The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[SilentSnow 1]

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.

And that is a blatant lie. Clinton balanced the budget with 40% federal tax rates on the rich. I don't want to be unnecessarily offensive, but you really don't know what you are talking about on this subject.

[Balloon guy 158]

And that is a blatant lie. Clinton balanced the budget with 40% federal tax rates on the rich. I don't want to be unnecessarily offensive, but you really don't know what you are talking about on this subject.

Clinton balanced the budget by taxing the rich?You sure you want to make that statement?A 4.9% increase in upper tax brackets would balance the budget?

[iZuma 764]

I don't want to be unnecessarily offensive, but you really don't know what you are talking about on this subject.

hahahaha

[SilentSnow 1]

A 4.9% increase in upper tax brackets would balance the budget?

Obviously I am not saying that but I guess I should clarify in case anyone thinks I am.When Clinton balanced the budget federal revenues were at about 21% of GDP. Although partly due to a weaker economy, federal revenues fell of a cliff thanks in large part to the Bush tax cuts(which included more than just the 4.9% income tax decrease). Despite what Republicans say, the huge majority of those tax savings went to the rich. Revenues are currently at 15% of GDP. Our GDP is 14.5 trillion. 6% of that is 870 billion. Would we get 870 billion dollars if we restored the Clinton tax rates? Probably not, because the economy is weaker. But we would get back a significant portion of the lost revenue. A couple other factors to consider- Tax increases hurt the economy far less than Republicans claim, so the downward revenue adjustment due to a worse economy would be pretty small. Also, the rich make significantly more than they do even 12 years ago, so unless they found yet another shady tax shelter then the Clinton tax rates could be expected to raise relatively more revenue than they did in 1999.Still, even with hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue there are going to have to be spending cuts. But without restoring the tax rates it will be all but impossible to balance the budget.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

hahahaha

Fucking taxes, how do they work?

[Balloon guy 158]

But without restoring the tax rates it will be all but impossible to balance the budget.

Restoring them?To what? Clinton's levels.What did Clinton base his rate on?Why is the optimum level not 13%?And why is it the government's right to be as big as they want, and our job to pay taxes to fit their desired size?If you don't make enough money to afford a bigger house, can you tell your employer they must give you more money BASED ON HIS SALARY?And when he laughs in your face, isn't he going to tell you to : "Move to a house you can afford"

[El Guapo 8]

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.

I don't think it would make sense to use that number, because it is not the number that is being actually taxed. AGI comes before all deductions, except Capital Losses, Business losses and money put into retirement.

And that is a blatant lie. Clinton balanced the budget with 40% federal tax rates on the rich. I don't want to be unnecessarily offensive, but you really don't know what you are talking about on this subject.

hahahaha

EYPEDIT: Also SilentSnow - Clinton actually cut the Military to bare bones operations and had welfare reform. It was also during the time of rapid expansion with the internet and there was a lot of money made on stock options people paying large capital gains when cashing them out. So to say it was because he had taxes 3.6% higher on the rich is the reason he had a balanced budget is ridiculous.

[Balloon guy 158]

Fing taxes, how do they work?

Government:How much do you make?Okay, this is how much we are going to allow you to keep.Now don't complain when we steal some for ourselves.

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't think it would make sense to use that number, because it is not the number that is being actually taxed. AGI comes before all deductions, except Capital Losses, Business losses and money put into retirement.

Don't want to brag...but I will not be paying ANY income taxes for the next 3 years AND going to get $25,000 back from taxes I paid 2 years ago.If they change the law to allow me to go back 5 years I will get over $100,000 backSUCK IT POOR PEOPLE!

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Don't want to brag...but I will not be paying ANY income taxes for the next 3 years AND going to get $25,000 back from taxes I paid 2 years ago.If they change the law to allow me to go back 5 years I will get over $100,000 backSUCK IT POOR PEOPLE!

Balloon guy: loaning the government money since 2008 and maybe even 2005.

[Balloon guy 158]

Balloon guy: loaning the government money interest free since 2008 and maybe even 2005.

