View Full Version : A Failed Presidency, the American Problem
This is, in my opinion, spot on. Spend, spend, spend...campaign, campaign, campaign.
http://news.yahoo.com/failed-presidency-american-problem-162509281.html
A Failed Presidency -- The American Problem
By John Mariotti | Forbes – Sat, Aug 6, 2011
Few Americans needed Standard & Poor to confirm the mismanagement of the United States government and its finances. The downgrading of American credit will raise interest rates on America’s huge debt and ultimately on all Americans. Popular polls say that most Americans blame Congress—but that’s too simplistic. As much as Barack Obama would like to shift that blame onto Congress, the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of President. It is first and foremost a leadership problem that is crippling America—and the leader is President Barack Obama—not the many members of Congress.
No matter how many speeches he makes, the conclusion is clear: Obama’s greatest failure is spending America into enormous deficits, and being clueless about how to get the economy to recover. His speeches, riddled with “I” and “We” are mostly serving to indict him for his failings. Appearing on TV more than any other sitting president, Barack Obama is constantly “explaining” why things aren’t working, when he should be working on what to do different and better.
Instead he is “campaigning,” which is the only thing he knows how to do reasonable well. But he can’t fix the economy; he has neither the experience nor the knowhow to do it. His failed, misguided policies have only exacerbated the size of his mistakes and shortcomings.
----------------------------------------------------
“I didn’t say ‘Change we can believe in tomorrow.,.’ I didn’t say, ‘Change we can believe in next week…’ “We knew this was going to take time.” —Barack Obama, Aug. 4, 2011.
Obama has surrounded himself with academics, theoreticians and politicians and all of their solutions are wrong, flawed and ineffective. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the evidence. Nobody in his inner circle has meaningful business experience. He not only doesn’t understand business, he dislikes businesses; they are only useful as a way to collect taxes to redistribute.
For Barack Obama’s first 18 months, and occasionally even today, he and his loyalists try to place the lion’s share of the blame for America’s problems with George W. Bush. There is little doubt that Bush erred seriously on several counts: he initiated two expensive wars and then saw the Iraq war mismanaged for at least 2-3 years.
Then Bush failed, along with the (then) GOP led Congress to rein in spending to compensate for the cost of these wars. Finally, he reduced tax rates and created the Medicare prescription drug program (which turned out to work better and cost far less than was feared). Coincidentally, the much-maligned TARP initiated by Bush actually staved off a financial collapse and is largely being paid back by the banks and insurance companies involved. In perhaps his greatest mistake, Bush failed to veto a single spending bill sent to him by Congress.
Bush’s mistakes were clearly serious errors, but they pale in comparison with Obama’s failures since he took office. The Democratically controlled Congress was complicit with Obama’s failures. They have not submitted, and Obama has not submitted a realistic budget for the country in over 800 days—a clear failure to meet their responsibilities. (Exception: Obama’s irresponsible Feb. budget, which was voted down 97-0 by a Democratically controlled Senate.)
To chronicle Obama’s failures and his shortcomings is impossible within the length of a simple blog post. A few of them are most notable. Obama aided and abetted by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid rammed the new health care legislation down the throat of America—and Obamacare was created. Parts of it are well-intentioned, but much of it is feared by Americans and especially small businesses. Arguably some of Obama’s greatest damage to the economy has been done by his appointees in the EPA, NLRB, CPSC, et. al., and the Justice Department. American business is oppressed by regulation. Sadly, Obama barely realizes this.
Next came the $840 billion “stimulus” package, (mostly pork and patronage), which worked poorly or not at all—unless you consider creating jobs at $275,000 each to be a good solution. Not enough “shovel-ready” projects were really “shovel-ready” Obama admitted recently, chuckling awkwardly at his naiveté. Obama and his experts (now mostly gone back to finance or academia) predicted a drop of unemployment to under 8% when the number of jobless went the other way—upward. Now, more Americans have been out of work, for longer, than any time in the past half-century.
Obamacare not only violated many of his eloquent campaign promises; e.g., Taxes on Americans earning less than $200/$250,000 per year will no increase one penny—except for the new Obamacare tax to 3.8% applied to investment income—which will hit millions of Americans. When faced with his party’s impending losses in 2008 elections, Obama dispatched Rahm Emmanuel to attempt buying-off candidates in the 2008 primaries with a promise of high-level jobs, a legally questionable practice at best, and unethical one at worst.
During Obama’s term in office the deficit has grown astronomically as he continues, even to this day, to insist on more spending and more taxes (especially those on “millionaires and billionaires” a category that most Americans earning $200-250,000 per year hardly imagine including them.)
Those who point to his achievements name “bailing out” GM & Chrysler—but many experts feel that was done by using executive power for further illegal actions, denying legal bondholders their rightful returns. There is also a strong belief that ordinary bankruptcy could well have accomplished the same result at a cost of almost $20 billion less of taxpayers’ money. But then spending too much of taxpayers money has never bothered this White House.
To make Obamacare’s outrageous financial claims, Obama & his Democratic Congressional minions desperately needed to cut its cost. Thus, buried in the 2000+-page bill, Obama and his accomplices Reid and Pelosi cut $500 billion out of Medicare. Now he pretends to worry about seniors while ignoring Medicare’s impending insolvency. After all, even if Obama could win a second term, he will be gone before Medicare fails, and be able to blame it on his successor.
