The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[brvheart 1,752]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...Opinion_LEADTop

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

The Presidential Divider (Wall Street Journal)

You can put the article headline as your link title. You know, if you wanted to give people an idea of what they were clicking.This little factoid stood out to me:"According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year."

[Balloon guy 158]

You can put the article headline as your link title. You know, if you wanted to give people an idea of what they were clicking.This little factoid stood out to me:"According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year."

BUT if you look at the 10 year total, it is a really big number....which is important if you want to look like you are doing something..quoting big numbers I mean.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

You can put the article headline as your link title. You know, if you wanted to give people an idea of what they were clicking.This little factoid stood out to me:"According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year."

Well, no one is claiming that increasing taxes is the ONLY way to reduce the deficit. However, one side is claiming that it is NOT a way. A realistic approach must combine tax increases with reduced spending on Military, Medicare, and Medicare. Social Security doesn't need to be touched since it doesn't add to the deficit and is solvent for a few more decades. And, while we should indeed aim to reduce the deficit, there's no rule that it needs to be exactly zero. Running a reasonable deficit is certainly okay; we've been doing it for a while.

[CaneBrain 95]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...Opinion_LEADTop

lol. What a hilarious article. I'm surprised the author could see the screen with Congressman Ryan's dick in his mouth.Wow, a Democratic President vehemently disagreed with a budget that leaves defense alone, makes the Bush tax cuts permanent and gets most of its savings from health-care for the poor and a host of other Dem-friendly programs. Shocker.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

1st: If the guy in charge increases spending by more than all presidents before him combined, then he loses any authority to declare his 'fix' to the issue.

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)

[CaneBrain 95]

So, was your first point just one of those things that's "not intended to be a factual statement"?

Ahhhhh, we will get so much mileage out of this.

[akoff 0]

Just keep sticking your heads in the sand. There is no problem, we will just tax those pesky rich people more. "Running a reasonable deficit is certainly okay; we've been doing it for a while" is a personal favorite of mine and new low for common logic...but ok just carry on with that thinking.Liberals continue to dig, the hole gets deeper and their base and enablers get screwed the worst....but never stop to think for themselves (thanks to multi generations that have been raised to believe they are worthless and can't support themselves). We'll just keep blaming those scary rich people who work hard and create wealth and jobs...thats the ticket.Hope and change baby. Back to work now...at least 45 percent of us still have jobs.

[CaneBrain 95]

Back to work now...at least 45 percent of us still have jobs.*

*This was not intended to be a factual statement.

[CaneBrain 95]

(thanks to multi generations that have been raised to believe they are worthless* and can't support themselves). We'll just keep blaming those scary rich people who work hard and create wealth* and jobs...thats the ticket.

*these were not intended to be factual statements.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

You can put the article headline as your link title. You know, if you wanted to give people an idea of what they were clicking.This little factoid stood out to me:"According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year."

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.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

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.

Lily addressed it.

Well, no one is claiming that increasing taxes is the ONLY way to reduce the deficit. However, one side is claiming that it is NOT a way. A realistic approach must combine tax increases with reduced spending on Military, Medicare, and Medicare. Social Security doesn't need to be touched since it doesn't add to the deficit and is solvent for a few more decades. And, while we should indeed aim to reduce the deficit, there's no rule that it needs to be exactly zero. Running a reasonable deficit is certainly okay; we've been doing it for a while.

But I didn't mean for my post to be a rebuttal anyway. I'm also not sure that the approach "must" include tax increases. I haven't done any meaningful research on this, but it seems to me that there are intelligent people in this field who have opposing viewpoints.

[CaneBrain 95]

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.

It's not going to be fixed by cutting taxes across the board either that's for sure.It's a fun stat in a vacuum but it doesn't mean much.

[hblask 1]

I unfortunately missed Obama's speech on the budget, so my response only comes from reading about it.However, I'm quite happy that Obama seems to have found his voice on this issue and is effectively channeling his core Democratic principles in the debate over this country's debt. Obama's assessment of the situation and of Ryan's initial plan is the correct one. Even with Ryan's massive slashing and dismantling of medicare, the deficit reductions are minimal, and the real problems aren't solved. Turning medicare into a voucher system doesn't solve a health-care problem, it only means that the bills are now not going to be paid. Cutting into vital services and completely eliminating inexpensive servies isn't the road to long term solvency.

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.

Obama recognizes that any serious plan to reduce the deficit has to include changes to the tax code and has to increase the effective tax rate on top earners.

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.

It has to involve reducing the military's budget and moving toward a smarter military for the future rather than the bloated military of the cold war.

If only Obama believed this. He has done nothing but move in the wrong direction on this one.

It of course must address the ballooning medicare costs, but do so in a way that doesn't leave seniors out in the cold.

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.

It's an interesting game that they're playing in Washington. I guess Obama's team decided it was best to wait for the Republicans to make the first move (in the form of the Ryan budget) before having the President come out with his vision. I just hope that all this political posturing doesn't end with a government shutdown. During this time of fragile recovery, shutting down the government would be economically devastating.

[citation needed] All evidence I've seen is that shutting down government for an extended period would spur massive economic growth.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Lily addressed it.

She did?

[hblask 1]

Well, no one is claiming that increasing taxes is the ONLY way to reduce the deficit. However, one side is claiming that it is NOT a way.

Facts matter. I'll post this graph as many times as it takes to sink in:

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

She did?

Like with you and Hankey Munik, I read LLY as "Lily."Sorry.

[hblask 1]

Social Security doesn't need to be touched since it doesn't add to the deficit and is solvent for a few more decades.

SS already running deficits and that will be permanent starting within a decade.

[El Guapo 8]

Heh, I was just going to post that, well I still am because I took the time to find it.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

SS already running deficits and that will be permanent starting within a decade.

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.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Facts matter. I'll post this graph as many times as it takes to sink in:

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.

[CaneBrain 95]

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.

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."

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

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.

I'd guess the number of people in the top bracket has been going up.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

In fact, that chart should probably just be labeled "not intended to be a factual chart."

When you think about it, if the horse is dead already, what's the big deal if you keep beating on it, right?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

When you think about it, if the horse is dead already, what's the big deal if you keep beating on it, right?

Note: This post was not INTENDED to be a funny post.(Just kidding, it was pretty funny)