Posted by Tina
We mark the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy on this day. It is a day of reflection for many of us who were present on that fateful day and experienced the shock and sense of loss that stunned the people in an unreal, confusing shroud of unbelief. The one thing that reverberates for me today isn’t the tragedy of that time or the controversy that surrounds the murder but the contemporary notion that the Republican Party has been taken over by radicals in the Tea Party. Kennedy deserves criticism as all presidents do but he was an American and he understood the meaning and brilliance of the Constitution and the value of freedom.
The party that was represented by the too short term of John F. Kennedy was, after his assassination, taken over by those elements who have more affinity for the elements of Marx. Words mean things. Words reveal the principles that will direct a Presidents leadership. Let us examine the word of three prominent and popular Presidents in commemoration of John F. Kennedy.
JOHN F. KENNEDY
“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.” – John F. Kennedy
“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.” – John F. Kennedy
“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.” – John F. Kennedy
RONALD REAGAN
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help. – Ronald Reagan
The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will. – Ronald Reagan
Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people’s tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before. – Ronald Reagan
We are learning that the way to prosperity is not more bureaucracy and redistribution of wealth but less government and more freedom for the entrepreneur and for the creativity of the individual. – Ronald Reagan
The federal government has taken on functions it was never intended to perform and which it does not perform well. There should be a planned, orderly transfer of such functions to states and communities and a transfer with them of the sources of taxation to pay for them. – Ronald Reagan
Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us. – Ronald Reagan
BARACK OBAMA
You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter — that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves. – Barack Obama
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf. – Barack Obama
Two of these presidents express view that are consistent with the founding ideals of our nation. One is a Democrat and the other had been a Democrat but turned away from the party because, he surmised, it had moved away from him and his ideals. The third is the man who leads our nation today.
The Constitution granted the federal government limited powers. The Constitution reflected the fact that the nation was a group of United States…free states! The Constitution was written as a unifying document that recognized and supported individual and states rights.
Exclusive Powers of the National Government
Powers reserved to the national government include:
Protect the nation- establish an army and navy
Print money (bills and coins)
Declare war
Enter into treaties with foreign governments
Regulate commerce between states and international trade
Establish post offices and issue postage
Exclusive Powers of State GovernmentsPowers reserved to state governments include:
Exercise powers neither delegated to the national government nor prohibited from the states by the U.S. Constitution
Issue licenses
Regulate intrastate (within the state) commerce
Conduct elections
Ratify amendments to the U.S. Constitution
Which president represents a turning away from America’s founding ideals?
Which President is the radical…the extremist?
Which party is being influenced by extremist ideals?
That would be our current president, Barrack Hussein Obama , who believes that the federal government should be more powerful and have greater control in individual lives.
More Obammiecare nightmares. I’d like to see the progressives who comment in this blog justify this:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/11/california-business-owner-with-600.html
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YPbXke2Q8M4/UooKa2XfatI/AAAAAAAAWEk/KnaDq5ViNbM/s1600/images.jpg
Wow! I’m glad we have a small business. At least for a year. that’s when I find out whether the price tag will mean I shut my doors.
The people should never elect a President who has no understanding or experience in business, especially one who also gets advice from other academics without experience. This bunch of do-gooders has become the biggest wrecking crew in American history…and they are not done yet!
Re Posts Scripts “Going to Extremes – Kennedy to Obama” :
Stunning contrast.
Re #1 Bill :
This bears repeating.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/11/california-business-owner-with-600.html#sthash.KSm7q504.dpuf
In reading Bill’s link to globaleconomicanalysis, the phrase “self-insured” kept coming up as a way around certain supporters of the Obamacare-less act.
Allow this to translate: “Self-insured” means that a business pays for the medical expenses of its workers directly and hires an insurer as a third-party administrator to process claims, manage care and the like. Most unions as well as big corporations use this arrangement.
But the kicker here is “self-administered.” That term refers to self-insured plans that don’t contract with the Aetnas and Blue Shields of the world and instead act as their own in-house benefits manager.
Almost no business in the real world still follows this old-fashioned practice as both medicine and medical billing have become more complex. The major exception is a certain type of collectively bargained insurance trust known as Taft-Hartley plans. Such insurance covers about 20 million UNION MEMBERS, and four out of five Taft-Hartley trusts are self-administered.
There’s no conceivable rationale—other than politics—for releasing union-only plans from a tax that is defined as universal in the Affordable Care Act statute. Like so many other ObamaCare waivers, this labor dispensation will probably turn out to be illegal.
And by the way, this favor harms all other taxpayers. The IRS assesses the reinsurance tax in annual tranches; it must collect $12 billion in 2014, $8 billion in 2015 and $5 billion 2016. So the smaller pool of ordinary people without a union card will pay a larger individual share of the same overall amount.
