The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[Balloon guy 158]

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.

Bush's Stimulus deal was $170 billion, sent by small check to the people in this country who paid the taxes ( although none of the upper level people got any, a fact I can attest to )Or are you talking about TARP? the $Trillion he 'spent' that was paid back with a profit to the government?Because neither of those can be remotely compared to Obama's Trillion that he spent mostly to pay back the Unions who gave him $200 million to get elected, that and the $2 million bribe he paid Hillary Clinton by paying off the last of her campaign debt:

Is stimulus money being illegally used to pay off Hillary Clinton's campaign debt?Firms run by Hillary Clinton pollster Mark Penn stand to make $6M from stimulus planHillary Clinton pollster Mark Penn is looking at some pretty sweet numbers - namely $6 million in federal stimulus dollars awarded to two firms he controls.The Hill newspaper reported Wednesday that $5.97 million from the $787 billion stimulus package helped preserve three jobs at Burson-Marsteller, the global PR firm headed by Penn.The Obama administration awarded the contracts to Burson-Marsteller to work on a public-relations campaign to advertise the national switch from analog to digital television.Nearly $2.8 million of the contract was issued to Penn's polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, according to federal records.

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.

The graph is fine, the genius who pasted it without the proper headings and footers is to blame. Luckily it's address you saw when you replied to that post was available for anyone with a higher than high school education ( You, not me )

But, uh, what is "it." (I certainly have an educated guess, but I like being snobby).

Stick with what your good at!

[SilentSnow 1]

...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.

I am stating the quite reasonable estimate, based mostly on real numbers, that the top 6% of earners make 40% of the income.You seem to think that the blatant lie that 6% of the top earners make 11% of the income is a better guess.It's hard to believe that anyone would believe their 11% figure. This may come as a shock to you, but the WSJ really can get away with lying because so many people in this country are innumerate.

[Balloon guy 158]

Henry,If I don't say it often enough, know that I mean it from my heart.I love you man.Love,BG

[Balloon guy 158]

I am stating the quite reasonable estimate, based mostly on real numbers, that the top 6% of earners make 40% of the income.

Is it the government's job to make this change?Why?What authority do they have?Where does that authority come from?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

It seems to me that both measures are flawed. Eliminating energy, food, and housing seems like a completely meaningless measure of inflation.

Including volatile things like that makes comparing inflation rates over time basically meaningless, it's why everybody in the World uses the adjusted numbers. Just look at the price of gas over the last few years. Over time if the prices for those volatile things creep up it they get reflected in other things that are included. An example is that shipping costs increase when fuel costs do.

[Balloon guy 158]

Including volatile things like that makes comparing inflation rates over time basically meaningless, it's why everybody in the World uses the adjusted numbers. Just look at the price of gas over the last few years. Over time if the prices for those volatile things creep up it they get reflected in other things that are included. An example is that shipping costs increase when fuel costs do.

I noticed that the people who screamed for Bush to do something about the price of gas are strangely silent now that the price is in parity with Bush's worse...Makes me wonder if any democrats are capable of being honest, or if hypocrisy is all they know.And remember, hypocrisy can't be made without hippy. Yes vb, this means you

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

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.

According to the IRS, total taxable income for everybody in 2006 was $5.6 trillion. So I think your figure is wrong.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

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.

[citation needed] You don't get to just make shit up.

Stop making shit up Henry.The US has one of the worst rates of Economic Mobility in the developed Worldhttp://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/...e-mobility.aspx

[CaneBrain 95]

Stop making shit up Henry.The US has one of the worst rates of Economic Mobility in the developed Worldhttp://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/...e-mobility.aspx

"Every study I've seen through the years" = every study the Cato Institute has done.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

According to the IRS, total taxable income for everybody in 2006 was $5.6 trillion. So I think your figure is wrong.

I think you're all talking about different numbers. For example taxable income isn't total income since all the deductions are taken from total income to get down to taxable income and things like dividents and capital gains that are taxed at lower rates aren't fully reflected in that taxable income number.

[Balloon guy 158]

According to the IRS, total taxable income for everybody in 2006 was $5.6 trillion. So I think your figure is wrong.

In 2006 the bottom 47% made $32.18 each (adjusted after the rich stole more than their fair share).

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I think you're all talking about different numbers. For example taxable income isn't total income since all the deductions are taken from total income to get down to taxable income and things like dividents and capital gains that are taxed at lower rates aren't fully reflected in that taxable income number.

He probably is talking about a different number, but you can't say somebody is lying because you want to define income in a different way. The statement was very clear about what figures they were using.I don't know what you're talking about regarding dividends and capital gains. Those numbers are absolutely included in taxable income. It doesn't matter what rate they are taxed at because the statement was about taxing all taxable income at 100%.Yes, taxable income is lower than total income because of deductions. But the argument that we should be taxing people on total income instead of taxable income is different than what was being said.

"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."

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.

[Balloon guy 158]

I think y'all talking bout different numbers. For example taxable income ain't total income since all the deductions is taken from total income to get down to taxable income and stuff like dividents and capital gains that was taxed at lower rates ain't fully reflected in that taxable income number.

Fixed your pronunciation.You're posting on an American forum, speak it!

[Balloon guy 158]

Stop making shit up Henry.The US has one of the worst rates of Economic Mobility in the developed Worldhttp://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/...e-mobility.aspx

So in America, the children of our current work force are expected to make .47% LESS than the current workforce's level below average?I think Canada has officially jumped the shark, when they make up silly things like this and brag about how their children will only make 20% less than they are and pretend this makes them better than the US.Face it, you guys are just part of our future plans for conquest, and nothing you can do will stop us.

