By allowing the spread of free-market capitalism that has successfully lifted millions of people out of poverty and into the middle class over the last decade.

I believe they said the same thing about FDR and his WPA.

What I believe this President has proven is that the economy is not as bad as people perceive. However, it is paralyzed. When he came up with the "Cash for Clunkers" program, it succeeded beyond anyone's imagination. When he offered tax credits to homebuyers, the residential real estate market zoomed upwards.

Therefore, people have the money, they're simply terrified to spend it. And I don't necessarily blame them, with all the doom and gloom in the media. But without the constant circulation of money, the economy never will improve. To paraphrase Woody Allen, the economy is like a shark. Without constant movement, you simply end up with something large, dead and very smelly.

Madonne! What are you talking about "allow"? The President has no authority not to allow.

Today the hand of government is all over the economy — from money and banking to transportation to manufacturing to agriculture to insurance to basic research to world trade. Government regulations hinder businesses and individuals. Red tape prevents entrepreneurs from pursuing a course of action that will restore economic growth and prosperity.


That's right SB, they're not spending and they're not going to spend because they don't have a flip of confidence in what this President's doing. That's why he has to go IMO.

You know, it's one thing for Board members to type out comments regarding a fictional Godfather. It's another for them to do so about things they know little or nothing about like economics and econometrics.

FN, make up your mind. Is it the President at the heart of the Nation's economic woes as you express it, or is it "the government"? If it's the President, how is it so? If it's the government, not only how, but which level: federal, state, or local, or a combination thereof?

US GDP grew at an annualized rate on 2.4% in the 2nd quarter. Gross Domestic Purchases grew at 5.1% in the same quarter compared with just 3.9% in the first quarter. Both personal income and disposable personal income increased over 4% in the second quarter. Savings grew at an annualized rate of over 6% as did debt reduction. The M2 money supply continues to increase and is decidely larger than it was than just a few years ago.

The current federal income tax structure has been inplace since 2003.

I know, but we like having you around so don't be too hard on yourself, huh? ;))


Each step this PRESIDENT takes strengthens the role of GOVERNMENT in people's lives. As I said earlier this president is going to take everything away from those who've shed blood sweat and tears and give to those who've done nothing. But then I suspect you already know that.


Yes, because a free market will eventually correct itself in spite of this president enacting every left-wing measure possilbe, expecting that when the economy eventually recovers he can take credit for it, even though his policies, if anything, retarded and weakened the recovery.


As I alluded to above this president has raised taxes on small businesses, the engines of entrepreneurship and job growth; and he's raised the capital gains tax. True tax cuts would grow the economy and Obama shuns them. The last major recession was Jimmy Carter's malaise which consisted of double-digit inflation and unemployment. It was finally mitigated by across-the-board tax cuts for everyone (even the despised rich), which touched off a twenty-plus year run of prosperity.

(He also lied about "tax cuts for 95% of Americans", offering instead $13 a week, achieved not through tax cuts, but by changing the federal withholding tables.)

Madonne! How daft can you be? The President of the United States has no Constitutional authority to raise any revenue, let alone federal taxes. Only the US Congress can do so.

Capital gains taxes have not increased. They are the same as they were in 2003 and as extended through 2010 by the Tax Reconciliation Act of 2006.

By the way, how in the world do you think that tax cuts or increases are implemented? Try by adjusting tax tables. Still, it takes Congressional legislation to enable. Thus, H.R. 1: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 did that.

Trying reading more instead of emoting.

You speak of the US congress as if it somehow operates in a vacuum from the executive branch. The US congress is the only body with the authority to assign appropriations through statute, but does that preclude President Obama OR Bush's responsibility for the increased spending during their respective terms? Of course not, you're simply playing contrarian.

Yes, they're the same from the Bush years but they will increase soon enough after 2010, won't they. Along with everything else that small business owners are being burdoned with (i.e universal health care).


