Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

When your side of the debate has no substance you result to personal attacks. The President really has no ground to backup his failing policies so instead he launches personal attacks. This is no different than what happend to Bill O'Reilly on 'The View.' He presents facts and is called a 'un-artful' and a 'liar'.

But the fact is, Obama is "the other." And it's not a false portrayal. And it has nothing do with his "race" (which is half-white BTW) or his "religion" (I'm not sure he even has one, other than a bizarre secularism/atheism mixed with Koranic traditions).

It has to do with his attitude, where and how he was raised, how he has lived with life and the people he has associated with and/or made his friends. The fact that he sees the American people as "the other" is just more evidence of this. Of course, he doesn't understand us, because he is NOT us.

"bizarre secularism/atheism mixed with Koranic traditions" & "he doesn't understand us, because he is NOT us"

I would agree with what you are saying, but your are just making stuff up.
I just don't understand what is "us", are we all not people, just normal people trying to work hard and make a living.
It's people who uses terms like "us" "them" that are tying to divide this country.

According to Mr Obama, anyone who believes in the Constitution and traditional moral and family values is "dividing the country" while those who hold to Mr Obama's radical agenda are "uniting the country". Just a thought, how about uniting behind what made our country great rather than the so-called change that has always failed in the past.

Mr Obama can continue to promote his socialistic utopia, but sooner or later, he must live in reality.

Actually, nearly a majority of people in the Tea Party think that the Obama Administration has raised taxes. In fact, taxes are at one of their lowest rates in history, much lower than during the period known as the Affluent Society.

Zachriel, it depends on what you call taxes. For example, income tax rates may be low, but brackets designations have broadened and have not kept pace with inflation. Other taxes such as payroll have increased significantly over time, and as qualifying age to collect things such as social security have been increased, it is effectively a tax increase. Inflation is nothing more than a means of devaluing your investments to the benefit of the government, who is the primary debtor. In essence, a tax.

If you look at it in terms of percent GDP consumed by government, it has risen dramatically. Any deficit spending that contributes to national debt is nothing but a delayed tax.

...lions and tigers and Obama, oh my!

You know the old saying:

"Nothing addles the mind like the sight of the hangman's noose."

Or something like that.

rural counsel: You last sentence is the relevant one. The percent of GDP absorbed by government is the relevant number; whether it is financed through taxation or borrowing (against future taxation) is secondary. Bigger goverment = higher taxes; government since they have existed have been extremely clever (and dishonest) as to how the collect the taxes to finance their usually wasteful habits.

ruralcounsel: it depends on what you call taxes. For example, income tax rates may be low, but brackets designations have broadened and have not kept pace with inflation. Other taxes such as payroll have increased significantly over time, and as qualifying age to collect things such as social security have been increased, it is effectively a tax increase. Inflation is nothing more than a means of devaluing your investments to the benefit of the government, who is the primary debtor. In essence, a tax.

Most of those influences have nothing to do with Obama.

ruralcounsel: Inflation is nothing more than a means of devaluing your investments to the benefit of the government, who is the primary debtor. In essence, a tax.

There is no inflation. That's one of the problems, by the way. When there is risk of deflation, people won't invest because they can get it cheaper later.

ruralcounsel: If you look at it in terms of percent GDP consumed by government, it has risen dramatically.

Yes, that happens when the GDP collapses.

ruralcounsel: Any deficit spending that contributes to national debt is nothing but a delayed tax.

So when Bush cut taxes, he was actually raising them. Yes, deficits have to be paid back at some point.

Classically, the policy is to maintain the government in balance. So if the economy is growing, leading to increased tax receipts, cut taxes. If the economy is shrinking, causing reduced tax receipts, raise taxes to cover the budget. The problem is that this exasperates the market cycle, leading to booms and busts. Cutting taxes while the economy grows causes it to grow faster, leading to a bubble. When the bubble bursts, raising taxes accelerates the decline, leading to a dangerous, downward spiral.

Countercyclical (Keynesian) policy means to run a surplus during times of plenty (seven fat cows), and run a deficit during times of famine (seven skinny cows). In a modern economy that may mean progressive taxes, which dampen growth as incomes rise, but reverses when the economy declines. Unemployment insurance and other safety net programs act as automatic stimuli.

Imagine if the U.S. had put some of the projected surplus into a "lock box" instead of using it for tax cuts. Wouldn't a little cash on hand come in handy now?