If I could just sell my soul and seek to harm people on purpose I could call myself a bank

[SilentSnow 1]

Restoring them?To what? Clinton's levels.What did Clinton base his rate on?Why is the optimum level not 13%?And why is it the government's right to be as big as they want, and our job to pay taxes to fit their desired size?If you don't make enough money to afford a bigger house, can you tell your employer they must give you more money BASED ON HIS SALARY?And when he laughs in your face, isn't he going to tell you to : "Move to a house you can afford"

I said to Clinton's levels. 40% is much lower than the historical average for the rich since WW2. Since we had exceptional economic growth in the 90s it seems pretty clear that this level does not hurt the economy. If the majority of people want to shrink the government then that is fine. What is not ok is to spend money you don't have and steal from the future. Reagan and Bush greatly expanded the government and simultaneously tried to bankrupt us through irrationally low tax rates. Given the tremendous failure of Republican tax policy, in the future anyone who wants to shrink the government should be required to do spending cuts. Only if they produce enough cuts to create a surplus should any tax cuts be allowed. Your example makes zero sense. The money has already been spent. Now the question is who is going to pay for it? The rich, who hugely benefited from this spending spree? Or the poor and middle class, who have had very little economic benefit from all of the spending.

[hblask 1]

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.

From this source (the IRS):it's about $3.39 Trillion -- almost exactly halfway between the two. So, what were you saying about made up numbers?

[hblask 1]

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.

That's exactly why fuel costs SHOULD be included -- it affects everything and makes substitution difficult.A better measure would be "cost for one kilowatt hour of energy" -- and certainly the rising price of fuel would affect that.

[Balloon guy 158]

I said to Clinton's levels. 40% is much lower than the historical average for the rich since WW2. Since we had exceptional economic growth in the 90s it seems pretty clear that this level does not hurt the economy.

So you want to pick an arbitrary point and use the average tax rate to be the correct one. Okay, then I pick the dates of 1776-1812 and want those tax rates to be the correct ones. Our country increased in size, importance and in the number of paved roads, so my dates are better than yours.

If the majority of people want to shrink the government then that is fine. What is not ok is to spend money you don't have and bankrupt the future. Reagan and Bush greatly expanded the government and simultaneously tried to bankrupt us through irrationally low tax rates.

What if the majority of people don't want to raise taxes? Obama has outspent Reagan and Bush's deficit spending in two years compared to their 16 combined years.

Given the tremendous failure of Republican tax policy, in the future anyone who wants to shrink the government should be required to do spending cuts. Only if they produce enough cuts to create a surplus should any tax cuts be allowed.

So the government size is always correct, and the tax rates will reflect that?Otherwise we must reduce the government first, not stop confiscating money to support a bloated government?

Your example makes zero sense. The money has already been spent. Now the question is who is going to pay for it? The rich, who hugely benefited from this spending spree? Or the poor and middle class, who have had very little economic benefit from all of the spending.

My example has you as the government, and your employer as the tax payers.Now read it again and you'll see the point. Just because the government wants to be bigger does not mean it is supposed to be bigger

[hblask 1]

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.

Then it has changed, we used to be a huge leader. I haven't seen statistics for at least a decade. It's interesting that it has changed at a time of the most massive expansion of government in our history.But maybe that's just because we didn't expand government enough. (Look out Krugmann, I can do your job).

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

From this source (the IRS):it's about $3.39 Trillion -- almost exactly halfway between the two. So, what were you saying about made up numbers?

That's the taxable income of all tax returns with AGI over $100k.The WSJ number was tax returns with taxable income over $100k.BG, you'll get interest on that.

[hblask 1]

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.

The big thing -- Medicare -- is a direct challenge to Republican leadership. The R's have promised all along not to touch it.And I agree about the timidity of the plan not touching defense or SS. That's why it's shockingly ridiculous that people are calling Ryan's timid plan -- which finally balances the budget when the people being born now are getting ready to retire -- radical is just insane. It really should be the *minimum* plan, the starting point where it doesn't get any less timid. Instead, Obama and the Dems are just giving lip service to the very real danger of deficits to this country and pretending that a percentage point or two cut is somehow radical. It's insulting.

