billi*on = Bush Medicare Drug Program 2009/2010
    Bush: $141-billi*on = Bush Meicare Part-D 2009/2010
    Bush: $514-billi*on = Bush Tax Cuts 2009/2010

    Bush's contributi*ons:

    2001 to 2008: $4.769-tri*llion
    2009 to 2010: $2.367-tri*llion
    Total: $7.136-tri*llion

    Obama only contributi*on: $580-billi*on = Stimulus Spending (as of May 2010).

    $1.24 trillion in cash sitting in U.S. companies’ coffers.
    Payrolls at non-financ*ial companies dropped 3.75 percent in 2009.
    Unemployme*nt reached a 26-year high of 10.1 percent in October.
    General Electric Co. last month raised its quarterly dividend by 20 percent.
    So Obama raised the debt almost as much as Bush (about 60% in gross $) and he did it in only 1 yr instead of eight...I"m sure you can extrapolate where the final data point ends

  24. #24
    primeau
    lnvanry's Avatar


    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    4,276
    Rep Points
    54346477

    Quote Originally Posted by LAM View Post
    it's not a tax raise, simply restoring the tax rate to pre-Bush levels. Bush claimed they would stimulate R&D and create jobs of which they did neither in 8 years, only added billions to the budget deficit.

    tax cuts for the rich don't stimulate the economy only a fool would believe that bs. they simply have more monies to save and invest more, they already have plenty of extra money to spend.


    The dollars are most stimulative when they are spent...not when they are saved or invested.

    One other thing...I always hear about how the rich create the jobs...I don't know one rich or wealth person that has "created jobs". The bulk of our economy is employed by small to medium sized business. Small and medium sized businesses are owned by a plethora of Americans all across the tax bracket spectrum. Surely people who have larger incomes are in a better position to take risk and hire people, but that doesn't mean they do

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER
    min0 lee's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Bronx, NYC
    Posts
    44,753
    Rep Points
    812984759

    Quote Originally Posted by lnvanry View Post


    The dollars are most stimulative when they are spent...not when they are saved or invested.

    One other thing...I always hear about how the rich create the jobs...I don't know one rich or wealth person that has "created jobs". The bulk of our economy is employed by small to medium sized business. Small and medium sized businesses are owned by a plethora of Americans all across the tax bracket spectrum. Surely people who have larger incomes are in a better position to take risk and hire people, but that doesn't mean they do
    This is true.

  26. #26
    Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
    LAM's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas & Florida & St. Croix
    Posts
    16,355
    Rep Points
    962148245

    Quote Originally Posted by lnvanry View Post
    The dollars are most stimulative when they are spent...not when they are saved or invested.
    small companies don't generate revenues high enough to give wage increases and barely yearly cost of living increases so spending monies on R&D is laughable at best. only large companies have the budgets for R&D. I was doing R&D in WAN technologies during the 90's-2000 and worked for CMP Media, Agilent, Cisco and Intel. they threw millions at us engineers for our budgets for whatever we needed, but they are all billion dollar companies. when I left Silicon Valley the budget at small companies for R&D was $0. small companies can neither afford the monies for supplies, materials let alone the additional cost in payroll for employees that do not actually general revenue.

    the US economy will never recover until those make modest wages, and or are on the lower quintiles of the middle income have more disposable income. nobody spends money like the poor, it goes as fast as it's gotten. an economic recovery from the top down has got to be the most retarded solution ever conceived.

    how exactly does putting more money into the pockets of the wealthy contribute to tax revenues needed by state and local governments? how will they ever get out of the red?
    William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

  27. #27
    Windy City
    ELITE MEMBER
    Big Smoothy's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South America
    Posts
    5,587
    Rep Points
    235125658

    his one's gotta hurt. President Obama's approval rating has dipped below, gulp, George W. Bush.
    Obama has been a disappointment to me, but as for poll numbers, I think any President would have bad poll numbers because of the high unemployment, and and bad economy.

    That said, Obama has these low numbers also, because of his spending.