[Balloon guy 158]

"Every study I've seen through the years" = every study the Cato Institute has done.

Democrats = "Just destroy the messenger, then the message can be ignored"

[FCP Bob 1,312]

He probably is talking about a different number, but you can't say somebody is lying because you want to define income in a different way. The statement was very clear about what figures they were using.I don't know what you're talking about regarding dividends and capital gains. Those numbers are absolutely included in taxable income. It doesn't matter what rate they are taxed at because the statement was about taxing all taxable income at 100%.Yes, taxable income is lower than total income because of deductions. But the argument that we should be taxing people on total income instead of taxable income is different than what was being said.

The reason I mentioned Capital Gains and dividends is that they might not fully be included in the taxable income number, I would have to get into the details. For example the taxable income number for Canada doesn't include the full amount of capital gains.

[Balloon guy 158]

The reason I mentioned Capital Gains and dividends is that they might fully be included in the taxable income number, I would have to get into the details. For example the taxable income number for Canada doesn't include the full amount of capital gains.

The taxable income of California > the taxable income of Canada and we put Jerry Brown in charge of California, proving that we don't consider this money relevent.Why would your numbers matter?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

The taxable income of California > the taxable income of Canada and we put Jerry Brown in charge of California, proving that we don't consider this money relevent.Why would your numbers matter?

All California needs to do is tax medical marijuana and they would have all the money the State will ever need. They can call it the Hippy Tax

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

The reason I mentioned Capital Gains and dividends is that they might not fully be included in the taxable income number, I would have to get into the details.

Trust me?

[iZuma 764]

Trust me?

poll?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Trust me?

Sure.Question though. Would it make more sense to look at the Adjusted Gross Income number when talking about tax policy and percentages rather than the taxable income number. That number was $8.0 Trillion as a whole for 2006 as you provided.

[Balloon guy 158]

All California needs to do is tax medical marijuana and they would have all the money the State will ever need. They can call it the Hippy Tax

I am so looking forward to the days when this happens so I can tell all those idiot pot smokers "I told you so" when they realize that the argument that the government should legalize pot and tax it would be a good thing.It's like lambs being led to the slaughter...you just want to grab them and say: "WAKE UP"

[SilentSnow 1]

According to the IRS, total taxable income for everybody in 2006 was $5.6 trillion. So I think your figure is wrong.

I already explained this if you were paying attention. 5.6 trillion is only about 40 percent of our actual total income(GDP) of 14.5 trillion. You are probably talking about income from wages, which is a lot smaller than total income. The WSJ knows perfectly well that the rich make a huge majority of the remaining 8.9 trillion.They are lying because their number is obviously meant to wildly distort the real amount of income the rich have.

[SilentSnow 1]

[citation needed]1.Considering that over half of Americans own stock, this seems like a pretty unbelievable claim. I think you pulled it out of your ass.2.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.3.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.4.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.

1. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1008 * Over half — 54 percent — of all capital gains and dividend income flows to the 0.2 percent of households with annual incomes over $1 million. More than three-quarters — 78 percent — of this income goes to those households with income over $200,000, which account for about 3 percent of all households. * In contrast, only 11 percent of capital gains and dividend income goes to the 86 percent of households with incomes of less than $100,000. Only 4 percent of this income flows to the 64 percent of households that have income of less than $50,000.What's unbelievable is that there is anyone left in America who doesn't think the rich make vastly more than the poor here. 2.http://www.cepr.net/documents/social_exclusion_2006_08.pdfpage 14- US has by far the worst mobility for low income workers. http://cep.lse.ac.uk/about/news/Intergener...nalMobility.pdfpage 6- US and Britain have far lower economic mobility than other European countries.It takes a little searching to find income mobility studies since this isn't as directly measurable as IRS stats. I'll check for more studies when I get the chance. Still, I have never seen a real study showing that income mobility was higher in the US than in Europe. Feel free to post anything on this and I'll look at it. 3.You are being irrational. Your bolded points are exactly what it is about the US that I am opposed to. You can't seriously expect the government not to tax the rich because there is a small chance that someday they might be poor again. The only reasonable thing the government can do is help out the poor when they fall on hard times(something libertarians are generally opposed to) and not give so much money to corporations and the rich through corrupt financial policies. 4.http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1940_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy12&chart=10-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=sThis chart shows revenues as a percent of GDP. The fluctuations might seem small, but each percent can be over 100 billion dollars. -Revenues dropped significantly after the Reagan tax cuts and despite the economic recovery never recovered to previous levels until Clinton raised taxes. There is a reason that Reagan tripled the deficit.-Revenues skyrocketed after the Clinton tax increase.-Revenues dropped off a cliff after the Bush tax cuts.-They did have a partial recovery a few years later, but as we know now that was due to a massive temporary bubble. -Revenues are currently at 60 year lows.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

poll?

Next week!

Question though. Would it make more sense to look at the Adjusted Gross Income number when talking about tax policy and percentages rather than the taxable income number. That number was $8.0 Trillion as a whole for 2006 as you provided.

It would make more sense to look at AGI and how it relates to taxable income when talking about tax policy. It would not make more sense when talking about tax rates and whether they should be cut or raised. Which is what that was about.

I already explained this if you were paying attention. 5.6 trillion is only about 40 percent of our actual total income(GDP) of 14.5 trillion. The WSJ knows perfectly well that the rich make a huge majority of the remaining 8.9 trillion.They are lying because their number is obviously meant to wildly distort the real amount of income the rich have.

No.Here is what they said: Raising tax rates won't cover everything because you could raise it to 100% and it still wouldn't be enough.Did Obama's plan say something about eliminating deductions or anything like that?