Barack Obama was going to close Gitmo—until he realized that it was as unrealistic as much of his campaign rhetoric. Obama has violated the law, which requires the president to act within 15 days after the Medicare commission advises him of a financing problem. His Democratic allies gave him a waiver in his first year, but this year—he simply ignored the law.
Obama followed Bush’s foreign policy and even left most Bush appointees in charge, until recently. Obama’s vanquished primary opponent Hillary Clinton has precluded him from making as big a debacle of foreign policy as he has on domestic policy. He tried, early in his career, kowtowing to foreign dictators and despots, apologizing for America instead of protecting and defending it.
The ultimate failure of President Barack Obama is that he is unable or unwilling to lead; to define anything more than vague generalities as a solution to America’s daunting problems. Even his own allies in the GAO state, “we can’t value a speech.” In his desperation to run for reelection, Obama continues to abdicate his responsibilities. The debt ceiling was a showcase of his failings as he periodically jumped in and out of negotiations until he literally neutralized himself. It's the whole voting present thing that he's so great at
The president made himself an outsider in the decision, even as he tried to sound like a voice of reason, making speech after speech, saying less in each successive one. Senator Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner finally fought through massive partisan problems to reach a compromise agreement—but it was clearly too little, too late. Kicking the hard work down to a twelve person “super-committee” was not enough to settle financial markets.
While Barack Obama campaigned, making still more speeches at his 50th birthday celebrations, the Wall Street voted with its money and the Dow-Jones average dropped over 500 points and the S. & P. dropped even more—5%+. 117,000 jobs created in July don’t even approach the number needed to offset new entries to the workforce. The drop in unemployment from 9.2% to 9.1% signals more unemployed Americans giving up, not more of them being hired.
Happy Birthday Mr. President. You have accomplished something no other president has done. You’ve spent America into a hole that will take a decade to fix, and kept more Americans out of work longer than anyone in recent history, and you’ve accomplished all this in record time, only 2-1/2 years. Who knows how much harm you can do given still more time.
--------------------------------------------
John Mariotti is an internationally known executive, consultant and an award-winning author. His book, The Complexity Crisis was named one of 2008’s Best Business Books. In a recent novel, The Chinese Conspiracy, he merges an exciting fictional thriller with the factual reality of America’s risk from Cyber-Attacks. (www.thechinesecomspiracy.com). Mariotti does Keynote speeches, serves on corporate boards and is a consultant/advisor to companies. He can be reached at www.mariotti.net .
Doc Diego
08-10-2011, 22:58
One of the most concise articles about Obama I've read. I agree with completely.
I watched the video that is advertised all of the time now "End of America 63"
http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1011PSISBBVD/6PSIM800/PR . It is actually a sales pitch, but he makes some interesting observations in the video, as well as some scary predictions. After watching the video, I watched the BBC World News. They were going on about the European markets today, and specifically about the trouble Italy is in, as well as France.
When you put the video in context with our own situation now, and the EU situation, it does make you envision very dire scenarios. Obama continues to appear confused and lack any kind of active leadership in anything. If our economy does bottom out at the same time as several of the EU nations, it is going to get real ugly, real quick.
Utah Bob
08-11-2011, 08:26
I only hope we can survive his term and the American voters learned a valuable lesson.
But then I see how much he is raising in campaign funds and I shudder.
Of hisI only hope we can survive his term and the American voters learned a valuable lesson.
But then I see how much he is raising in campaign funds and I shudder.
Is the success of his fund raisers an indicator for the level of acceptance that he still has, or is it simply the congregation of the savy wealthy getting their name in the pot for cool prizes like healthcare excemptions and bailout funds?
I only hope we can survive his term and the American voters learned a valuable lesson.
But then I see how much he is raising in campaign funds and I shudder.
He'll be going into the election in a recession with 10% unemployment. No matter how much cash he raises, the only way he can win is if his enemy is divided, as in the case of Ross Perot/Clinton v. Bush I.
You may not have to worry about Obama as the Demlib candidate, anyway. The Demlibs are turning on him like the pack of brainless jackals they truly are.
A Conservative will win, cut taxes and spending, and we'll be all right until the next batch of idiots elects another Demlib.
He'll be going into the election in a recession with 10% unemployment. No matter how much cash he raises, the only way he can win is if his enemy is divided, as in the case of Ross Perot/Clinton v. Bush I.
You may not have to worry about Obama as the Demlib candidate, anyway. The Demlibs are turning on him like the pack of brainless jackals they truly are.
A Conservative will win, cut taxes and spending, and we'll be all right until the next batch of idiots elects another Demlib.
I pray that your are right QP Dusty, one can only hope :)
1stindoor
08-11-2011, 13:00
I pray that your are right QP Dusty, one can only hope :)
Hope is not a strategy...strangely enough it is a campaign platform.
Hope is not a strategy...strangely enough it is a campaign platform.
Depends on what you are hoping for. My strategy is starting the painful, arduous process of applying for a long gun license in NYC.
ZonieDiver
08-12-2011, 12:35
He'll be going into the election in a recession with 10% unemployment. No matter how much cash he raises, the only way he can win is if his enemy is divided, as in the case of Ross Perot/Clinton v. Bush I.
Or if a lot of conservatives "sit it out" because they think their candidate is a RINO... as I fear happened, at least in part, in 2008.