Count all of this as one more illustration of the way that ObamaCare has put politicians in control of health care. Some people get taxed but others don’t, some people get subsidies but others don’t, and some have to pay more so Mr. Obama can deliver favors to his political constituents.
Ah yes, sometimes pay-backs aren’t so much a issue, unless YOU! have to make up for the union slack
If you could bring JFK back to life and show him what has become of his party, his party would kill him again.
Just remember, Kennedy was assassinated by an admitted communist/socialist. If Mr. Oswald was alive today I’m sure he would be a big Obama supporter.
Kennedy served in the early sixties. Notice how he believed a balanced budget would occur if taxes were cut due to the increase in revenues in government.
Kennedy served before the government s massive involvement in healthcare (Medicare) and poverty (The Great Society Welfare System). These, plus the Social Security system, are the programs that invite abuse and are easily compromised, that are unsustainable, and that are the primary cause of our ever expanding debt.
Not so long ago an article in Forbes discussed the billions that the rich are giving for various causes. How much better could they use their fortunes if they put some of the money to work in healthcare for the poor that DOESN’T go through the government. Instead, many of them support the government in taking over, a power and money grab that creates an enormous burden for middle class Americans who are trying very hard to provide for their families, college for their children and for their retirements…they know they will need it because social security will run out of money one day soon.
Kennedy thought the budget could be balanced because he lived in a time of relatively limited government. He could not have imagined the Marxist influence that began under Lyndon Johnson and as the sixties radicals pressed to take hold of the Democrat Party.
Reagan left the Democrats because the Democrats stomped the founding principles in the dust and opted for Marx.
Cavuto: Mr. President, we at Fox News are not the problem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDdmtJCEWPA&feature=player_detailpage
ObamaCare was designed to fail forcing all but the top 1% into a single payer/government run health care system and on gov’t assistance.
It needed the young to pay the higher premiums, but those young adults under 26 years old can still be covered in their parent’s plan. The job market is so bad young people either don’t have jobs or are in low paying jobs leaving them to choose between feeding their families or paying the higher premiums to cover their elder’s health care.
No funds coming in to pay doctors, nurses and hospital. Just higher premiums for those few who are signing up and higher taxes for everyone who pays taxes.
Also, the IRS can only collect the “penalty” for those who choose to not get insurance if the taxpayer is due a refund. If there is no refund to attach once again there are no/less funds coming in.
Tina: “Kennedy served in the early sixties. Notice how he believed a balanced budget would occur if taxes were cut due to the increase in revenues in government.”
Yes, JFK believed in cutting the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%.
How that has any relevance to today, when the top marginal rate is 39%–a rate which today’s conservatives still see as evidence of radical left-wing socialism–is beyond me.
It is hilarious to see the constant refrain of “Kennedy favored cutting taxes!” from conservatives desperate to appropriate Kennedy’s legacy. They always leave out what the actual rates were, thus implying that cutting taxes is ALWAYS the right answer regardless of any other circumstances.
If you’d like to make the current top marginal rate the same as it was in Kennedy’s presidency, go ahead and advocate for doing so. If not, then you’re engaging in transparent intellectual dishonesty by acting as if Kennedy would see eye to eye with Republicans on the issue of tax policy. The fact that he favored a cut from 91% to 70% does not, in any way, imply that he would agree to cutting the top rate today.
Interesting that turd-tosser Chris drops by to engage in transparent intellectual dishonesty by coming to conclusions not expressed in Post Scripts and putting his vile word turds in their mouths.
Chris: “How that has any relevance to today”
In Kennedy’s day, competition for most American companies were other American companies. Today American companies must compete with global companies and emerging market companies. The game has changed dramatically. But the principle applies in either scenario. Tax rates must be kept low. In Kennedy’s day they needed to be lowered dramatically so all companies would have incentive to grow and compete. In today’s world tax rates must be lowered so companies have incentive to grow in America to create jobs here and can compete in the world.If you aren’t willing to consider this from the businessman’s perspective you will never get it. You think its about math. It isn’t about math. It’s about competition. It’s about the human response to being unrestrained as opposed to being restrained. It’s about policies that work for everyone and not just for ideologically driven greedy politicians seeking control.
t is hilarious to see the constant refrain of “Kennedy favored cutting taxes!” from conservatives desperate to appropriate Kennedy’s legacy.”
Conservatives aren’t “desperate”, Chris. Conservatives can acknowledge that what Kennedy did with tax rates worked and for the reasons he articulated. We also know why from personal experience and the sheer logic of it.
We have no need to appropriate the Kennedy legacy otherwise. His presidency was short, propped up by a fawning media, as Obama’s has been, and tarnished later by revelations of his near disaster in the Bay of Pigs invasion and his womanizing. Like Obama he was also promoted into the position.
“…thus implying that cutting taxes is ALWAYS the right answer…”
It isn’t about right or wrong answers. It is about what works. It has been shown to work under several presidents of both parties…what’s to get?