    Independents are not warm on him.

    What do these poll numbers mean? Nothing, right now.

    In 23 months....they may mean something.

    23 months is a political lifetime in politics, however.
    It's an accurate statement that our current spending will not be increasing the debt We've stopped spending money that we don't have.

    -- Jack Lew, then director of the Office of Management and Budget, in Feb. 16, 2011 testimony before the Senate Budget Committee.

  28. #28
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    in a planet
    Posts
    177
    Rep Points
    15277247

    Quote Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf View Post
    She won't get it. But, IDK about only far right electing idiots. If that's the case, explain why Pelosi is back in as house minority leader.

    because she can have the job and no one who had any type of power in the house was able to beat her per democrats. But that position doesnt mean shit anymore. Let her stay so she can keep screwing up things like she and barry have been and it just lets the amercian people know how awful she is which they already know.

  29. #29
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    in a planet
    Posts
    177
    Rep Points
    15277247

    Quote Originally Posted by LAM View Post
    small companies don't generate revenues high enough to give wage increases and barely yearly cost of living increases so spending monies on R&D is laughable at best. only large companies have the budgets for R&D. I was doing R&D in WAN technologies during the 90's-2000 and worked for CMP Media, Agilent, Cisco and Intel. they threw millions at us engineers for our budgets for whatever we needed, but they are all billion dollar companies. when I left Silicon Valley the budget at small companies for R&D was $0. small companies can neither afford the monies for supplies, materials let alone the additional cost in payroll for employees that do not actually general revenue.

    the US economy will never recover until those make modest wages, and or are on the lower quintiles of the middle income have more disposable income. nobody spends money like the poor, it goes as fast as it's gotten. an economic recovery from the top down has got to be the most retarded solution ever conceived.

    how exactly does putting more money into the pockets of the wealthy contribute to tax revenues needed by state and local governments? how will they ever get out of the red?

    Do you know when you post shit like this it makes you look so uneducated about politics,are you truly letting everyone here know that by saying "how exactly does putting more money into the pockets of the wealthy contribute to tax revenues needed by state and local governments? how will they ever get out of the red?" Really are you friggin serious because your libersalism has just diseased your brain to where you really dont have a real clue about this country or how its run.And by saying

    small companies don't generate revenues high enough to give wage increases and barely yearly cost of living increases

    What planet are you from because you are wacked man. I dont ever go off on people but you truly or gone when it comes to politics or how its run. This is a perfect example of LIBERALISM FAR LEFT SHIT MAN and its best with you.



    Hey genius the US economy never will recover until taxes stay low and small business start hiring again. You are brain dead and seriouslt stop embarassing your self with the crap

  30. #30
    Creator of Chaos
    MODERATOR
    juggernaut's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    11,420
    Rep Points
    319172539






    Obama may not be the greatest president we ever had, but I give th guy credit for taking a shitty job after the bullshit effort the last jerkoff we had did to the country.
    IMO, he's not another Carter; just a guy who got stuck with a big barrel of shit left over from the previous administration. Do I think he's doing all he can? No, but he's got a lot of opposition.
    Disclaimer: All health, fitness, diet, nutrition, anabolic steroid & supplement information posted here is intended for educational and informational purposes only, and is not intended as a substitute for proper medical advice from a medical doctor. We do not condone the use of anabolic steroids (AAS), all information about AAS is for educational and entertainment purposes only. If you choose to use AAS it's your responsibility to know the laws of the country that you live in. Consult your physician or health care professional before performing any of the exercises, or following any diet, nutrition or supplement advice described on this website.

Similar Threads

  1. Barrys Approval Rating all time low 41%
    By DEATH MATCH in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-21-2011, 12:04 AM
  2. President Barack Obama's First Ad of 2012
    By DEATH MATCH in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 04-06-2011, 04:11 PM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-03-2010, 02:32 AM
  4. Replies: 51
    Last Post: 02-10-2009, 12:49 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 01:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
DISABLED END -->