I do get tired of the comparison's of "Romneycare" to "Obamacare" by several of the current Republican crop of candidates. I fear they don't understand federalism. The STATE of MA instituting such a program is vastly different from it being done at the national level.
Ret10Echo
08-15-2011, 20:33
I do enjoy the BBC...and Mark Mardell has summed it up well yet again:
* Big, blocky, black, with painted-out windows, it looks more like a police mortuary van than a symbol of hope arriving on your street.
* Two years in, the problems you inherited are now the problems you own.
* Neither inspirational nor angry enough, he needs something fresher - and to find another mode of transport than the battle bus from Mordor.
Blog spot here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14536517)
On this, I am not sure if it is really a fair criticism. It makes for a good talking point, but being a good businessman doesn't mean one is going to be a good statesman. And not having business experience doesn't mean one doesn't know how to create a good climate for business. I'd say the major problem with this administration is more just the ideology it has and the people Obama appoints being too regulatory-crazy. Also, because of all the policies they've passed, they are creating too much uncertainty in the economy.
I also think the Republicans had better watch it, because if a Republican wins the White House and the economy still remains in the doldrums, they are going to get hammered. Republicans love to tout tax cuts, but taxes are already at historical lows as it is. There is only so much one can cut taxes. We could cut the corporate tax rate perhaps, but otherwise, we have fairly low income tax rates and capital gains and dividend taxes right now.
Maybe, it is more than just being surrounded by academics with little practical experience...Obama has none either, he went from 'community organizer' to head executive without any executive experience. Someone in the room needs to have practical experience. His economic technique is to let others work the program and particulars and then get involved...except he doesn't know what to do when involved...nor does he have the background to understand the 2nd/3rd order of effects of an economic decision.
He is shooting blind in the dark, with a blank gun.
BTW lots of folks have lower Cap gains tax rates than the US and they will automatically go up in the near future if not extended. That is why lots of big money goes elsewhere.
BTW lots of folks have lower Cap gains tax rates than the US and they will automatically go up in the near future if not extended. That is why lots of big money goes elsewhere. ...and in going elsewhere, it takes a lot of the private sector jobs that seem to be in such short supply lately. In the Dem's fervor to punish the rich, they have managed to punish the working class.
WayoftheWolf
08-16-2011, 07:23
.
...and in going elsewhere, it takes a lot of the private sector jobs that seem to be in such short supply lately. In the Dem's fervor to punish the rich, they have managed to punish the working class.
Exactly. On smaller, state level, many large "New York" firms aren't actually incorporated in NY in order to avoid high corporate tax rates (more here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/46.html), I am sure some other states have this issue as well.
Exactly. On smaller, state level, many large "New York" firms aren't actually incorporated in NY in order to avoid high corporate tax rates (more here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/46.html), I am sure some other states have this issue as well.
Large corporations employ small armies of advisors (tax lawyers, tax accountants and subject matter experts on tangible and intangible assets) to minimize state and federal tax liabilities.
The tax rates that these corporations ultimately pay are often dependent solely on their specific risk tolerance, the creativity of their subject matter experts, the unique facts (both substance and form) regarding each unique situation, the law of the specific jurisdiction or jurisdictions involved, and ultimately, negotiations - should the tax position be audited, escalated and perhaps litigated.
If one has the budget, there are folks who can work “magic” at minimizing exposure and reducing tax liability for large, diverse, multistate or multinational organizations.
The advisors and subject matter experts know that lowering the tax rates and broadening the tax base would minimize the tax games that are played. However, to do so would obviously eliminate many of them. So, unless and until legislatures act, advisors will be asked to continue to interpret tax positions that are favorable to their clients.
The politicians are equally reluctant to lower rates and broaden the base because it cuts into their power - i.e., their power to “sell” special tax treatments for certain industries and sometimes certain specific taxpayers.
Make no mistake - I am not speaking of tax fraud - I am speaking of the complex game of tax planning and dispute resolution that exists for large taxpayers - mostly very large taxpayers (VLTs). The system is set up from the get-go by the various legislatures to implement various social and economic policies - rather than solely meeting revenue goals. Thus, the revenue raising system is polluted from the start. Manipulating the system becomes de rigueur - clients demand it, advisors are rewarded for it, and legislatures use actual and even proposed tax legislation as a currency for increasing their power.
Lowering rates and broadening the base will raise revenues and minimize these games.
<Rant off>
Large corporations employ small armies of advisors (tax lawyers, tax accountants and subject matter experts on tangible and intangible assets) to minimize state and federal tax liabilities.
My significant other is one of "those" accountants, so I do hear things from time to time :rolleyes:
It is a game indeed, to be the innovator, the messiah of the tax code will *almost* always give you a leg up in the political arena, however, some large corporations prefer to avoid the risk altogether, than pay that army or have some nosy journalist dig through their financial records to see which politicians they are cozying up with(gotta love NY's financial records disclosure laws, and I guess MSM IS useful for something :eek: )
Lowering rates and broadening the base will raise revenues and minimize these games.