“…regardless of any other circumstances. ”
What circumstances? The recession? The Housing bubble?
The recession ended in the spring or summer of 2009.
The housing debacle would have cleared up a lot faster if people had jobs. The liberals wrongly thought that people that don’t have a job or money could or would actually get a loan. Talk about idiocy!
Let’s talk about the circumstances created by leftist (Obama) polices.
How about five years without significant improvement in the jobs market! How about the dreaded 1% being the only class able to make money in Obama’s economy and then simply because they already have money, not because of real growth in America. How about the fact that the middle class is taking a nosedive, joining the ranks of the poor, and putting a lot of pressure on government programs for the poor. How about the fact that the QE fix is artificially holding down inflation and when they stop we will all suffer price hikes that are devastating? Or would you prefer to look at the massive debt that has occurred due to all of that government generated increase? This healthcare debacle is by itself a whole set of horrible, left policy generated, circumstances that also acts as a deterrent to business and the creation of jobs. What about the loss of doctors due to that wretched law with its thousands of pages of confusing and conflicting regulations?
“If you’d like to make the current top marginal rate the same as it was in Kennedy’s presidency, go ahead and advocate for doing so. If not, then you’re engaging in transparent intellectual dishonesty…”
You don’t know what you’re talking about. and you are unwilling to learn.
“The fact that he favored a cut from 91% to 70% does not, in any way, imply that he would agree to cutting the top rate today.”
I say he would, not because of anything I think, but because of what he said…I repeat:
Tina: “In Kennedy’s day, competition for most American companies were other American companies. Today American companies must compete with global companies and emerging market companies. The game has changed dramatically. But the principle applies in either scenario. Tax rates must be kept low.”
The United States has the lowest effective corporate tax rate in the world, and is now at the lowest it has ever been in our country. And yet jobs are not being created as a result.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news/economy/corporate-tax-rate/
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204662204577199492233215330
Conservatives such as yourself have repeatedly peddled the absurd claim that the polar opposite is true, and that the U.S. has the *highest* corporate tax rate in the world. This lie is based off of comparing marginal tax rates instead of effective tax rates. But obviously, if your goal is to determine whether or not American businesses can be competitive, you have to look at what these businesses are actually paying. Since America has the lowest effective corporate tax rate in the world, it makes no sense to argue that corporate tax rates in the U.S. are hurting American businesses’ ability to compete.
It makes far more sense to say that corporate tax rates in this country are too low. Again: they are lower than they’ve ever been, rank among the lowest in the world, and our economy as a whole has seen zero positive effects from this situation. Under your theory, the wealth should be trickling down at this point. Jobs should be created. But that hasn’t happened.
You prove the vapidness of your ideology with that last sentence: “Tax rates must be kept low.” OK…how low? You won’t say. You realize the Laffer curve is a curve for a reason, right? The guys behind supply-side economics never argued that we need to keep lowering taxes forever and ever, no matter how low they became. That would be crazy. They proposed that there was an optimal tax rate. This isn’t a static number, of course; it changes with changing circumstances. Your side has been unable to present a compelling case for why taxes on the wealthy should be lowered under our current circumstances. I’ve shown you the list of top Reagan advisers who have said this won’t work today, and who have shown that it didn’t work under the Bush administration, but you refuse to engage with their points. “Lowering taxes” isn’t a practical strategy for you anymore, it’s a near-religious credo.
“I say he would, not because of anything I think, but because of what he said…I repeat:”
Again, repeating that quote does nothing to show that Kennedy would favor lowering taxes today. Believing the top tax rate should be lower than 90% does not mean one also believes it should be lower than 39%. It is quite possible that the former can be stimulative to the economy, while the latter is not. Taxes can be too high, and taxes can be too low. You understand that, right? Or do you believe that taxes can never be too low?
“Please explain how raising taxes on business and investors works. How does loading them down with regulation that causes greater expense create jobs or a higher GDP. Explain the mechanism!”
I haven’t said anything about “loading them down with regulation,” so I won’t address that part. But I have explained how higher taxes on the wealthy can help our economy more times than I can count. I understand that you disagree with the theory. Pretending that I’ve never articulated it, and asking me to repeat the same points over and over while you refuse to substantially engage with them, is profoundly disrespectful, and makes you look like you have a terrible memory.
I’ll try again: in an economy where the primary problem is lack of demand, it makes sense to take measures to stimulate demand. The United States currently takes in less revenue from corporations as a percentage of GDP than at any time in our history. The effective top tax rate is also the lowest in our history. Obviously, the theory that cutting tax rates ALWAYS raises revenue has been proven false. So, it stands to reason that raising the top tax rate back up to more optimal level could increase revenue.