Zachriel: Most of those influences have nothing to do with Obama.
But continue to accelerate under his watch.
The dramatic increase in debt is virtually guaranteed to spark hyperinflation, if only through dollar devaluation. The inflation rate, as measured, is manipulated to mask actual inflation. Just because the Feds don't want to give a COLA to Social Security doesn't mean food and fuel prices haven't been rising.
The threatened expiration of the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts is already dragging the economy down. A record number of taxpayers are likely to be hit by AMT for 2010.

Zachriel: There is no inflation. That's one of the problems, by the way. When there is risk of deflation, people won't invest because they can get it cheaper later.
People aren't investing because they have lost confidence that the stock market isn't rigged in favor of rapid computer trading that rewards induced volatility, that earnings reports aren't fraudulent ala Enron, and that the Obama administration can't figure out whether to woo the business community to make jobs or haul them to the guillotine to woo leftist support. And we haven't even touched yet on the topic of Obamacare and its likely economic impact.


If you look at it in terms of percent GDP consumed by government, it has risen dramatically.
Zachriel: Yes, that happens when the GDP collapses.

Actually, GDP has not "collapsed", but government spending has skyrocketed.

2006 GDP = 13398 Spending = 35.00% (actual)
2007 GDP = 14077 Spending = 34.98% (actual)
2008 GDP = 14441 Spending = 36.94% (actual)
2009 GDP = 14258 Spending = 42.32% (est.)
2010 GDP = 14623 Spending = 43.85% (est.)

GDP in billions.

Make that 'risen dramatically since the Obama administration.'

Zachariel: Classically, the policy is to maintain the government in balance.
Classically, whatever that means. But it has never happened in your lifetime, and Mr. Hope and Change is continuing the same failed government expansionist policies of the past 80 years.

Zachariel:Cutting taxes while the economy grows causes it to grow faster, leading to a bubble.
But only because government refuses to stop spending at the same or increased levels.

Private spending (via tax cuts) is inherently better than government spending (deficits). Government spending actually appears to have a fractional velocity. If we've ever had a repudiation of Keynsian economics, it's been the past two years. The problem is SPENDING, not the false choice of tax cuts versus deficits.
Our "democratic republic" has proven itself to be as incapable of saving money (i.e. spending less than it takes in) as a rock star is of passing up a hit of cocaine. Particularly when we have leftist social engineers in power.

A lesson Obama has apparently retained from his youth.


Your basic statement about taxes was, at best, intentionally misleading. The taxpayers are well aware that they are paying more of their money to the Federal government, and that under Obama the trend is getting worse, not better. It appears the Tea Party understands the true situation better than you.

ruralcounsel: But continue to accelerate under his watch.

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The majority of taxpayers are paying no more in taxes, despite the widespread misinformation.

ruralcounsel: The dramatic increase in debt is virtually guaranteed to spark hyperinflation, if only through dollar devaluation.

Yes, there will be long term pressure on rates, especially once the U.S. economy returns to vigor. But again, not relevant to the point.

ruralcounsel: GDP has not "collapsed", but government spending has skyrocketed.

Using unadjusted figures leads to inaccurate results. The U.S. just experienced a deep economic recession, the largest peak-to-trough decline since the period of demobilization after WWII. The asset decline was especially pronounced in the real estate markets where the U.S. lost $10 trillion in wealth. Bank and business failures led to widespread unemployment with the ensuing costs.

ruralcounsel: Hope and Change is continuing the same failed government expansionist policies of the past 80 years.

You may have forgotten, but the economy crashed at the end of the Bush Administration.

ruralcounsel: But only because government refuses to stop spending at the same or increased levels.

The Clinton Administration left a budget surplus, while the Bush Administration left a pile of structural deficits, debt, and an economy in tatters.

ruralcounsel: Private spending (via tax cuts) is inherently better than government spending (deficits).

It depends on the economic circumstances, as explained above. When there is a crisis of confidence in the markets, and people are afraid to invest, then the government can be crucial in creating demand and cushioning people from the worst effects of the retraction. This has to be matched with budget discipline when the economy is expanding.

ruralcounsel: Government spending actually appears to have a fractional velocity. If we've ever had a repudiation of Keynsian economics, it's been the past two years.

Nearly all economists around the world disagree. Without the bailouts and stimulus, the recession would have been far deeper. All developed economies have automatic stimuli and safety nets, as well as regulatory mechanisms to safely dismantle failed institutions.

ruralcounsel: The problem is SPENDING, not the false choice of tax cuts versus deficits.

