The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[Balloon guy 158]

reality of governing is never pretty, the real world is a harsh place full of bad people. You just got your first lesson.

The second lesson is to ask "Why would Obama change so radically from what he said he was going to do?"Because the answer is "The safety of the US isn't something to risk on pretty hopes and the desire to 'all get along', The safety of the US is based on big guns and the tough men who carry them"

[strategy 4]

I knew you guys would be delighted to smug the shit out of custom the moment I read his comment.

[hblask 1]

I knew you guys would be delighted to smug the shit out of custom the moment I read his comment.

Hey, at least nobody said "This is not the Hope and Change you were looking for" yet.

[hblask 1]

The Dems passed three this week that the liberals like and that prove how moderate they are: repeal of DADT, the START treaty thing, and the 9/11 health care bill. Frankly, I don't have meaningful objections to any of them. The first is long overdue, the second is relatively meaningless but a nice symbolic move, and the third could've been better if the Dems weren't grandstanding, but all-in-all isn't terrible.If they had stuck to stuff like this all along they wouldn't have gotten trounced in November.

[ShakeZuma 585]

hey does anybody remember that time when there was an election that was just held and the democrats got trounced and then they started bringing up all these relatively minor bills that they wanted to get passed before they lost the majority in the house but the republicans had this one pretty major bill to keep taxes at current levels instead of raising them while we have 9.8% unemployment and tax cuts were going to expire in like 2 weeks and they were like "we're not allowing anything else to pass until we get this passed" and all the democrats were like "you evil homophobic america hating assholes how could you!" and then everybody finally compromised on the tax bill and right the fuck after all those other bills got passed like it wasn't anything? good times.

[custom36 4]

The Dems passed three this week that the liberals like and that prove how moderate they are: repeal of DADT, the START treaty thing, and the 9/11 health care bill. Frankly, I don't have meaningful objections to any of them. The first is long overdue, the second is relatively meaningless but a nice symbolic move, and the third could've been better if the Dems weren't grandstanding, but all-in-all isn't terrible.If they had stuck to stuff like this all along they wouldn't have gotten trounced in November.

Exactly. The liberals aren't doing anything until the republicans get what they want. There was nothing liberal about the 9/11 health care bill - they were just hostages.

[85suited 0]

Exactly. The liberals aren't doing anything until the republicans get what they want. There was nothing liberal about the 9/11 health care bill - they were just hostages.

You do realize that the democrats could have passed virtually any bill they liked over the last 2 years? right?

[custom36 4]

You do realize that the democrats could have passed virtually any bill they liked over the last 2 years? right?

Nothing frustrates me more....

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Nothing frustrates me more....

what would you have like to see them pass?

[CaneBrain 95]

hey does anybody remember that time when there was an election that was just held and the democrats got trounced and then they started bringing up all these relatively minor bills that they wanted to get passed before they lost the majority in the house but the republicans had this one pretty major bill to keep taxes at current levels instead of raising them while we have 9.8% unemployment and tax cuts were going to expire in like 2 weeks and they were like "we're not allowing anything else to pass until we get this passed" and all the democrats were like "you evil homophobic america hating assholes how could you!" and then everybody finally compromised on the tax bill and right the fuck after all those other bills got passed like it wasn't anything? good times.

and this is why I can't stand conservatives. Money important! Everything else minor!I think a nuclear treaty with Russia or an agreement to not discriminate against people who serve their country is FAR more important than making sure rich people save 3% on their earnings over 250,000 dollars. And that's all this was about since democrats were never against keeping those tax cuts for 98% of Americans at any point in time.

[custom36 4]

what would you have like to see them pass?

universal health care, repealing bush tax cuts for the wealthy, wireless net neutrality, and ENDA off the top of my head...

[Balloon guy 158]

universal health care, repealing bush tax cuts for the wealthy, wireless net neutrality, and ENDA off the top of my head...

I am curious why you feel this?If they change the rate of taxes, then that is the tax rate.Why is is that 27% is the correct level but if someone makes it 26% it is a cut that needs to be repealed?How do you justify the level that you feel is correct? and why not 72% like it once was?

[hblask 1]

and this is why I can't stand conservatives. Money important! Everything else minor!I think a nuclear treaty with Russia or an agreement to not discriminate against people who serve their country is FAR more important than making sure rich people save 3% on their earnings over 250,000 dollars. And that's all this was about since democrats were never against keeping those tax cuts for 98% of Americans at any point in time.

