Jump to content

The Official Obama Scorecard Thread


Recommended Posts

But it doesn't add to the federal deficit. It's a self-sustained program. It's running deficits now, but it ran massive surpluses earlier, and those earlier surpluses support the current deficits and will do so for decades.
I spent more than I made last month, but I only have a deficit in my left pocket. My right pocket is still running a surplus.And those alleged surpluses -- those were spent years ago. An IOU to yourself is not an asset, it's a joke.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.   I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to

I spent more than I made last month, but I only have a deficit in my left pocket. My right pocket is still running a surplus.And those alleged surpluses -- those were spent years ago. An IOU to yourself is not an asset, it's a joke.
I'm with Henry, here. But, I would point out, that Paul Ryan did not touch SS either. Both parties are agreeing to cover their eyes on SS. The age needs to be raised. People live too long now. End o' debate. I would much rather cut from SS than cut from health-care to the poor and elderly.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I see pretty strong correlations between tax rate and revenue in that plot. The major features of both lines are shared. Of course, their appearance is dulled because the plot was made to be disingenuous: it's completely unclear how many people are effected by this "top marginal rate." And that's what really matters. The top marginal rate could apply to one person, say Bill Gates, and therefore there would be very little correlation between this rate and the total government income. Or it could apply to 50% of the country, and therefore the correlation would be extremely strong.In reality, the tax spectrum is progressive, and the top marginal rate is indicative of other rates, though that indication is unclear. This is why there are clear correlations between the two, though their overal sizes are very different.
I think any correlation you think you see is imaginary. I see none in that graph, no matter how hard I look.Tax rates don't affect the amount collected much because people change their behavior in response to those rates. If there is any effect, it is very short-lived. In the end, the take-home people make is based on supply and demand, and if you reduce that take-home you reduce supply of that skill. The rich are especially immune to paying more taxes because they have more options on what to do with their money and their time, including working less or just dropping out all together. For these reasons, tax increases ALWAYS end up falling on the poor, in the form of either higher prices or fewer choices or both.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not even mentioning that the numbers pre-Reagan are basically useless because the tax code had endless write-offs and deductions that make those numbers irrelevant.It's a really cool chart though if your intent is to wildly misrepresent the issue and push a "class warfare" narrative. (With the huge chunk of wealth the top few % have, they are winning that battle. God forbid the poor fight back!) In fact, that chart should probably just be labeled "not intended to be a factual chart."
And yet, nobody has produced a chart that directly shows that revenue collected as percentage of GDP can be meaningfully affected. If you think there are confounding factors, then you should be able to produce a graph without them. If you can't, then you are just denying reality. Nobody has been able to demonstrate any meaningful way to affect revenue except through GDP changes. Your post is just an excuse to not believe the obvious.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to work now...at least 45 percent of us still have jobs.
*This was not intended to be a factual statement.
Oops.This is a link from USA TODAY that proves that what CaneBrain was ripping on was actually exactly correct. I hope Skeleton Jelly appreciates this very detailed title.
Link to post
Share on other sites
oops. oh well. That's pretty surprising to me but since the peak is 49% I'm not sure it's meaningful.my bad, akoff.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you guys are just going to ignore this and dismiss it as irrelevant? The Deficit isn't going to be "fixed" by taxing our way out of it.
You're right. It's pretty disturbing that the Wall Street Journal can consistently get away with absolute lies and this shouldn't be ignored. Approximately 6.25% of Americans make more than 100,000 a year. America's GDP is about 14.5 trillion. In 2006 the income distribution was roughly 21.3% for the top 1% and 40.1% for the next 19%. So 6.25% probably control about 40-45% of the income in this country. We'll be conservative and say 40%. This gives them 5.8 trillion in income per year. Now this number isn't exact, but I can guarantee it is a lot closer than the blatant lie of 1.6 trillion that the WSJ gives. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlMost people are shocked when they realize just how much money the rich control in America.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right. It's pretty disturbing that the Wall Street Journal can consistently get away with absolute lies and this shouldn't be ignored. Approximately 6.25% of Americans make more than 100,000 a year. America's GDP is about 14.5 trillion. In 2006 the income distribution was roughly 21.3% for the top 1% and 40.1% for the next 19%. So 6.25% probably control about 40-45% of the income in this country. We'll be conservative and say 40%. This gives them 5.8 trillion in income per year. Now this number isn't exact, but I can guarantee it is a lot closer than the blatant lie of 1.6 trillion that the WSJ gives. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlMost people are shocked when they realize just how much money the rich control in America.