I never said otherwise, but promising to give 'tax cuts' and instead opting for '$13 a week' are two entirely different things. Who's going to benefit from $13 a week tax break? Not the rich.


I have real life business experience and with comes real life emotions when I know we're being duped by a President who who's more worried about his legacy as 'great social reformer' than in achieving honest, REAL economic growth.

Following are just a couple inaccuracies of yours in the following quotes from one of your previous posts. I can cite others:

"this president has raised taxes on small businesses ... and he's raised the capital gains tax."

Your written inaccuracies make the case that, indeed, you are easily duped. If you're going to post, at least try and be accurate. State your meaning rather than opt for its being inferred.

Yes, but small businesses will indeed be affected greatly by tax increases IMO and capital gains tax will certainly increase when the Bush tax cuts expire after 2010.

What other inaccuracies did you see in my posts?

Just as Joseph is a Jewish name.

Good grief

The New York Times
Paul Krugman
Now That’s Rich

We need to pinch pennies these days. Don’t you know we have a budget deficit? For months that has been the word from Republicans and conservative Democrats, who have rejected every suggestion that we do more to avoid deep cuts in public services and help the ailing economy.

But these same politicians are eager to cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.

What — you haven’t heard about this proposal? Actually, you have: I’m talking about demands that we make all of the Bush tax cuts, not just those for the middle class, permanent.

Some background: Back in 2001, when the first set of Bush tax cuts was rammed through Congress, the legislation was written with a peculiar provision — namely, that the whole thing would expire, with tax rates reverting to 2000 levels, on the last day of 2010.

Why the cutoff date? In part, it was used to disguise the fiscal irresponsibility of the tax cuts: lopping off that last year reduced the headline cost of the cuts, because such costs are normally calculated over a 10-year period. It also allowed the Bush administration to pass the tax cuts using reconciliation — yes, the same procedure that Republicans denounced when it was used to enact health reform — while sidestepping rules designed to prevent the use of that procedure to increase long-run budget deficits.

Obviously, the idea was to go back at a later date and make those tax cuts permanent. But things didn’t go according to plan. And now the witching hour is upon us.

So what’s the choice now? The Obama administration wants to preserve those parts of the original tax cuts that mainly benefit the middle class — which is an expensive proposition in its own right — but to let those provisions benefiting only people with very high incomes expire on schedule. Republicans, with support from some conservative Democrats, want to keep the whole thing.

And there’s a real chance that Republicans will get what they want. That’s a demonstration, if anyone needed one, that our political culture has become not just dysfunctional but deeply corrupt.

What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that’s the least of it: the policy center’s estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he’s going to get the majority of that group’s tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few — the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year — would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.

How can this kind of giveaway be justified at a time when politicians claim to care about budget deficits? Well, history is repeating itself. The original campaign for the Bush tax cuts relied on deception and dishonesty. In fact, my first suspicions that we were being misled into invading Iraq were based on the resemblance between the campaign for war and the campaign for tax cuts the previous year. And sure enough, that same trademark deception and dishonesty is being deployed on behalf of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

So, for example, we’re told that it’s all about helping small business; but only a tiny fraction of small-business owners would receive any tax break at all. And how many small-business owners do you know making several million a year?

Or we’re told that it’s about helping the economy recover. But it’s hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren’t likely to spend a windfall.

No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy. Instead, as I said, it’s about a dysfunctional and corrupt political culture, in which Congress won’t take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience.

So far, the Obama administration is standing firm against this outrage. Let’s hope that it prevails in its fight. Otherwise, it will be hard not to lose all faith in America’s future.

Column

Paul doesn't exactly mince words here.

He's been playing Cassandra of Troy for a while now and he does not like it one bit.

Yep. I think he's one of the "professional left" Gibbs was talking about.

You can't reason with people that make stuff up.