This has been debated for quite some time now, while I am not an expert on the matter by any stretch, the $64,000 question that remains is always the same: Do you scale up or do you scale out? How about both? There are plenty of people who don't pay, which should, and there are plenty of people who pay to much; on the other hand, you have those who pay too little. I think this segment is bigger than people realize, forgetting those that legally pay too little, there are many(some who I know and suspect) which willfully mis-represent what they truly make. The question is though, if rate's were lower, would they be honest about it then? :munchin
Or..... how about you do what the Constitution says and let the Federal Government collect "indirect" taxes instead of "direct" taxes. Maybe people have already gone over this a few times and figured out when they laid the ground work for the country on how it would be best to collect taxes. Now, what document are most of us supposed to "support and defend"............
The question is though, if rate's were lower, would they be honest about it then? :munchin
If rates are low the incentive to cheat or to even bother to hire an advisor (never mind an army of advisors) diminishes.
While nothing is bullet proof the current system can be improved SIGNIFICANTLY.
While nothing is bullet proof the current system can be improved SIGNIFICANTLY.
No arguing that :cool:
Here's a surprise. :rolleyes:
Americans' frustration with Congress has reached historic levels, with 13% approving and 84% disapproving of the job it is doing, tying the low approval rating and establishing a new high disapproval rating by one percentage point.
Congressional Job Approval Ties Historic Low of 13%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149009/Congressional-Job-Approval-Ties-Historic-Low.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics
Richard :munchin
.......... nothing is bullet proof ............
Well, there is goat's milk and spider webs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2026645/Bulletproof-human-skin-spider-silk-goat-milk-developed-scientists.html#ixzz1VDLqHaBr
The next Dragon Skin.
Well, there is goat's milk and spider webs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2026645/Bulletproof-human-skin-spider-silk-goat-milk-developed-scientists.html#ixzz1VDLqHaBr
The next Dragon Skin.
Gotta love it...I'm still waiting for a Romulan cloaking device. ;)
Or if a lot of conservatives "sit it out" because they think their candidate is a RINO... as I fear happened, at least in part, in 2008.
I do get tired of the comparison's of "Romneycare" to "Obamacare" by several of the current Republican crop of candidates. I fear they don't understand federalism. The STATE of MA instituting such a program is vastly different from it being done at the national level.
ZD, do you think there might be a little silver lining in the rain clouds? Young people are becoming conservatives once more. Maybe not as to the right as Alex Keating, but maybe enough to spawn another generation of Reagan style leadership.
I can only hope.
Reagan worked hard to gain republican confidence, he himself more conservative than most republicans at the time and all the while a California politician.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/24/young-gop-women-to-elle-magazine-dont-call-us-baby-palins/
It comes as somewhat of a surprise that fashion magazine Elle, which is known to feature fun, light pieces such as “Alexander Wang’s New Nail Polish” and “Khloe [Kardashian's] Killer Calves (And Thighs!),” would publish a four-page spread on conservative women and politics.
What’s not shocking, however, is that Elle would fall into the mainstream media trap and arbitrarily categorize a group of right-leaning young women as “Baby Palins.”
This month, the mag printed a story called “The Best and the Rightest,” which includes interviews from accomplished conservative females such as “Girls Just Wanna Have Guns” creator Regis Giles, Fox commentator S.E. Cupp, conservative radio host Dana Loesch, Independent Women’s Forum executive director Carrie Lukas and Network of enlightened Women (NeW) founder Karin Agness.
The article, which dubs the aforementioned women “Baby Palins,” says the interviewed females “share almost every goal of feminism” and “want to be—and in many cases, already believe themselves to be —’empowered’: educationally, financially, sexually. But they resist any effort to put advancing their fellow women front and center.”
Nina Burleigh, the article’s author, may have been guilty of this as well, having famously said in 1998 she’d happily give then-President Bill Clinton “[oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”
Ten days after “The Best and the Rightest” hit the Internet, interviewee Agness penned a National Review Online column challenging the “Baby Palins” attribution, which of course refers to gun totin’ former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. The final sentence of the Elle piece even includes the words, “you can betcha,” alluding to Palin’s frequently criticized catchphrase.
“While an interesting read, this article turns out to be less a commentary on conservative women and more an example of how conservative women are viewed by women on the left. To them, we are all ‘Baby Palins,’” Agness writes, adding that many of the interviewed women immersed themselves into politics long before Palin’s name appeared on the 2008 Republican ticket. A University of Virginia law graduate, Agness herself started NeW four years before Palin made national news headlines.
Agness goes on to say that many choose to lump all young conservative females into the “Baby Palin” category instead of taking some time to explore each woman’s ideals. The Washington, D.C. attorney also notes that Palin’s image has been heavily tarnished by news outlets, so the association diminishes young Republican women.
“Rather than try to understand how some women could be conservative and the arguments we have against feminism, it is often much easier to explain us all away as ‘Baby Palins’ following in Palin’s footsteps,” writes Agness. “With the ‘Baby Palin’ label comes the Palin brand. The Palin brand has been so damaged by the media that the ‘Baby Palin’ label serves the purpose of quickly stereotyping and delegitimizing [sic] us at the same time. Would a typical journalist call someone a ‘Palin’ as a compliment? Ultimately, categorizing us as ‘Baby Palins’ is a way to dismiss us.”
Lukas, whom the magazine defines as a “Virginia mother of three and former Republican congressional staffer … who quit her job to be with her kids,” was “horrified” by her portrayal in the piece.
“I was totally shocked and pretty horrified by the way I was characterized by this Elle piece,” Lukas told The Daily Caller, adding that she did not in fact stop working when she had children. (RELATED: The 2010 Forbes World’s Most Powerful Women list: Empowering or embarrassing?)