First, I don't think GDP = sum of everyone's income. Can you point to somewhere that says it does? I think corporate profits that go back into the company and are invested count as GDP but don't show up as income for anyone. Second, you seem to be assuming that it's the same people year after year who have the most income. I've been in the top 1% in income at least 3 years, and probably 5 in my life. This year, I'll probably be in the bottom 1% in taxable income. If I hadn't been robbed when I made a lot of money, I wouldn't be struggling now. So I don't know why anyone thinks it is moral to take from past me to give to government waste and corporate welfare so that current me has to struggle to make a house payment. It's just pure class warfare. It's McNuggets for the brains of people who don't want to think too hard about economics but need someone to blame for their own failures.
Link to post
Share on other sites
First, I don't think GDP = sum of everyone's income. Can you point to somewhere that says it does? I think corporate profits that go back into the company and are invested count as GDP but don't show up as income for anyone. Second, you seem to be assuming that it's the same people year after year who have the most income. I've been in the top 1% in income at least 3 years, and probably 5 in my life. This year, I'll probably be in the bottom 1% in taxable income. If I hadn't been robbed when I made a lot of money, I wouldn't be struggling now. So I don't know why anyone thinks it is moral to take from past me to give to government waste and corporate welfare so that current me has to struggle to make a house payment. It's just pure class warfare. It's McNuggets for the brains of people who don't want to think too hard about economics but need someone to blame for their own failures.
Corporate Profits are part of it but they eventually get paid out to someone, and it is the rich who overwhelmingly receive them. I don't have a good link at this moment, but I am just about certain income mobility is lower than that of Europe and much lower than most people would guess. Besides, your argument is irrelevant. Who cares when exactly you make the money? The important thing is that those who make the money pay their fair share and currently the rich are not doing that. Current government income is about 15% of GDP rather than the historical 20%, largely due to historically low tax rates on the rich. Good luck getting a Republican to admit that we are paying the lowest federal taxes in decades. I agree with you about corporate welfare- I am totally opposed to most of it but unfortunately almost no Republican politicians are. I love how people talk about class warfare but fail to mention that class warfare has in fact been going on for 35 years now and the poor are getting slaughtered. If you don't want class warfare then great. Let's return to the income distribution in 1980 and I'll agree never to talk about it again. Of course the rich would never agree to this since they are vastly richer than in 1980. They will fight kicking and screaming to even avoid returning to the income distribution in 2000. You might be able to fool some of the people all of the time, but good luck fooling everyone.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1.What you are suggesting is not possible. The math doesn't work. Nobody will tolerate 50% tax rates, and that's what it will take to sustain SS and Medicare without major changes. And if you make the changes necessary, people will realize what a ripoff they are. Instead, Ryan's plan is to make people realize they need to be self-sufficient. The people who are retired now can't change, so they keep their benefits. But the people who are in their 20s and 30s and have, literally, a 0% chance of getting benefits, need to know that now so we can stop making promises to them and instead grow the economy and savings.2.This has no effect. The left needs to quit engaging in this pointless class warfare. The total taxes collected has been a consistent percentage of GDP for 70 years, despite tax rates all over the board, from 28 to 90%. Raising taxes doesn't increase federal revenue. The only way to increase federal revenue is to increase GDP -- in other words, pro-growth policies. Raising taxes is the opposite of that.3.If only Obama believed this. He has done nothing but move in the wrong direction on this one.4.No plan that has been introduced leaves seniors out in the cold. They all provide for a transition period so that current and near-retirees are cared for.5. All evidence I've seen is that shutting down government for an extended period would spur massive economic growth.
1.Actually, the short term math works just fine if you add in tax increases and do cuts in military spending. You can balance the budget with nowhere close to 50% in federal tax rates. The GOP has been making people more "self-sufficient" for 35 years now, and this self-sufficiency just keeps making them poorer. Maybe it's time to admit that being the only country in the civilized world without a single payer health plan just isn't going to work. People in OECD countries have better health statistics and pay less than half as much on medical care. 2. It does have a significant effect. Government revenues dropped after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, and increased significantly after the Clinton tax increases. Government revenues are currently at multi-decade lows, thanks mostly to the Bush tax cuts but partly to the ongoing recession he caused. 3.Finally something we agree on. The amount of military spending in this country is obscene. We spend more than the next 15 countries put together. We could effectively defend this country with 10% of what we spend. 4.Ryan's plan is not a plan. Basically it says that we will eliminate medicare and medicaid, replace them with vouchers and hope that this miraculously works. Oh yeah- and just for fun we'll give another MASSIVE tax cut to the rich even though Bush's tax cuts were an abject failure. 5.Libertarian fantasies don't count as evidence. Just about all government spending is required by law so shutting down the government would just hurt the economy. We would spend nearly as much and get far less essential services.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And yet, nobody has produced a chart that directly shows that revenue collected as percentage of GDP can be meaningfully affected. If you think there are confounding factors, then you should be able to produce a graph without them. If you can't, then you are just denying reality. Nobody has been able to demonstrate any meaningful way to affect revenue except through GDP changes. Your post is just an excuse to not believe the obvious.