[SilentSnow 1]

1. So you want to pick an arbitrary point and use the average tax rate to be the correct one. Okay, then I pick the dates of 1776-1812 and want those tax rates to be the correct ones. Our country increased in size, importance and in the number of paved roads, so my dates are better than yours.2.What if the majority of people don't want to raise taxes? 3.Obama has outspent Reagan and Bush's deficit spending in two years compared to their 16 combined years.4.So the government size is always correct, and the tax rates will reflect that?Otherwise we must reduce the government first, not stop confiscating money to support a bloated government?5.My example has you as the government, and your employer as the tax payers.Now read it again and you'll see the point. Just because the government wants to be bigger does not mean it is supposed to be bigger

1.If you want to return to 1790s living standards then good luck convincing anyone sane to join you. I heard Somalia taxes are even lower than that. Maybe you can move there. People are vastly better off than they were in the 1800s and governments are vastly bigger. It's not a coincidence. Technology is only part of the gain- better and bigger governments have also contributed significantly. 2.They don't have to, as long as they first pay off what they already borrowed. 3. No he hasn't. Repeatedly stating lies is a bad strategy if you want to convince anyone of anything. 4. This isn't about government size. People can vote on what size of government they want. But the tax rates need to be high enough to pay for the level of service that people want. As I said before, the Republican strategy of cutting taxes has been proven to be an absolute failure. Any future attempts to shrink the government must be through spending cuts. 5.Your example still makes zero sense. Houses and salary have nothing to do with this. I as the government lent you "the employer" money and now it must be paid back. You can't ethically or legally refuse assuming that you think stealing is wrong. My guess is that this "employer" will refuse anyways and attempt to steal from future generations and the poor.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Obviously I am not saying that but I guess I should clarify in case anyone thinks I am.When Clinton balanced the budget federal revenues were at about 21% of GDP. Although partly due to a weaker economy, federal revenues fell of a cliff thanks in large part to the Bush tax cuts(which included more than just the 4.9% income tax decrease). Despite what Republicans say, the huge majority of those tax savings went to the rich. Revenues are currently at 15% of GDP. Our GDP is 14.5 trillion. 6% of that is 870 billion. Would we get 870 billion dollars if we restored the Clinton tax rates? Probably not, because the economy is weaker. But we would get back a significant portion of the lost revenue. A couple other factors to consider- Tax increases hurt the economy far less than Republicans claim, so the downward revenue adjustment due to a worse economy would be pretty small. Also, the rich make significantly more than they do even 12 years ago, so unless they found yet another shady tax shelter then the Clinton tax rates could be expected to raise relatively more revenue than they did in 1999.Still, even with hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue there are going to have to be spending cuts. But without restoring the tax rates it will be all but impossible to balance the budget.

Clinton's balanced budget was absolute fantasy based or ridiculous growth numbers. In fact when he left office we were officially in a recession. You want to go back to that?

[Balloon guy 158]

1.If you want to return to 1790s living standards then good luck convincing anyone sane to join you. I heard Somalia taxes are even lower than that. Maybe you can move there. People are vastly better off than they were in the 1800s and governments are vastly bigger. It's not a coincidence. Technology is only part of the gain- better and bigger governments have also contributed significantly.

Making up the connection between higher taxes and living conditions etc is silly.

2.They don't have to, as long as they first pay off what they already borrowed.

Why do they have to pay it off? They didn't spend it.

3. No he hasn't. Repeatedly stating lies is a bad strategy if you want to convince anyone of anything.

Obama has spent more in deficit spending than anyone:Lumping in TARP money with Bush when you know it was paid back with interest ( which is applied to Obama's budget even though it is Bush's income is the only way you can lie to yourself enough to pretend otherwise.

4. This isn't about government size. People can vote on what size of government they want. But the tax rates need to be high enough to pay for the level of service that people want. As I said before, the Republican strategy of cutting taxes has been proven to be an absolute failure. Any future attempts to shrink the government must be through spending cuts.