Lukas, who wrote the book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism,” says she’s “never been somebody who has been a huge cheerleader for Palin.”
NEXT>> Lukas explains why it's demeaning to say Palin sparked the pro-conservative women movement
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/24/young-gop-women-to-elle-magazine-dont-call-us-baby-palins/#ixzz1VyMFd87B
RE Post #26 - the original Elle article (and OBTW I do like the Gwyneth Paltrow pic on the cover):
The Best and the Rightest
http://www.elle.com/Life-Love/Society-Career-Power/female-conservativism
The NRO Article by Karin Agness:
Conservative Women as ‘Baby Palins’
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/275226/conservative-women-baby-palins-karin-agness#
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
ddoering
08-26-2011, 12:08
I predict he will make a fine ex-president. Perhaps he will be our first ambassador to the Taliban.
FWIW, article below discusses regime's claim regarding rich versus secretaries - lowering the rates and broadening the base is the way to go on the income side and the experts know it - we touched on this earlier in this very thread.
IMO, the organizer in chief is a two bit propagandist talking to the 46% sheeple.
FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER - Associated Press | AP – 16 hrs ago
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.
"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."
On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In his White House address on Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for the billionaire investor.
The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay." Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.
Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.
With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.
"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, 'But all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting,' which is also the case."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.
"So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said.
I predict he will make a fine ex-president. Perhaps he will be our first ambassador to the Taliban.
lol I never say never to any idea anymore.
And to think that BHO may likely receive 40%+ of the country's vote in 2012 - despite his record of failed experiments.
Barack Obama’s disastrous first 1,000 days
UK Telegraph - online
Wednesday 19 October 2011
Nile Gardiner
Excerpt:
“Since President Obama took office in January 2009, the United States has embarked on the most ambitious failed experiment in Washington meddling in US history. Huge increases in government spending, massive federal bailouts, growing regulations on businesses, thinly veiled protectionism, and the launch of a vastly expensive and deeply unpopular health care reform plan, have all combined to instill fear and uncertainty in the markets.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100110552/barack-obama%E2%80%99s-disastrous-first-1000-days/
If recent polls are any indication, it is doubtful that President Obama will enjoy another 1,000 days in the White House. And looking at his track record over the course of his first 33 months in office, it is not hard to see why. It is hard to think of a presidency in modern times that has done more to damage the United States both at home and abroad than the current one, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter’s. Like his Democratic predecessor in the 1970’s, Barack Obama has left the world’s dominant superpower on its knees, with faith in US leadership now being questioned across the globe.
Since taking office in January 2009, President Obama has ushered in a period of relentless economic decline for the United States. His administration has added $4.2 trillion to the national debt (now standing at $14.9 trillion), lost 2.2 million jobs, introduced a vastly expensive health-care albatross, and spent nearly $800 billion on a failed stimulus package. At the same time, house prices across the country have tumbled at an unprecedented rate, consumer confidence has plummeted, and millions more Americans are now dependent upon food stamps. International confidence in the US economy has fallen to its lowest levels in decades, with credit agency Standard and Poor’s downgrading of America’s AAA credit rating for the first time in 70 years in August this year.
As I noted in a piece at the time:
Since President Obama took office in January 2009, the United States has embarked on the most ambitious failed experiment in Washington meddling in US history. Huge increases in government spending, massive federal bailouts, growing regulations on businesses, thinly veiled protectionism, and the launch of a vastly expensive and deeply unpopular health care reform plan, have all combined to instill fear and uncertainty in the markets.
Is it any wonder that just 17 percent of Americans now believe the country is moving in the right direction, according to RealClear Politics? Or that 81 percent of Americans “are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed”, according to Gallup? As a series of major Gallup polls have shown, public disillusionment with the federal government has now reached an all-time high, with 69 percent of Americans now saying “they have little or no confidence in the legislative branch of government”, with 46 percent believing “the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.”
And President Obama’s record on the world stage has also been poor. Despite two high-profile successes in taking out al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and more recently Anwar al-Awlaki (both upon the foundations of President Bush’s war on terror), US foreign policy under Obama has been a confusing mess. The shameless appeasement of Iran has allowed the rogue state to advance perilously close to nuclear weapons capability, while the naďve “reset” approach towards Russia has only encouraged a more aggressive and assertive Moscow. At the same time, traditional alliances with Great Britain and Israel have been downgraded, and key allies in eastern and central Europe thrown under the bus to feed the Russian bear. While America’s defences have grown weaker, China’s military might has grown significantly stronger, as have the offensive capabilities of hostile regimes in both Asia and Latin America, including Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela.
As Barack Obama approaches the remaining 14 months of his presidency, there is a distinct air of US decline. It is of course a state of decline that can be reversed with the right policies and leadership in place. There is nothing inevitable about the demise of the United States, but its renewal must rest upon a dramatic reversal of the most Left-wing agenda of any American presidency since 1979. As Gallup’s polling has emphatically demonstrated, Americans are overwhelmingly rejecting the Big Government agenda of the Obama presidency, which has spectacularly failed to create jobs, generate wealth, and instill economic confidence.
The biggest failure of this administration, and there have been many, has been its central belief that government knows best, and that the way to prosperity is to spend ever greater amounts of taxpayers’ money on the backs of hard-working Americans.