This revenue could then be used to strengthen redistributive programs which primarily help the working poor, thus stimulating demand. Demand creates jobs. (I know that’s blasphemy to most conservatives, who believe that only individual business owners untouched by the dirty hands of government create jobs, but that doesn’t make it any less true.) Most small business owners have said that they are not hiring because of lack of demand, not because of regulation. Thus, if more average consumers had more money to spend, demand would increase, as would employment.
Now, you may disagree with this theory. That’s fine. But next time we discuss this issue, I’d really appreciate if you didn’t pretend that I’ve never explained it.
“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”
Again, that statement was made when the tax system was siphoning out 91% of extremely wealthy people’s earnings. That is nowhere close to the tax rate today, and no liberal in power is proposing we go back to that rate. So it’s not relevant here. Wealthy people and corporations are paying less than ever in our country, and less than other countries as well. Those are facts. It is time to try something else.
Don’t forget to include President G.W.Bush:
“I’m the commander — see, I don’t need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being president.”
“They misunderestimated me.”
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”
“Tribal sovereignty means that; it’s sovereign. I mean, you’re a — you’ve been given sovereignty, and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.”
“We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease.”
“This is an impressive crowd — the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite — I call you my base.”
Chris: “The United States has the lowest effective corporate tax rate in the world…”
The left spins and spins…finds a few incidental examples and holds them up as the norm and you think you’ve done your homework. Well you haven’t.
US News:
Tax Foundation:
Now…consider the low wages paid by companies in emerging markets…consider the added burden that Obama’s new healthcare and environmental regulations create. Take into account that we have had very high energy rates with threat to see them go higher. Consider the uncertainty of the market in general caused by the Obama fed printing money.
In light of all of that, tax rates matter Chris. Maybe not to you or your ideological pals but they do to people who actually have responsibilities to investors and employees and whose decisions must be based on levels of risk and foreseeable risk.
“It makes far more sense to say that corporate tax rates in this country are too low. Again: they are lower than they’ve ever been, rank among the lowest in the world, and our economy as a whole has seen zero positive effects from this situation. Under your theory, the wealth should be trickling down at this point. Jobs should be created. But that hasn’t happened.”
You have not described my theory or the situation! all you have done is avoid the obvious: Obama’s leftist polices do not create jobs or a thriving economy! Obama’s policies stifle business and economic growth. he has to bring corporate people up to his office and browbeat them or threaten them…God knows with what…to get them to play ball! But a few corporate heads do not make an economy.
Trickle down is not a function of a low number in frot of the percentage sign. It is not a matter of corporations and rich people having money. Until you understand the incentive/risk factor you will never get it!
And Obama’s so-called economic policies bare zero resemblance to anything Reagan ever did! So please do not attempt to shift the blame or the focus. Instead, tell me…
How does Obama’s economic policy work?
How do creating new taxes and regulations, keeping corporate tax rate the highest in the world, announcing grand incentive schemes that few will take advantage of, and threatening to create higher energy costs work to grow the economy and create jobs?
How does printing money create real growth in the private sector?
If you can explain any of that that then you will have made a case.
“…that statement was made when the tax system was siphoning out 91% of extremely wealthy people’s earnings.”
Which means absolutely nothing except that our government had high tax rates that were stifling the economy, business, and jobs. It does not mean that other factors can do the same in different circumstances. For instance, a lot of other costs were low or non-existent then: Minimum wage was $1.25. Gasoline was $.29 a gallon…shipping charges are greatly affected by gasoline prices. Rents were much lower than they are today. The point isn’t to attempt to make an apples to apples comparison, it’s impossible to do so.
The point is to create tax and regulatory policy that supports business and gives them the incentive to risk and expand and grow.
Tell me how Obama’s polices over the last five years have done any of that?
“It is time to try something else.”
What the hell do you think we’ve been doing for the past five years? Your guy came in promising utopian dreams of everyone flourishing. Your party has badmouthed conservative policies for decades but cannot do better with their own. Explain!
The Weekly Standard:
We are still waiting for the payoff!
Explain!!!
Peggy @ #9: “ObamaCare was designed to fail forcing all but the top 1% into a single payer/government run health care system and on gov’t assistance.”
Did you read “The Scheme Behind the Obamacare Fraud,” by Andrew McCarthey posted at National Review? If not it deserves your attention.
Did China just cut off their money faucet?
“The People’s Bank of China said the country does not benefit any more from increases in its foreign-currency holdings, adding to signs policy makers will rein in dollar purchases that limit the yuan’s appreciation.
“It’s no longer in China’s favor to accumulate foreign-exchange reserves,” Yi Gang, a deputy governor at the central bank, said in a speech organized by China Economists 50 Forum at Tsinghua University yesterday. The monetary authority will “basically” end normal intervention in the currency market and broaden the yuan’s daily trading range, Governor Zhou Xiaochuan wrote in an article in a guidebook explaining reforms outlined last week following a Communist Party meeting. Neither Yi nor Zhou gave a timeframe for any changes.”
Continued..
