Obama Blames The Bad Economy On Americans Inability To “Think Clearly”

@ Wm T SHerman, #33:

Have I got this right?

(1) Social Security is doomed to go bust. Forget about it. It was always a bad idea.

(2) Ditto, regarding Medicare.

(3) Nobody is talking much about it, but the same goes for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. (Hey, people should have worked for private concerns that kept their promises.)

(4) Federal and state pension plans must go as well.

Obviously, everyone should depend upon savings and investment income in retirement–managed by banks and a financial industry subject to minimal regulatory oversight.

—

If anyone states any of that clearly and unambiguously, they won’t get elected. If it’s not stated clearly, and then someone tries it, they’ll have a populace uprising on their hands that will make the Tea Party movement pale by comparison.

I therefore conclude that republican victory would likely result in tax cuts with no significant spending cuts, bringing about further acceleration of the growth of the national debt, and an accelerated collapse of Social Security, Medicare, etc, by default.

Maybe that’s someone’s misguided plan–to just let the predictable happen. Maybe someone thinks that’s the quickest means of getting back to their own goofy idea of a properly ordered America.

Or maybe they don’t actually think any farther ahead than the next election, and don’t focus on anything other than their own short-term gains.

GREG; there is nothing goofy about a properly governed AMERICA, and THE PEOPLE wants it,
as it is suppose to be, that is to serve the people according to the CONSTITUTION,

@ jainphx, #19:

“Every time that we lower taxes, the amount of money into the Government coffers grows leaps and bounds, unfortunately the left really doesn’t care for a stable economy, they want us sucking on the government.”

Every time we’ve drastically lowered taxes, the national debt has soared to new record levels. This is exactly what has happened throughout the Bush tax cut years–which, by the way, include the first two years of the Obama administration.

This is a totally predictable result, whenever tax cuts aren’t paid for with spending cuts, or whenever spending increases aren’t paid for with tax increases.

As conservatives are forever saying–and have never failed to forget, whenever their own turn to call the shots has come: There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

If you really want a stable economy and a stable dollar, you’ve got to pay for tax cuts, just like anything else.

Greg, funny that you didn’t address any of Mata’s points in #16. But I think she made her point quite well –

But then again, considering that the thrust of this post is about Obama believing you, one of his supporters, is simply too stunned and stupid to think clearly, you may just have made his point.

Greg, additionally you said:

Every time we’ve drastically lowered taxes, the national debt has soared to new record levels. This is exactly what has happened throughout the Bush tax cut years–which, by the way, include the first two years of the Obama administration.

Let me take that second sentence above first – The years of increase you are referring to under Bush and Obama, well they are years that were during a Democratically controlled Congress.

And now to your first sentence above – Wrong. You just couldn’t take the time to Google the facts, could you? LOL

Odd isn’t it that Reagan drastically reduced taxes and the revenues into the Federal coffers grew each year under him at over 8% a year??

Had he not had a Democratic Congress, spending would have been reduced as well (other than military spending, that is).

The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.

Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income. – Source? Joint Economic Committee

Finally, history shows us that lowering tax rates brings in higher tax revenue. The tax cuts signed by Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush actually led to higher federal receipts. – Source? Chris Chocola is president of the Club for Growth, a group that promotes economic freedom, limited government and individual responsibility.

It really is like taking candy from a baby when it comes to proving you wrong, Greg.

wow, this thread is so full of ignorant bigots (author of this blog inclusive), that it’s not even a question as to why you are all in the situation in which you find yourselves. first off, look past your noses to realize who and what got us into the financial mess in the first place. second, un-cloud your heads and try to understand that if the bailouts were not imposed, we would not yet have reached bottom. third, and lastly, stop pointing fingers and ask yourselves what YOU can improve on that will be a benefit to whatever it is that you are all b*tching and wh*ning about.

and to the specific individuals who found it necessary to bring race and “affirmative action” to the discussion, please note that i am a usa-born “minority”, first generation college graduate, 6 years into my professional engineering career, and oh yeah… i just quit my job and got a new one at a 20% bump because the job market is actually great for those who decided to actually pursue higher education. and no, the small companies i work for are not subjected to a “quota”.