As a result, the United States is a nation on a precipice, facing towering debts and the threat of a double dip recession at a time when 14 million Americans are already out of work. Ultimately, it is economic freedom, minimal government intervention, and greater individual liberty that can put America back on its feet, rather than endless bailouts, higher taxes and suffocating government regulation, all hallmarks of the Obama experiment. Ultimately, the world needs a powerful United States that is a beacon of hope to the world, rather than a basket case of failed liberal policies.
greenberetTFS
10-19-2011, 08:11
I predict he will make a fine ex-president. Perhaps he will be our first ambassador to the Taliban.
Your right on target with this,excellent post..........:D:D:D
Big Teddy :munchin
Ret10Echo
10-20-2011, 12:26
Thought this was interesting as it discusses the younger generation that was seen as one of the driving forces to seat the current Administration....
Pulled this off of Drudge... (article from RealClearMarkets (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/10/20/the_economic_travails_of_generation_o_99319.html))
The closing put it best:
It used to be that if you graduated from college with a degree you were assured of a job. For many in Generation O, this is no longer true.
It's not just bad luck, or President George W. Bush's fault, as Mr. Obama tries to suggest. Mr. Obama has promoted an Old Economy model that favors big corporations, labor unions and more government. But Generation O thrives best in a New Economy model that favors nimble start-ups, hard-charging union-free workplaces and minimal government interference.
Generation O voted for Barack Obama believing him to be a new kind of leader, but he has delivered them an Old Economy with European-style mandates (think Obamacare), sclerosis, and dysfunction. They put him in the White House, Barack Obama has consigned them to their parents' house. Clearly, only one side made out well on that deal.
GratefulCitizen
10-20-2011, 18:36
Speaking of failed presidencies...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/oh-this-is-good.php
What is the definition of insanity?
Ret10Echo
12-04-2011, 07:20
Read through an article this morning titled "Obama defends American faith amid GOP critique" (AP) which is now everywhere in the MSM. (BTW the title of the article is not reflective of content)
Interesting quote from an earlier O speech in San Francisco:
"Well, we've lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam."
So the Depression is now an example of how to stimulate a population to be ambitious and imaginative? :munchin
So the Depression is now an example of how to stimulate a population to be ambitious and imaginative? :munchin
I think the Golden Gate Bridge project is a great 'ambitious and imaginative' example of what a regional community effort can accomplish when they agree the need is valid.
http://goldengatebridge.org/research/construction.php
Many ffolkes make the mistake of 'lumping' a project like the Golden Gate into the myriad Federal Government WPA style 'make work' or 'pump priming' or 'stimulus' projects of the Great Depression, and although it necessarily had some of those aspects to it, it wasn't the same thing.
FWIW - Charles A. Ellis was a cousin of my maternal grandmother, Helen Ellis Murray (nee Helen A. Ellis).
And so it goes...
Richard
I think the Golden Gate Bridge project is a great example of what a regional community effort can accomplish when they agree the need is valid..........................
And so it goes...
Richard
I wonder if it or any of the big projects from that day could be built today? I don't think so.
What are the big projects of today that enrich mankind? A few billion here and a few billion there for grants to get state and local public workers on the Federal tit? Somehow I just don't see them as being equal.
The Reaper
12-04-2011, 10:38
I wonder if it or any of the big projects from that day could be built today? I don't think so.
What are the big projects of today that enrich mankind? A few billion here and a few billion there for grants to get state and local public workers on the Federal tit? Somehow I just don't see them as being equal.
You can't get an environmental impact approval to build a flat range, no way you can get one for a project of that scale.
Then the union workers would cause the price to triple over the duration of construction.
Lawyers would tie that up for decades and in the end, you would have nothing to show for it.
TR
A dam project of that size would certainly impact the lifestyle habits of some obscure bottom dwelling fish...
No dam projects will be built without the proper level of bureaucracy to insure that the bottom feeders get something out of the deal.
...maybe some choo-choo trains could be built instead of some dam project that interferes with a bottom dwellers lifestyle. The administration did want to build some choo-choo trains at one point if I remember correctly.
Choo-choo trains are fun.
You mean this little train?
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/23/local/la-me-high-speed-money-20111123
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/californias-high-speed-rail-system-is-going-nowhere-fast/2011/11/08/gIQAKni2IN_story.html
http://laist.com/2011/11/30/california_high_speed_rail_system_analysis.php
Is it just me, or does the logo on this train look strangely familiar?
Ret10Echo
12-04-2011, 12:45
I think the Golden Gate Bridge project is a great 'ambitious and imaginative' example of what a regional community effort can accomplish when they agree the need is valid.
FWIW - Charles A. Ellis was a cousin of my maternal grandmother, Helen Ellis Murray (nee Helen A. Ellis).
Richard
Richard,
Thanks for the alignment...and piece of family history. I believe the discussion leads to what is pointed out in the follow-on posts where the "community" wouldn't be able to do the things that are claimed as "needed", "necessary" or "positive" for the country to move. ANY community project will have enviro-nutjobs and lawyers flying in from across the country to make money on other peoples ideas...with the hopes of crushing those ideas in the process so they will be able to crush the next "good idea" or "regional project" that comes up (as that helps keep the country-club dues paid and the stock of granola and Prius batteries at appropriate levels) (Check out Arizona Clean Fuels, West Virginia coal...Pennsylvania wind...etc..you know better than I)
Unless of course (as Billy points out) the brain trust in DC comes up (or latches onto) an idea, in which case vast sums of money can be flushed. High-speed rail was a hot commodity in Kalifornia because the masses demand it???? Amtrak is such a model of how high the demand for rail passenger transit is...