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-20/pboc-says-no-longer-in-china-s-favor-to-boost-record-reserves.html
Interesting list Jim. All taken out of context and without reference or source.
But never mind…what do they have to do with tax policies that were enacted by the three presidents mentioned?
If you wanted to include Bush there are quotes to be had that relate to tax cutting and the economy and jobs. His straightforward speaking approach is hardly poetic but it gets the job done and average people can understand what he’s saying:
Both true. Unfortunately the Republicans blew it big time with spending and debt (Although some of the debt is rising for the same reasons that Obamas debt keeps rising…we need to reform SS and Medicare and now…dump Obamacare)
However…as I have pointed out countless times the Bush economy worked better than has the Obama economy for the people in the middle classes. Obama has taken care of the poor by redistributing wealth. He has taken care of the unions with bailouts and subsidies. Wall Street does okay because of the money printing, but they would rather the stock market was going up because of real growth. Obama has done ZIP for the middle class…in fact it is shrinking and it is hurting. That represents most of the people and businesses in the country!
We need jobs and real economic growth and what we have instead is a sluggish economy, high unemployment, a big mess in healthcare and no hope on the horizon.
What is your point?
Chris well written.
But as seen this is a tour into the dark side. Truth and discussion is not the goal. It is a more cult like environment of propaganda. Where hate is the feeling that makes one happy.
JFK would take care of this quickly. Bobby would have shut it down by now.
Ya see in this world the market crashes and huge deficits and 2 wars are all Obama’s fault cause they clearly want to destroy Democracy and this country.
No other explanation.
” The Bush economy worked better” So losing 750,000 jobs a month as you leave office and creating a massive outsourcing of American Jobs was a good economy? Delusional
It is well documented they want to build up other nations around us and get rid of the middle class here. Well documented. Why so corporations can have their utopia World where they rule.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/tea-party-secret-money-gotv
#16 Tina, Thanks for the McCarthey article, he nails the scam we’re being sold with all the lies to reach the end goal of socialized medicine.
Another big item most are missing is the current 5 million and future 100+ million cancelled policies is not reflective of the number of people covered under those policies. Since each policy covers whole families a conservative estimate of just three people in each plan means the actual number of individuals losing their health care is/will be 15 to 300 million.
Newscasters are reporting 5 million people impacted instead of clarifying the policies have multiple family members included in them.
When the employer mandates kicks in next year roughly the whole US population of 300 million will be included in ObamaCare. The only ones not forced into socialized medicine will be the 1% who can afford to pay for concierge care out of pocket.
What a big mess. It’s heartbreaking to see people with stage four cancer being told they’ve lost their insurance and their doctors and are having to deal with their death instead of having hope for a long life, because they can’t afford the treatments that would save them.
Tina, I posted the Bush quotes to demonstrate that we have had far worse then Obama. We have of course much better too.
What is wrong with the economy is a huge topic, which should really be addressed with a separate post.
The middle class in this country have been in trouble since Reagan started “Trickle Down Economics.” Cutting taxes on the wealthy have NOT stimulated the economy for the past 30 years. In fact it’s had the opposite effect, and the middle class have paid dearly for it.
I agree that President Obama hasn’t done enough to help the middle class. However he has done far more than Bush every did. But he is still controlled by the large corporations which have little interest in improving our lives. That is the main reason why “Obmamcare” is such a mess. That is also the problem with Medicare Part D. Both are a complex hassle because both were written to benefit the drug and insurance companies.
We deserve better in this country. However, as I have said before, at least I finally have a choice in health insurance now.
Jim the economy and policy are the subject of this post!
I have to say your opinion on this makes me incredibly sad. When did Americans start thinking of themselves as children of the state?
Obama can’t do anything for the middle class; he has no money that he doesn’t take from the economy in the private sector or print which causes inflation and debt. Investment by people who have money is what creates a vibrant economy and opportunity.
But we as individual must stand as adults, take advantage of opportunities, and be responsible for planning our own futures.
Obama has created conditions that do not create jobs and have made the numbers of poor, trickling down from the middle class, grow! His healthcare plan is a disaster that if it stands will do great harm. How can you say Obama has helped the middle class!
Bush lowered tax rates for all citizens and raised the deduction for dependents. That amounts to more of peoples money and buying power remaining in their own pockets! His unemployment rate was only in the low sixes after the twin towers were blown apart following the Clinton dot com bubble and recession. It averaged in the high fours. Obama’s recession officially ended in Spring to Summer 2009 and his unemployment rate has not been below a questionable 7.8% because so many people have dropped out of employment and stopped looking for work!
But oh well, YOU finally have a “choice” in health insurance.
You are, I’m afraid, in for quite a shock if this stands down the road.
For the record, the Obama economy can’t sustain itself. It bumps along at the bottom due to the artificial stimulation of the fed and not because Americans are investing, working and creating vibrancy.