It's impossible to see if there is any correlation because the scale of the graph is designed to show the variance in tax rate yet hide the variance in revenue. The chart is misleading at best, but more accurately it is just totally uninformative as to the issue in question. We'd need to see actual correlational/regression statistics or get access to the raw data.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Clinton's last budget annual budget was for $1.9 trillion. Bush's last annual budget was for $3.1 trillion. Obama's latest budget is for $3.7 trillion.So, was your first point just one of those things that's "not intended to be a factual statement"?(according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget)
Deficit spending is not budget. I said Obama's increase in spending, not his budget.wapoobamabudget1.jpg*This factual graph is not intended to be a statement*
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm assuming that everyone knows that budgets are done a year in advance and most of the 2009 budget was done by Bush. Just in case I'll post a quick link here. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-blame-...s-2009-deficit/
So it was Bush's $1 Trillion Stimulus Package?I mean I know Obama obeyed Bush when it came to:RenditionTortureGitmoPatriotic ActIraqAfghanistanBut I didn't know he did whatever Bush told him with regards to his spending plans for the first two years he was in office.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So it was Bush's $1 Trillion Stimulus Package?I mean I know Obama obeyed Bush when it came to:RenditionTortureGitmoPatriotic ActIraqAfghanistanBut I didn't know he did whatever Bush told him with regards to his spending plans for the first two years he was in office.
Pretty much. They both did large stimulus packages. According to this site Bush did 1.6 trillion in extra spending while Obama did 2.1 trillion. Of course these aren't the actual hit to the budget since a lot of these got paid back. http://www.economicstimulusdetails.com/sti...-timelines.htmlUnfortunately you are right that Obama has been more Republican than Democrat. Apparently it is no longer possible for a liberal to get elected in this country with the wealthy elite's stranglehold on politics.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimmy Carter, Part 2If we used the same measure of inflation as we did when Carter was president, it would be 9.6%.
But you're the one who always argues against this, right? The idea behind updating the inflation definition is to account for the fact that, for example, personal computers make lives better and are extremely cheap and getting cheaper. It takes into account new consumer spending habits.
Link to post
Share on other sites
wapoobamabudget1.jpg
I'd be happy to comment on this graph, but the genius who made it somehow neglected to write down what it was a graph of. I know it's in billions, I know some of it is measured and some is actual. I know that some comes from the white house and some from the CBO. But, uh, what is "it." (I certainly have an educated guess, but I like being snobby).
Link to post
Share on other sites
If I hadn't been robbed when I made a lot of money, I wouldn't be struggling now. It's just pure class warfare.
And, yet, a budget that cuts mostly from medicaid while extending tax cuts for the rich is not class warfare. The CEO pay jump over the last 30 years is not class warfare. The top 20% of the country having over 80% of the total wealth is not class warfare.Why does class warfare only work one way? I think the GOP has been waging class warfare against the poor since Reagan was elected and they are winning.Also, you were not robbed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right. It's pretty disturbing that the Wall Street Journal can consistently get away with absolute lies and this shouldn't be ignored. Approximately 6.25% of Americans make more than 100,000 a year. America's GDP is about 14.5 trillion. In 2006 the income distribution was roughly 21.3% for the top 1% and 40.1% for the next 19%. So 6.25% probably control about 40-45% of the income in this country. We'll be conservative and say 40%. This gives them 5.8 trillion in income per year. Now this number isn't exact, but I can guarantee it is a lot closer than the blatant lie of 1.6 trillion that the WSJ gives. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlMost people are shocked when they realize just how much money the rich control in America.
...You need a course on macroeconomics. GDP includes a crap-load of stuff other than incomes. Including a small one that you may have accidentally forgotten called government spending.Also lol at us believing any numbers you make up, followed by "now this number isn't exact", over the Wall Street Journal.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Corporate Profits are part of it but they eventually get paid out to someone, and it is the rich who overwhelmingly receive them.