The very government the POTUS represents is mostly to blame for the inability of such projects to take shape and succeed.
BTW - Nice to see the Seasonal Avatar return. :D
R/10
In this economy how could he not pursue the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline ?
Actions speak louder than words.
Obama Policies Seem Calculated To Kill Jobs
IBD
By LAWRENCE KUDLOW
Posted 12/15/2011 06:55 PM ET
http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=594923&p=1
The payroll-tax-cut debate is not really about the payroll tax, which is a very weak-kneed economic stimulant and a lackluster job creator because of its temporary nature. Without permanent incentives at lower tax rates, these rebates don't do anything for growth and jobs.
Instead, the key to understanding the payroll-tax debate is to grasp President Barack Obama's leftist vision of taxing successful earners (the millionaire surtax) and his obsession with clean energy at the expense of fossil fuels.
These are ideological positions. They support the Obama vision of class warfare and his attachment to radical environmentalism.
And the key to understanding this state of affairs is the disposition of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, which Republicans cleverly threw into the payroll-tax debate as the only real job creator.
By siding with the radical greenies and standing against the Keystone pipeline, Obama has turned his back on the most traditional voting bloc in the Democratic Party: blue-collar, hard-hat workers.
Manufacturing workers. Construction workers. Truckers. Pipefitters. Plumbers. The Keystone opposition coming out of the White House is completely alienating all these people, the folks who work with their hands. And it's these workers who have been decimated in the recession far more than any other group in the economy.
David Barnett, head of the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, told me on CNBC that unemployment is currently running at 20% to 25% in this blue-collar sector.
He has repeatedly lobbied the White House to allow the Keystone pipeline to go through, and he notes high environmental standards in the work his men do.
And yet even now, three years after the initial Keystone reviews began, the issue is still unresolved.
How can you have a jobs bill without putting blue-collar workers back to work? Answer: stubborn ideological insistence.
The Teamsters support the Keystone. So does the AFL-CIO. So do the machinists. And along with the plumbers and pipefitters, so does the Laborers' International Union of North America.
And we're not just talking about the 20,000 jobs that would accrue directly from the pipeline, but the secondary and tertiary jobs from a long supply chain that total well over 100,000.
As of this writing, the White House may dump the millionaire surtax. But that's not much of a concession, since it never would have passed anyway.
Republicans are adamant. It's a nonstarter in the House, and probably the Senate too. Meanwhile, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell told me the Keystone pipeline is the key to the payroll-tax-cut deal.
Both practically and symbolically, Obama's obsessive stance against the pipeline rips a huge split in the Democratic party, and in the country as a whole.
His manic support of clean energy — just think Solyndra — has blocked out any rational evaluation of the ongoing importance of oil and natural gas — including the oil-and-gas-shale fracking revolution that has become a huge jobs creator in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and elsewhere.
The Obama administration recently shut down the Utica shale field in Ohio because of an Agriculture Department objection. Two-hundred-thousand jobs are at stake. A field in Wyoming may be shut down.
New York state desperately needs jobs and growth, but is wavering because of EPA actions elsewhere.
And with the Keystone ruling delay now extending for another year, the Keystone folks might give the whole project up in the U.S., in favor of a Pacific Ocean pipeline in Canada that will sell oil to the Chinese.
While the U.S. dithers, the Canadians are taking action.
As a shot across the unbalanced environmental bow, the Canadian government is opting out of the Kyoto global-warming treaty. As energy analyst Daniel Yergin writes, while the unstable Persian Gulf countries represent 16% of U.S. oil imports, Canada represents 25%.
Yergin also writes that by the beginning of the next decade, Canadian oil sands could double production to 3 million barrels per day. That means an even higher share of U.S. imports coming from our friendly neighbor and largest trading partner.
So in addition to being an economic-stability issue, this becomes and energy-independence issue, and even a national-security issue.
Obama's decisions on the pipeline and other new energy breakthroughs are inimical to U.S. interests. They also are hostile to Democratic-party hard hats who may desert the president in droves come next November.
On top of all that, what may be America's leading new source of job creation will be stifled.
alright4u
12-16-2011, 10:13
In this economy how could he not pursue the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline ?
Actions speak louder than words.
Obama Policies Seem Calculated To Kill Jobs
IBD
By LAWRENCE KUDLOW
Posted 12/15/2011 06:55 PM ET
http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=594923&p=1
The payroll-tax-cut debate is not really about the payroll tax, which is a very weak-kneed economic stimulant and a lackluster job creator because of its temporary nature. Without permanent incentives at lower tax rates, these rebates don't do anything for growth and jobs.
Instead, the key to understanding the payroll-tax debate is to grasp President Barack Obama's leftist vision of taxing successful earners (the millionaire surtax) and his obsession with clean energy at the expense of fossil fuels.
These are ideological positions. They support the Obama vision of class warfare and his attachment to radical environmentalism.
And the key to understanding this state of affairs is the disposition of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, which Republicans cleverly threw into the payroll-tax debate as the only real job creator.