You seem like a reasonable guy. maybe you can explain how taking money out of the private sector through taxes and regulation will translate to a growing vibrant economy and lots of jobs. Nobody else has been able to tell me how that works.
As far as the Medicare laws being written to benefit insurance and drug companies goes what would you expect? When government inserts itself into the market those companies no longer have to compete for your dollars. They no longer answer to the consumer. Taxpayers have to pay not only for the insurance but also for the giant bureaucracy so the actual cost of care is hidden…you pay much more than you realize.
This is so obvious! How can anyone think it makes more sense for government to be between you and the entities you would buy from?
We need to get government out of the business entirely and open the market to all comers across state lines. Competition for your dollars will push prices lower as companies compete for your business.
I got a good laugh seeing Dewey’s link to Mother Jones. And he rails about Fox News. No doubt Media Matters plays a significant role in his brainwashing too.
Jack Kelly writing in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
Only have time to respond to one thing right now:
Tina: “His unemployment rate was only in the low sixes after the twin towers were blown apart following the Clinton dot com bubble and recession. It averaged in the high fours. Obama’s recession officially ended in Spring to Summer 2009 and his unemployment rate has not been below a questionable 7.8% because so many people have dropped out of employment and stopped looking for work!”
This is misleading. First of all, Bush’s average unemployment rate was 5.3%, not in the high fours. But in his last year in office alone, the unemployment rate jumped from 5.0 to 7.3%–a sharper incline than any under Obama.
When Obama was sworn in in February 2009, the unemployment rate was 8.3%. It reached a high of 10% in October of 2010, and since then has slowly but steadily fallen. It is now at 7.3%, the lowest it’s been since December of 2008 when Bush was still in office.
These numbers suck, but pinning them all on Obama doesn’t make a whole lot of sense when you look at the growing unemployment rate during Bush’s last year in office. Obama inherited a world-wide recession. Expecting him to fix this single-handedly was always unrealistic. But unemployment has gone down steadily since October 2009.
Source for the above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Chris: “But in his last year in office alone, the unemployment rate jumped from 5.0 to 7.3%–a sharper incline than any under Obama.”
Alone? So, you are going to try to make the comparison of policies based on Bush’s last year in office rather than the average of the full eight years? Incredible!
Obama policies have not resulted in employment numbers that come close. In fact his policies have resulted in people dropping out of the employment market, people going on disability because they can’t find work and their unemployment insurance ran out, more people than ever depending on food stamps and the numbers of people living in poverty matching the Great Depression!
“reached a high of 10% in October of 2010, and since then has slowly but steadily fallen.”
It may look like steady decline on a graph but if you look at the month to month numbers the decline was hardly “steady”. In fact it was up and down and up and down.
We have also learned through this bad period that the unemployment figure doesn’t tell the whole story on unemployment since the figure does not reflect the numbers of people who have dropped out having given up looking for work. Under Obama this group has grown larger than in previous administrations going back to the depression.
It’s a bit boring but here’s the picture for Obama’s entire five years:
Late 2007 Housing bubble bursts
January 2008 5.0 February 2008 4.9
October 2008 6.5 November 2008 6.8
January 2009 still up 7.8
February, Obama hope begins Recession ends Spring 2009
Steady rise to October 2009 10.0
Drops November 2009 9.9
January – April 2010 9.8-9.9
May drops to 9.6 hopes rises
June-Oct 9.4-9.5 yippee
November jumps to 9.8 December down to 9.3
2011 Remains high at 8.9-9.1 through October
November drops to 8.6 December 8.5
2012 toggles 8.1-8.3 in months through August
September through December drops to 7.9, 7.8
This year it has toggled up and down in a downward trend 7.9 to 7.2 through October.
“These numbers suck, but pinning them all on Obama doesn’t make a whole lot of sense when you look at the growing unemployment rate during Bush’s last year in office.”
Oh please! First of all Pelosi and Reid were creating the budgets for the last two years Bush was in office…the threat they posed in terms of EPA and spending created a great deal of caution. The Bubble burst at the end of 2007 Fears had begun in the conservative investor sector even before it burst…those people who knew the warnings made by Bush and others should be heeded. Bush’s economic and employment numbers were much better in the months that followed challenges that included the Clinton recession, the dot com bubble burst, the terror attack on the twin towers, Katrina and war. Why? His policies didn’t stifle the economy…they put money in all citizen’s pockets. The reason the terrorists chose Wall Street is that they thought it would destroy our economy. Bush policies made sure it didn’t!
“Obama inherited a world-wide recession”
Largely created by the effects of Democrat polices and regulation!
And boo hoo…Reagan inherited a mess too. Mortgage rates were at 20%! Inflation had been rampant. Gas prices had been staggering and shortages caused gas lines in America! The Carter economy handed Reagan unemployment at 7.5%. By December it hit 10.8%, a month after the Carter recession ended. Twenty-nine months later, the private sector under Reagan had created 8 million jobs — nearly twice as many as under Obama in a similar time frame.