RNC Committeewoman Kim Lehman Claims Obama Told Muslims That He Was A Muslim

The Republican ranks have, by and large, cautiously avoided weighing in on recent poll numbers showing that a healthy portion of the American public believes that President Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Wary of the cultural sensitivities such discussions entail, the de facto response seems to be the one offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Sunday: "The president says he's a Christian," McConnell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I take him at his word. I don't think that's in dispute."

There have been a few notable exceptions. Congressional candidate Tom Ganley said last week that he did not have "a position on whether he's a Muslim" only to walk back his remarks amidst the uproar. No one in the official GOP tent, however, has fully embraced the rumor. Until now.

Last Friday, a Republican National Committee woman Kim Lehman, responding to an article about the polls in Politico, accused the publication of trying "to protect Obama" by denying his true religious heritage.

"BTW he personally told the muslims that he IS a muslim," wrote the Iowa RNC member. "Read his lips."

Read His Lips

"the muslims". I guess there are muslims and then there are the muslims.

I hope you don't mind me moving this post to this thread, TB. You originally posted it in the "Dubya" thread. I just thought it would get more views over here. Needless to say, I think you have brilliantly summed up Obama's Presidency so far.

If he can just get out of "campaign mode," and toughen up a little, there's till time for him to turn this whole thing around and win that second term!

His biggest problem is that he is letting the G.O.P. and the crazies define him. This is a communication skill, and I personally think heads need to roll among some in his inner circle. He needs someone like James Carville to be a fast response-pit-bull on a lot of this, and he should send Axelrod back to Chicago for a long rest before the 2012 campaign.

Right now the biggest thing that keeps him from being a one term president imho is that there is no one in the GOP who can beat him.

Regarding this thread, have any of you been watching the Countdown rendition of how Obama is brilliantly disguising his Muslim religion and heritage and deceiving us all. I know some of you are not crazy about Countdown and Keith, but you need to watch it or reruns of it.

I have missed it. Did catch Jon Stewart pointing out that the house he's in on Martha's Vineyard is on the Atlantic Ocean....facing east...towards Mecca!

Yes, I did. Stewart is so good at that stuff.

Too bad O can't stand up and be a big boy. Who are you O? Mr. Wishy-Washy President?

WASHINGTON – Veteran Sen. John McCain sailed to the GOP nomination Tuesday in Arizona over a challenger with tea party support, while political novice Rick Scott pushed past an experienced insider to win Florida's Republican gubernatorial primary as voters split on the merits of establishment candidates vs. outsiders

I thought he was a socialist who wantd to be a dictator.

Stranglehold is a great song. Nugent is a a$$hole. Those two facts do not cancel each other out.

Nugent says Obama is a Muslim

Nugent: Obama "weaseled his way" into power "embracing the Islamic, Muslim, Marxist, Communist and socialist agenda.
Dori: Do you believe he’s a Muslim?
Nugent: "You’re damn right I do! He says he’s a Christian so he can continue with his jihad of a America-destroying policies."
Dori: "So you believe he is a Muslim operative who has, through deceit, gotten amazing power in this nation and this world?"
Nugent: You have stated my position exactly.

It's absurdly humorous that Glenn Beck, who is a Mormon , has the audacity to say that the President is not a real Christian. There are some rather serious doctrinal differences between The Church of LDS and "mainline" Christianity, to the point where some other Christians claim that LDS is not Christianity at all. I can't believe Beck wants to go down that path.

It reminds me of that alleged quote from The Last Testament of Lucky Luciano, where Vito Genovese profanely objected to working with Jews and Frank Costello told him "Take it easy Don Vitone. You're nothing but a f***** foreigner yourself".

Glen Beck converted to Mormonism. I wonder if he wears the magic underwear.

Your post here reminded me of a comment on a discussion page of Wikipedia. Someone said that it's amusing to hear somebody from the Church of England refer to other Christians as "heretics," that whoever does that should ask the Catholic Church what they think of the C of E in that regard!