I think DADT has major significance for a small percentage of the population, but obviously affects very few overall, except in that "symbolic acceptance" kind of way.The START Treaty really doesn't do that much, and no nuclear treaty ever will. If we have enough nukes to defend ourselves, we will never agree to reduce it below that. If we have more than we need, then we are just wasting money, and should probably be unilaterally reducing those. My understanding is that this treaty makes small reductions overall, but changes the composition of our arsenal and our counting methods a bit. Again, it probably has more symbolic importance than actual importance.The Dems didn't care about the tax cuts at all except as a way to make the R's look bad. There is no economic justification for raising taxes in a recession, and they know it. The "fight" on the tax bill was all just show business, on both sides.

[ShakeZuma 585]

and this is why I can't stand conservatives. Money important! Everything else minor!I think a nuclear treaty with Russia or an agreement to not discriminate against people who serve their country is FAR more important than making sure rich people save 3% on their earnings over 250,000 dollars. And that's all this was about since democrats were never against keeping those tax cuts for 98% of Americans at any point in time.

and this is why I can't stand liberals: the complete inability to see beyond a blind hatred of "rich people" to understand the total economic implications of tax decisions. thinking that a feel good bill guaranteeing more rights to gay soldiers is more important than a billion dollar tax decision during the worst economy since the great depression is... jesus fucking christ.

[Roll the Bones 74]

I am curious why you feel this?If they change the rate of taxes, then that is the tax rate.Why is is that 27% is the correct level but if someone makes it 26% it is a cut that needs to be repealed?How do you justify the level that you feel is correct? and why not 72% like it once was?

Well, I am not sure anyone knows what the best current level is, but being very low like it has been has served to concentrate the majority of money at the very top. It isn't trickling down, nor has it served to create jobs or help the economy like higher tax rates in the past hae seemed to have done. Plus our infrastructure is falling apart, education and health care are abysmal, the evironment is putrid and there is no hope in sight. So, if raising it a couple percent which is still vastly below what it should be and will serve to help the middle class (who apparently have no clue and all watch Fox news and buy into the rhetoric about how the rich are the only ones that will save them), then it's really crazy not to raise it a few percent. Insane really when you look at facts and history.

[Balloon guy 158]

Well, I am not sure anyone knows what the best current level is, but being very low like it has been has served to concentrate the majority of money at the very top. It isn't trickling down, nor has it served to create jobs or help the economy like higher tax rates in the past hae seemed to have done. Plus our infrastructure is falling apart, education and health care are abysmal, the evironment is putrid and there is no hope in sight. So, if raising it a couple percent which is still vastly below what it should be and will serve to help the middle class (who apparently have no clue and all watch Fox news and buy into the rhetoric about how the rich are the only ones that will save them), then it's really crazy not to raise it a few percent. Insane really when you look at facts and history.

?You think the housing market collapsed because the government didn't take an extra 2% from the top wage earners?Or the travel industry slowed after 9-11 because the rich were allowed to keep more of their money?And what government program 'helps the middle class'? Welfare? Food Stamps? Medicare?And if you don't know what the best level is, then how do you know this one is too low?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

?You think the housing market collapsed because the government didn't take an extra 2% from the top wage earners?Or the travel industry slowed after 9-11 because the rich were allowed to keep more of their money?And what government program 'helps the middle class'? Welfare? Food Stamps? Medicare?And if you don't know what the best level is, then how do you know this one is too low?

These guys don't seem to be willing to come right out and say it, but clearly they are looking for income/wealth redistribution. But rallying behind repealing "tax breaks for the wealthy" sounds so much more palatable.

[hblask 1]

Well, I am not sure anyone knows what the best current level is, but being very low like it has been has served to concentrate the majority of money at the very top.

Some economists have tried to estimate this, and have found that a *total* tax burden -- at all levels -- of between 17% and 25% is optimal. Right now in the US it is close to 40%. They studied many countries and found that once it gets above 25%, economic growth begins to slow. I don't know how they adjusted for tax competition among countries, I think it could be much lower, but govts tend to take as much as they can get. So if everyone else is at 30%, the country with 25% has no incentive to go lower.As to the second part, it's not tax policy that is causing that, it's regulatory capture and crony capitalism -- both of which are the result of higher taxes.