[citation needed]Considering that over half of Americans own stock, this seems like a pretty unbelievable claim. I think you pulled it out of your ass.
I don't have a good link at this moment, but I am just about certain income mobility is lower than that of Europe and much lower than most people would guess.
Again, I think you made this up. Every study I've seen through the years shows just the opposite. In the US you are more likely to go from bottom quintile to top quintile than to stay in the top quintile over a 20 year period.
Besides, your argument is irrelevant. Who cares when exactly you make the money? The important thing is that those who make the money pay their fair share and currently the rich are not doing that.
You know what? **** you. I care when I earned it. It makes no sense that present me has to suffer because my income happened to occur in a very short time. I paid way, way more than my share. I've paid over $600,000 in taxes in my life. How much have you paid? And yet now that I am struggling, is the government helping me? Hell no. If I had my $600K back, I'd be in good shape and could help out my family and friends. Instead I'm wondering where my house payment is coming from. So screw you and your idealistic notions of fairness, because there is nothing even slightly fair about the way the government robs people and gives it to corporations and political cronies.
Current government income is about 15% of GDP rather than the historical 20%, largely due to historically low tax rates on the rich.
Follow along. Tax rates have virtually no effect on revenue collected. You don't get to just make shit up and expect us to buy it.
I love how people talk about class warfare but fail to mention that class warfare has in fact been going on for 35 years now and the poor are getting slaughtered.
You know why? Because people like you never think government is big enough or success is never punished seriously enough. At least have the intellectual honesty to take the blame for your philosophy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1.Actually, the short term math works just fine if you add in tax increases and do cuts in military spending.
So you are giving up on the theory that SS is self-supporting? OK, that's a step in the right direction. At least you admit we are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Maybe it's time to admit that being the only country in the civilized world without a single payer health plan just isn't going to work. People in OECD countries have better health statistics and pay less than half as much on medical care.
What we really need to do is stop paying all those other countries defense bills and bailing out their stupid system, then they could see the folly of their ridiculous health care plans. We need to stop propping up failure.
2. It does have a significant effect. Government revenues dropped after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, and increased significantly after the Clinton tax increases. Government revenues are currently at multi-decade lows, thanks mostly to the Bush tax cuts but partly to the ongoing recession he caused.
[citation needed] You don't get to just make shit up.
4.Ryan's plan is not a plan. Basically it says that we will eliminate medicare and medicaid, replace them with vouchers and hope that this miraculously works. Oh yeah- and just for fun we'll give another MASSIVE tax cut to the rich even though Bush's tax cuts were an abject failure.
Oh noes an honest plan that doesn't assume Americans are stupid!!! Whatever shall we do!!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Also lol at us believing any numbers you make up, followed by "now this number isn't exact", over the Wall Street Journal.
These days I give both about the same credit (not much).
Oh noes an honest plan that doesn't assume Americans are stupid!!! Whatever shall we do!!!
Oh, come on Henry. That plan is a giant middle finger to the poor. And it's not that honest or daring. Nothing from the military? Nothing from SS? He doesn't touch two of the big three and the one he does touch is unsurprisingly the one that rich people don't benefit from at all. Ryan's plan is a completely partisan plan. It's pro-private insurance, pro-defense, anti-medicare and medicaid. It deliberately takes shots at Obama's signature piece of legislation. What on Earth did you think was going to happen? Does Obama seem like a guy who would take that lying down? So, Obama came back with his own partisan plan (plus some verbal cheap shots which I found amusing) that focuses the onus on the rich. Too bad. I don't see them moving any closer on this issue for some time.Name one thing in the Ryan plan that a base GOPer would find unpalatable. One thing. It was really disingenuous to put out a plan that asks only issues and programs Democrats like to sacrifice and it had predictable results.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's impossible to see if there is any correlation because the scale of the graph is designed to show the variance in tax rate yet hide the variance in revenue. The chart is misleading at best, but more accurately it is just totally uninformative as to the issue in question. We'd need to see actual correlational/regression statistics or get access to the raw data.
Nonsense. You can see the variation in revenues collected -- it's in a very narrow range despite wide variation in tax rates. You just want to bury your head in the sand.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But you're the one who always argues against this, right? The idea behind updating the inflation definition is to account for the fact that, for example, personal computers make lives better and are extremely cheap and getting cheaper. It takes into account new consumer spending habits.
It seems to me that both measures are flawed. Eliminating energy, food, and housing seems like a completely meaningless measure of inflation.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...