“Expecting him to fix this single-handedly was always unrealistic.”
Nobody expects him to “fix” it. They expect him to be a leader! (Recall we told you he had no executive experience! He was not prepared for the job!)
A President can only create policies that either help or hamper those with the power to fix it. Obama’s polices are like a millstone on the necks and a ball and chain tied to the ankles of those with the power to “fix” it!
That is the miracle of freedom and free markets that liberals refuse to get.
“Trickle down isn’t defined as those with money deciding to “share” what they have with others. Trickle down is the effect that is created and realized for everyone when it is less risky and more profitable to invest resulting in greater opportunity, expansion, invention/design/launch, cash flowing like crazy, jobs jobs jobs!
Obama has created uncertainty, higher risk, higher costs, less opportunity to make money through investment….and a lack of jobs. Poverty trickles UP!
Government has no money that it doesn’t take from the private sector. The private sector is where wealth and opportunity to grow wealth (for everybody) is created.
Individuals must take responsibility for their own wealth building. Liberals don’t want you to know that it is possible for the poor to move to the middle class and beyond. They need dependent people, needy people to sell their big government, communalism solutions.
This is just too easy to understand…liberal brainwashing of large swaths of the masses is the only explanation for abject such loyalty and belief in the fairy tale of beneficent government.
I’m literally blue in the face!
Tina -“I have to say your opinion on this makes me incredibly sad. When did Americans start thinking of themselves as children of the state? ”
You know, it makes me sad what has happened in this country too. We might say that this big government thing started with Prohibition back in 1920. People have been drinking alcohol for thousands of years. However the government decided to ban it. They then started a huge agency to enforce this ban. As we all know it didn’t work. So when it was finally repealed that government agency changed it course and pushed for another type of big government control, and they banned marijuana. Before the marijuana ban it wasn’t a big problem. Of course once the government got involved it became one.
This is where the nanny state thing came from. I believe that people should be able to run their own lives. What troubles me most, is that most people go along with this kind of nonsense.
Bush’s recession ended in June 2009. This great recession is Obama’s and has lasted for almost 4.5 years!!!
—-
U.S. recession ended June 2009, NBER finds
Downturn of 18 months ranks as longest since Great Depression:
“WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The U.S. recession that began in December 2007 ended in June 2009, making the 18-month slump the longest since the Great Depression, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Yet the NBER also cautioned that its findings bear no relation to the current state of the economy and do not represent a forecast about the future. If another downturn occurs anytime soon, the NBER said, it would constitute a separate recession. See NBER statement.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-recession-ended-june-2009-nber-says-2010-09-20
Jim I have to disagree slightly. MJ only became a national problem after the sixties generation got into it. Before that use of it was pretty much limited to the jazz world of musicians:
wikipedia:
We are all aware of events since then.
I am curious to see when the backlash will begin for those offended by second hand smoke and concerned about dangers to health and well being. Between the control freaks and the taxers it will be something to see.
I agree Jim. People should be free to run their own lives and responsible for their decisions and the outcomes too.
Maybe the next “solution” will be a huge tax on legalize marijuana…if they follow the pattern, watch out!
Peggy I’m very concerned about the next recession
The Obama economy following the recovery has been a flop!
Me too! Afraid an economic tsunami is coming that will be worse than the Great Depression.
I do not envy the next Congress and president who have to clean up this mess created by this administration.
Why a Bank of America Analyst Is Warning the Markets May Come ‘Unhinged’:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/25/why-a-bank-of-america-analyst-is-warning-the-markets-may-come-unhinged/
And this.
UPDATED: Chase Bank Limits Cash Withdrawals, Bans International Wire Transfers:
“It should also be noted that JPMorgan Chase runs most of the welfare system and EBT cards and really constitutes the top of the pyramid in the corporate-banking-governmental structure.
Finally, we’ve seen the IRS attempting to bar Americans from leaving the country simply if the IRS has opened an investigation on them. This isn’t shades of tyranny, this is hardcore authoritarianism and everyone should be concerned. If you were planning on getting your money out of the country, now is the time. If you haven’t withdrawn your cash from the bank, you should have done it yesterday.
Chase Bank has moved to limit cash withdrawals while banning business customers from sending international wire transfers from November 17 onwards, prompting speculation that the bank is preparing for a looming financial crisis in the United States by imposing capital controls.”
http://www.infowars.com/chase-bank-limits-cash-withdrawals-bans-international-wire-transfers/
Peggy I think the speculation comes from fear. The worst thing we can do is panic.
Chase is my credit card bank and I received the letter. There was nothing sinister in it, just an informational letter about their revised rules. Banks and credit cards send these out periodically as they make adjustments.