Plus our infrastructure is falling apart, education and health care are abysmal,

The three things the most government is heavily involved in are the worst? Shocking!!! The liberal answer? MORE GOVERNMENT! HIGHER TAXES! Because, you know, if something fails, do more of it!

the evironment is putrid and there is no hope in sight.

You may want to check the data on this one. By any objective measure you choose, we are much better than at any point in the last 100 years.Every one of your arguments supports lowering taxes and increasing self-sufficiency. Welcome.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Some economists have tried to estimate this, and have found that a *total* tax burden -- at all levels -- of between 17% and 25% is optimal. Right now in the US it is close to 40%. They studied many countries and found that once it gets above 25%, economic growth begins to slow. I don't know how they adjusted for tax competition among countries, I think it could be much lower, but govts tend to take as much as they can get. So if everyone else is at 30%, the country with 25% has no incentive to go lower.

The OECD says the US tax burden for all levels of Gov't is 24% not 40% which is the 3rd lowest of all the OECD countries with only Mexico and Chile being lower.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...rcentage_of_GDPhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/27/46771900.xls

[ShakeZuma 585]

The OECD says the US tax burden for all levels of Gov't is 24% not 40% which is the 3rd lowest of all the OECD countries with only Mexico and Chile being lower.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...rcentage_of_GDPhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/27/46771900.xls

I can't really tell (read: screw researching further when I can just tell you to do it) what the "total tax burden" includes here. is it federal and state taxes combined, or just federal? I'd imagine that hblask is talking about the total burden of federal plus state (an average I'd assume) and probably even sales taxes, estate, all that other crap, for being the 40% number.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I can't really tell (read: screw researching further when I can just tell you to do it) what the "total tax burden" includes here. is it federal and state taxes combined, or just federal? I'd imagine that hblask is talking about the total burden of federal plus state (an average I'd assume) and probably even sales taxes, estate, all that other crap, for being the 40% number.

It's total tax revenue of all levels of government as a percentage of GDP according to the source. When you compare countries you really have to compare all level's of governments since not all countries have a Federal structure for example.http://www.oecd.org/document/49/0,3746,en_...1_1_1_1,00.html

[hblask 1]

The OECD says the US tax burden for all levels of Gov't is 24% not 40% which is the 3rd lowest of all the OECD countries with only Mexico and Chile being lower.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...rcentage_of_GDPhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/27/46771900.xls

These numbers are clearly not correct; last year the government spent 24% of GDP. That leaves, um, 0% for all state, city, county, and local taxes. Something is wrong here..... are they not counting some taxes as taxes? Like property taxes? Sales taxes? Deferred taxes (also known as deficits)?If it's this last one, we should probably be talking about spending, since obviously running massive deficits is not a long-term viable solution.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

These numbers are clearly not correct; last year the government spent 24% of GDP. That leaves, um, 0% for all state, city, county, and local taxes. Something is wrong here..... are they not counting some taxes as taxes? Like property taxes? Sales taxes? Deferred taxes (also known as deficits)?If it's this last one, we should probably be talking about spending, since obviously running massive deficits is not a long-term viable solution.

Those numbers are correct but count taxes not spending and they count all taxes.You should take a look at some of the historic charts on the links, you might find them interesting.The US doesn't really have a current taxation problem. You have a massive fiscal imbalance which is going to mean both future spending cuts and increased taxes.

[hblask 1]

Those numbers are correct but count taxes not spending and they count all taxes.You should take a look at some of the historic charts on the links, you might find them interesting.The US doesn't really have a current taxation problem. You have a massive fiscal imbalance which is going to mean both future spending cuts and increased taxes.

One of the things that makes the situation complicated is that the direction of movement matters. If everything has been the same for 20 years, and one country suddenly raises taxes, there will be mass exodus, because in 20 years the countries of the world will have reached some sort of equilibrium. So I think not only actual value, but magnitude and direction of change vs competitors matters, too.

[hblask 1]

The OECD says the US tax burden for all levels of Gov't is 24% not 40% which is the 3rd lowest of all the OECD countries with only Mexico and Chile being lower.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...rcentage_of_GDPhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/27/46771900.xls

Coincidentally, Krugman just published this graph of spending at all levels as a percentage of GDP in the US:The funny thing is he was using to show that government spending is not increasing.