OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[GrudgeBringer]

Licker,

Point well taken....

My GF is a Privite Banker and she has notices that the majority of the Largest depositers are either selling off or taking HUGE loans to themselves from the companies they control.

Money is being put on hold (and hid) it seems for another 24 hours. After that they have aprox 2 months to make that money dissaper.

Tax that gentlemen....

[GrudgeBringer]

Sorry about the spelling...(LOL) watching the Green Mile will reading this.

[MaxWilson]

Hauser's Law seems appropos. You *can't* soak the rich.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1211...n_commentaries

Or at least, not if you're trying to generate income. Thejeff's purpose seems to be more about building the middle-class. If raising the top marginal tax rates to 90% reduced IRS revenues from $1250 billion to (say) $700 billion but that $700 billion was being paid mostly by people making less than $100,000 per year--would that be a positive thing in your eyes? (Open question to anyone who cares to answer.)

Me, I'm kind of split. On the one hand, I'm pro-growth. On the other hand, the middle class will make a living one way or the other, and penalizing high earners out of existence to make way for middle-class jobs MIGHT be better than bribing the middle class with "bread and circuses." On the gripping hand I can't bring myself to favor punitive measures against people who work hard and succeed; it's un-American.

-Max

[Tichy]

It was.

I could kind of sense McCain turning back into the guy he was before this race made him so unpleasant. The SNL QVC bit was a sweet bit of self-deprecating humor too.

[Trumanator]

Even though I voted for McCain, I can still respect the moment this is in History. I can still hope that Obama presides as the man he presented himself as rather than the man his past would indicate. The US has survived bad presidents, I hope Obama is not one of these, but even if he is we can survive, quite possibly even thrive.

[lwarmonger]

Yeah, seriously, what was with McCain? Wanting to win like that. That Bastard!

What so much of the media, and many Obama supporters (not entirely sure why I establish a difference), wanted McCain to do was behave like Bob Dole and essentially concede gracefully. When it turned out he was in it to win (and appeared to have a shot before the Lehman Brother's collapse) that was just him negatively campaigning. Negative campaigning has become a way of life (chiefly because it works). Both sides used it extensively, one side got blamed. Since this campaign was about Senator Obama, McCain had to be a bit more direct, but that was all.

For the debate regarding fiscal policy and economics above, Slate isn't exactly something I would bring into a debate as a source... it's like me using the Bible to "prove" the Christian God exists. Not exactly unbiased.

[lwarmonger]

Oh, and the last Democratic President to increase the deficit was Bill Clinton. The one before that was Jimmy Carter.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

For the debate regarding fiscal policy and economics above, Slate isn't exactly something I would bring into a debate as a source... it's like me using the Bible to "prove" the Christian God exists. Not exactly unbiased.

If it was an opinion piece, I would accept the merit of your opinion.

However, since I am betting you did not even look at the article, I will clarify. The article uses statistics compiled from the economic report that the White House presents to the President himself, and Congress, every year. If you doubt the veracity of the analysis itself, simply because you consider the source biased - then I would offer to confirm the results. But since I am sure you would consider me biased at this point (yes, I am biased towards truth, rather than denial), then maybe you should follow the link the the government webpage that will allow you to directly download the entire report, in PDF format.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Oh, and the last Democratic President to increase the deficit was Bill Clinton. The one before that was Jimmy Carter.

Do you honestly believe that? How on Earth can you state something like that as fact? The Federal government clearly disagrees on your assertion that deficit increased under Clinton. In fact, by their records, he showed the only budget surplus since 1969 (2001 was still in surplus, but the year a President takes office, is not their budget).

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

If it was an opinion piece, I would accept the merit of your opinion.

However, since I am betting you did not even look at the article, I will clarify. The article uses statistics compiled from the economic report that the White House presents to the President himself, and Congress, every year. If you doubt the veracity of the analysis itself, simply because you consider the source biased - then I would offer to confirm the results. But since I am sure you would consider me biased at this point (yes, I am biased towards truth, rather than denial), then maybe you should follow the link the the government webpage that will allow you to directly download the entire report, in PDF format.

Do you honestly believe that? How on Earth can you state something like that as fact? The Federal government clearly disagrees on your assertion that deficit increased under Clinton. In fact, by their records, he showed the only budget surplus since 1969 (2001 was still in surplus, but the year a President takes office, is not their budget).

Jim, by the way

This is where a little understanding goes a long way. Back in 1994 (if I remember) - the democrats voted to remove/take social security obligations off the table. So while social security revenues are taken in and used to 'fund' the budget, social security obligations are no longer calculated as part of the 'federal' deficit.

The deficit figure up until 1994 or so includes SSO. The deficit numbers after do not. Someone here will look up the exact date I'm sure.

When you include social security obligations, the actual national debt is somewhere around 52 trillion dollars, and has increased every year, including your vaunted clinton years.

The deficit caused by excessive govt spending was never fixed - we just pretended the emperor has clothes. voila! the problem is fixed!

The problem is really obvious is you just take a graph of govt spending and compare it to growth in gdp. Or, look at govt spending per capita.

[lwarmonger]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

If it was an opinion piece, I would accept the merit of your opinion.

However, since I am betting you did not even look at the article, I will clarify. The article uses statistics compiled from the economic report that the White House presents to the President himself, and Congress, every year. If you doubt the veracity of the analysis itself, simply because you consider the source biased - then I would offer to confirm the results. But since I am sure you would consider me biased at this point (yes, I am biased towards truth, rather than denial), then maybe you should follow the link the the government webpage that will allow you to directly download the entire report, in PDF format.

I DID look at the article, and if it is on Slate then it is an opinion piece of one kind or another. This one attempted to be more factual than most, however with a grand total of three democratic terms in the last ten presidential terms, it can hardly come up with enough evidence to make a case for Democratic stewardship of the economy (especially since President Carter's time in office was hardly known for sound economic policy or good growth).

Do you honestly believe that? How on Earth can you state something like that as fact? The Federal government clearly disagrees on your assertion that deficit increased under Clinton. In fact, by their records, he showed the only budget surplus since 1969 (2001 was still in surplus, but the year a President takes office, is not their budget).

That is true... however initially deficits went up (I think it was for the first two fiscal years... then he got a Republican Congress, and it stopped being a solely Democratic government and became a bipartisan one). Just because he finished his term up doesn't mean he didn't increase the deficit during his time in office, and if one is arguing for his presidency as a whole then since the national debt increased, by the measure you are using he failed there as well.

I am not saying that is his fault... this is a structural part of the US now and became systematic long before he came into office, and deficits aren't really a good yardstick for measuring economic success or sound fiscal policy. Also keep in mind that a large part of his "balanced budget" came from slashing defense spending due to the United States being not only at peace but completely unchallenged. Said defense spending had to be dramatically increased during the Bush years to compensate for a decreased military capability trying to sustain the vast array of strategic committments in a world still unstable from the loss of the international power system after the fall of the Soviet Union and the attempted(ing) rise of successor states. A lot of it also came from a series of economic bubbles that burst right about the time he handed things over. Economic cycles mean that we tend to see the results of the last presidency in the term of the next one. Ironic, eh?