By siding with the radical greenies and standing against the Keystone pipeline, Obama has turned his back on the most traditional voting bloc in the Democratic Party: blue-collar, hard-hat workers.
Manufacturing workers. Construction workers. Truckers. Pipefitters. Plumbers. The Keystone opposition coming out of the White House is completely alienating all these people, the folks who work with their hands. And it's these workers who have been decimated in the recession far more than any other group in the economy.
David Barnett, head of the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, told me on CNBC that unemployment is currently running at 20% to 25% in this blue-collar sector.
He has repeatedly lobbied the White House to allow the Keystone pipeline to go through, and he notes high environmental standards in the work his men do.
And yet even now, three years after the initial Keystone reviews began, the issue is still unresolved.
How can you have a jobs bill without putting blue-collar workers back to work? Answer: stubborn ideological insistence.
The Teamsters support the Keystone. So does the AFL-CIO. So do the machinists. And along with the plumbers and pipefitters, so does the Laborers' International Union of North America.
And we're not just talking about the 20,000 jobs that would accrue directly from the pipeline, but the secondary and tertiary jobs from a long supply chain that total well over 100,000.
As of this writing, the White House may dump the millionaire surtax. But that's not much of a concession, since it never would have passed anyway.
Republicans are adamant. It's a nonstarter in the House, and probably the Senate too. Meanwhile, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell told me the Keystone pipeline is the key to the payroll-tax-cut deal.
Both practically and symbolically, Obama's obsessive stance against the pipeline rips a huge split in the Democratic party, and in the country as a whole.
His manic support of clean energy — just think Solyndra — has blocked out any rational evaluation of the ongoing importance of oil and natural gas — including the oil-and-gas-shale fracking revolution that has become a huge jobs creator in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and elsewhere.
The Obama administration recently shut down the Utica shale field in Ohio because of an Agriculture Department objection. Two-hundred-thousand jobs are at stake. A field in Wyoming may be shut down.
New York state desperately needs jobs and growth, but is wavering because of EPA actions elsewhere.
And with the Keystone ruling delay now extending for another year, the Keystone folks might give the whole project up in the U.S., in favor of a Pacific Ocean pipeline in Canada that will sell oil to the Chinese.
While the U.S. dithers, the Canadians are taking action.
As a shot across the unbalanced environmental bow, the Canadian government is opting out of the Kyoto global-warming treaty. As energy analyst Daniel Yergin writes, while the unstable Persian Gulf countries represent 16% of U.S. oil imports, Canada represents 25%.
Yergin also writes that by the beginning of the next decade, Canadian oil sands could double production to 3 million barrels per day. That means an even higher share of U.S. imports coming from our friendly neighbor and largest trading partner.
So in addition to being an economic-stability issue, this becomes and energy-independence issue, and even a national-security issue.
Obama's decisions on the pipeline and other new energy breakthroughs are inimical to U.S. interests. They also are hostile to Democratic-party hard hats who may desert the president in droves come next November.
On top of all that, what may be America's leading new source of job creation will be stifled.
I was just going to mention this pipeline. Your source writes much better then I.
I was just going to mention this pipeline. Your source writes much better then I.
You’re welcome - Obama’s policies appear designed to secure as many people as possible to become dependent on government largesse.
Moreover, he has already appointed 2 Justices to The Supreme Court - if he succeeds in obtaining another term, his legacy will (when combined with the monstrosity ObamaCare) IMO burden our country for decades.
alright4u
12-16-2011, 10:37
Richard,
Thanks for the alignment...and piece of family history. I believe the discussion leads to what is pointed out in the follow-on posts where the "community" wouldn't be able to do the things that are claimed as "needed", "necessary" or "positive" for the country to move. ANY community project will have enviro-nutjobs and lawyers flying in from across the country to make money on other peoples ideas...with the hopes of crushing those ideas in the process so they will be able to crush the next "good idea" or "regional project" that comes up (as that helps keep the country-club dues paid and the stock of granola and Prius batteries at appropriate levels) (Check out Arizona Clean Fuels, West Virginia coal...Pennsylvania wind...etc..you know better than I)
Unless of course (as Billy points out) the brain trust in DC comes up (or latches onto) an idea, in which case vast sums of money can be flushed. High-speed rail was a hot commodity in Kalifornia because the masses demand it???? Amtrak is such a model of how high the demand for rail passenger transit is...
The very government the POTUS represents is mostly to blame for the inability of such projects to take shape and succeed.
BTW - Nice to see the Seasonal Avatar return. :D
R/10
http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=594923&p=2
Here is another editorial by Kudlow. He is spot on as a friend told me about Wyoming and possibly losing those jobs. Sad as I recall the last few years on our flights to Vegas we have had a man or two going on to Wyoming after a few days in Vegas for an oil job. This is not just Wyoming. We are talking about a number of states here plus a lot of lost jobs due to one man's politics. Go to page 2.
Ret10Echo
12-16-2011, 11:22
http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=594923&p=2
Here is another editorial by Kudlow. He is spot on as a friend told me about Wyoming and possibly losing those jobs. Sad as I recall the last few years on our flights to Vegas we have had a man or two going on to Wyoming after a few days in Vegas for an oil job. This is not just Wyoming. We are talking about a number of states here plus a lot of lost jobs due to one man's politics. Go to page 2.
Slow strangulation of business by an Administration that would burst into flames like a vampire if they were caught outside the Beltway in the sunlight.