This is EXACTLY about government size. If the government was smaller, then there wouldn't be any deficit spending. If the government needed $1 Trillion total to operate, wouldn't they lower taxes till the amount of revenue they sucked off the working people was $1 trillion?

5.Your example still makes zero sense. Houses and salary have nothing to do with this. I as the government lent you "the employer" money and now it must be paid back. You can't ethically or legally refuse assuming that you think stealing is wrong. My guess is that this "employer" will refuse anyways and attempt to steal from future generations and the poor.

When did the government lend us money? Are you under the impression that the government owns everything and we are only allowed to receive what they deem we should have?Cause it failed in Communist Russia, and it will fail here.The only one stealing from anyone is the government stealing from me and my children. Not the other way around.Although I guess the case could be made that welfare recipients are stealing from the future since they are not contributing anything to society but are burdening us with their need for money and government services. so I guess they are in fact stealing from the future, but I don't think you should be picking on the poor like you are.

[CaneBrain 95]

The big thing -- Medicare -- is a direct challenge to Republican leadership. The R's have promised all along not to touch it.And I agree about the timidity of the plan not touching defense or SS. That's why it's shockingly ridiculous that people are calling Ryan's timid plan -- which finally balances the budget when the people being born now are getting ready to retire -- radical is just insane. It really should be the *minimum* plan, the starting point where it doesn't get any less timid. Instead, Obama and the Dems are just giving lip service to the very real danger of deficits to this country and pretending that a percentage point or two cut is somehow radical. It's insulting.

I was really disappointed. The fact that SS is getting a pass (the one it makes the most sense to change by far!!!) is killing me. Even the rationale makes sense.....we passed this law when people lived to X but now they live to Y. Y > X.Therefore, the eligibility age has to go up.I know Democrats will hate this more than the GOP but I at least expected Ryan's plan to talk about it. Disappointing.

[Balloon guy 158]

Clinton's balanced budget was absolute fantasy based or ridiculous growth numbers. In fact when he left office we were officially in a recession. You want to go back to that?

And the economy was rising as a result of two things when he took office: Bush Sr. economy, and Algore's internet dot com bubble creating massive amounts of wealth out of thin air. The fall of the dot com mania is what precipitated the decline in the economy under ClintonBush cut taxes though and stimulated growth so he saved us form the serious repercussions of Clinton's failed economic policies.9-11 put a stop to the growth, but Bush cut more taxes and we survived that too.At least that's the truth until the liberals get ahold of the texts books again and rewrite it.

[Balloon guy 158]

I was really disappointed. The fact that SS is getting a pass (the one it makes the most sense to change by far!!!) is killing me. Even the rationale makes sense.....we passed this law when people lived to X but now they live to Y. Y > X.Therefore, the eligibility age has to go up.I know Democrats will hate this more than the GOP but I at least expected Ryan's plan to talk about it. Disappointing.

You can blame democrats though. When Bush tried to make 4% of our SS confiscations go towards personal savings accounts, the dems screamed that SS was fine and needed to be left alone.That screaming is still being echoed in the ears of politicians so they are leaving it alone.Once again democrat politicize an issue for personal gain and watch as the country suffers for it. Once again.

[SilentSnow 1]

From this source (the IRS):it's about $3.39 Trillion -- almost exactly halfway between the two. So, what were you saying about made up numbers?

That source seems to be saying that 12.7% of the population had 52.1% of the 8.26 trillion in AGI. I don't know where you are getting 3.4 trillion from. But total US income is not 8.3 trillion, it is currently 14.5 trillion. In 2008 it wasn't much smaller. So where is the missing 6 trillion?I'm not a tax lawyer so I'm not going to bother to find out why the IRS would list things like that. But what I do know is that nearly every income measure I've ever seen lists things as GDP/capita which is of course based on the 14.5 trillion figure. This source in no way shows that I am wrong. If you want to figure out exactly why AGI is far different than average income then go for it. Or you could just trust me that my 40% figure is right and the WSJ journal number of 11% is completely absurd.