An article in Forbes explains the banks policy and might allay some fears:
Banks have been under pressure too since the great regulation/housing debacle. These changes reflect that pressure and the new reguloations in Dodd/Frank.
The Wall Street Journal reports more on what banks are doing about the pressures they are experiencing:
The world is hoping for an improved US economy…vibrancy in our economy spreads to other economies just as our sluggish growth has created sludge everywhere.
Bloomberg:
The world holds its breath and we’re praying for the best. I’m afraid the President, his advisers, and Harry Reid have not given us much reason to be hopeful.
Not panic, just prepare.
Not in my life-time nor I believe in our country’s history has it ever gone through so much turmoil all at the same time. Not even the crazy 60s with Bill Ayers bombings and the Vietnam war protest with the shooting at Kent State comes close to today.
The past five years have been like living through every negative time from our past and a few new ones thrown in to boot. We’ve been in a recession if not an undeclared depression for over four years, which has to be record breaking in length with the exception of the Great Depression.
Our country has been on a five year drunken bender weekend in Vegas spending the mortgage money and our kids college fund. Millions have been spent to send federal employees and judges to exotic retreats and conferences by those who pay for them can’t afford to take their own family on vacation to a national park.
Interest rates have been extremely high and employment has been very low, we’ve been involved in wars and conflicts, citizens have protested and marched against the government, and the homeless and food lines have been long and full of children.
When have we given so much to help so many? When have we ever thought our children would NOT have a better life than we did? When have we lived for so long with the promise things would get better, but it only got worse? When have we ever lived with the lose of our freedoms and under the constant threat of loosing more? When have we ever lived under an administration that has promised so much, delivered so little and told so many lies? The answer of course is never.
No one should panic Tina, but everyone should be prepared for what is coming. The drunken high stakes weekend in Vegas is over and the “Man” now wants his money that he loaned us… with interest.
Peggy: “Our country has been on a five year drunken bender weekend in Vegas spending the mortgage money and our kids college fund.”
No kidding! Just heard that the government takeover of student loans has reaped the government $41 billion in PROFITS!
“Interest rates have been extremely high”
High? In what way?
I’ve been aware of rates being kept artificially low in an attempt to spark home purchases and business lending. What a joke. Total fail. Who wants to take on debt in this economy?
California real estate is being bought up by investors…the Chinese are buying a lot of it with cash.
Of course Americans are having a lot of trouble getting loans…hard to get a loan with a part time job!
“No one should panic Tina, but everyone should be prepared for what is coming.”
I agree.
The banks agree too! That is all I was saying.
Speaking of banks, that’s probably another record to add to your list. Wikipedia: “(FDIC) closed 465 failed banks from 2008 to 2012.[1] In contrast, in the five years prior to 2008, only 10 banks failed.”
In the depression years most people didn’t have a lot and our infrastructure wasn’t built up so the affect in peoples lives appeared to be more dire. This time the government is “saving” people through redistribution. Those with jobs are doing with a lot less but it isn’t as obvious. We may be suffering less dramatically but we sure as heck aren’t thriving as a nation. The big government expansion doesn’t give anyone confidence about where we are going either.
Being prepared is about all we have.
#36 Tina
“No kidding! Just heard that the government takeover of student loans has reaped the government $41 billion in PROFITS!”
Remember one of the hidden clauses in ObamaCare took over a large portion of the student loan with its forgiveness clause. That’s where some of the funding for ObamaCare came from. BUT, with the forgiveness clause there’s another billions bailout coming down the road.
““Interest rates have been extremely high” High? In what way?”
I was thinking of back during the Carter reign when interest rates went through the roof. We took a second out on our home to expand my business and had to pay 23% back then. We were considered high risk because it was a small business, but home loans were also in the 14-15% range.
I do expect when the Feds stop printing money we’ll see those same high rates again.
“California real estate is being bought up by investors…the Chinese are buying a lot of it with cash.”
Every state’s property is being bought up by individuals and investors from other countries. Florida’s realest boom is from South American countries and small farms all over are now owned by huge conglomerates.
The family farms, ranches and businesses are all going away. Inheritance/Death tax makes it impossible to pass them on to the next generation. My dear friend from high school is a broker in Montana where he says it’s sad to see the forced sale of ranches that have been in families for generations.
Small banks are the same as the farms and businesses. They’re all being bought up by the major banks. No more going to the local community bank for that seed loan.
Our food, our money, our health and even the air we now breath is controlled a government/s or huge corporation.
Funny, I just wander if the liberals will ever realize they helped those hated 1% get even richer at the cost of those they said they wanted to help. Just look at the stock market’s record earnings. It’s mostly big money cranking it up raking it in.
The rich always get richer while the poor get poorer under Marxist-type governments. Did they really think it would be different this time or did they think they’d be able to hop on the 1% honey wagon?
Guess, the joke is on them, except no one is laughing except Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Gore and all of their like-minded rich cronies.