What do you suggest the government cut?

ruralcounsel: Our "democratic republic" has proven itself to be as incapable of saving money (i.e. spending less than it takes in) as a rock star is of passing up a hit of cocaine.

The Clinton Administration left a structural surplus.

In any case, that wasn't the point raised. Many people base their political positions on misinformation, including that the Obama Administration has raised taxes.

That's okay, in 2012, I intend to vote for the "other" candidate for president.

It has everything to do with the topic at hand if taxpayers are being governmentally divested of their property at accelerating rates during the Obama admin. It is intellectually dishonest to claim he isn't "raising taxes" under these facts.

Cash-for-clunkers, Home Buyers Tax Credit and energy efficiency credits have cost taxpayers $25 billion and done nothing except shift market demand into the present at the expense of the future. Oh, and raise the cost of used cars to the poor.

TARP, 0% interest rates, accounting rules changes, and the purchase of MBS by the Fed Reserve has merely papered over the fact that many of the largest US financial institutions are insolvent. Investers and savers are being wiped out in order to save the imprudent borrowers (including the Federal gov't.).

The imminence of new quantitative easing (QE2) has already increased the price of gold and oil 10%, and the value of the dollar drop 10%.

So you are retreating now from your claim that GDP has "collapsed"? I might accept "stagnated" but not collapsed. But We've had a 53% increase in the national debt in the past 3 years.

When the economy collapses has only a minimal chronological correlation with the underlying policies and circumstances which caused it. It is virtually meaningless that it happened at the end of the Bush admin, when it was founded on virtually 30 years of poor social housing finance policy creating moral hazard(significantly aggravated under Clinton, BTW) and really poor interest rate manipulation by the Fed as it tried to give us a soft landing from the dot-com bubble and created the real estate bubble instead.

Zachariel: The Clinton Administration left a budget surplus, while the Bush Administration left a pile of structural deficits, debt, and an economy in tatters.

A common misperception. Clinton was allowed to count social security taxes as if it were budget revenue, which allowed him to claim he was running a "surplus", when in fact, he was still running deficits. Using social security taxes to buy government IOU's just shifted the form of the debt incurred, but then counting the social security taxes as revenue was just dishonest. There were no surpluses under Clinton. He merely artfully raided the social security trust funds. That "structural surplus" was phony.

Social security and Medicare are a $100 trillion unfunded liability. The government is going to be forced to renegotiate the social safety net guarantees that it so imprudently granted. For everyone.

Your perception of fiscal reality just a little ill informed.

The point is, the tax burden has grown under Obama, whether immediate or deferred into the future, and there is little to show for it. That is a hard cruel fact.

Oh, and while I realize that we've been talking past-tense about increased taxes, let's not forget about the current and future.

To quote Prof. Donald Marron (Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and visiting prof at Georgetown Public Policy Institute) "While politicians, analysts and the media endlessly debate how expiring tax cuts might affect taxpayers in 2011, the real disgace is that we still don't know what the tax law is in 2010."

We're poised on the edge of a 500% increase in the number of Americans who will get hit by the AMT in 2011. In 2010 27 million, an increase of 23 million over 2009.

We don't know if R&E tax credits will exist for 2010. Uncertainty in whether business tax credits will even exist for this year is hardly incentive to invest.

The estate tax is up in the air.

And you can't blame any of that on George Bush. This is Obama's Congress.

rural counsel: It is intellectually dishonest to claim he isn't "raising taxes" under these facts.

It is incorrect to say Obama has raised taxes when 95% of Americans got a tax cut.

rural counsel: Cash-for-clunkers, Home Buyers Tax Credit and energy efficiency credits have cost taxpayers $25 billion and done nothing except shift market demand into the present at the expense of the future.

That's no more a tax increase than Bush's tax cuts are called tax increases, which also pushed debt into the future. Most of the rest of those examples are equally irrelevant to the point.

rural counsel: There were no surpluses under Clinton.

Of course there were, unless you change the definition of surplus, which is the government taking in more than it's spending. The only reason to bring up Clinton is to point out that the fiscal problems facing the U.S. are not insoluble.

rural counsel: Social security and Medicare are a $100 trillion unfunded liability.

Social Security is in fairly good shape, but medical costs are exceeding the cost of inflation and are unsustainable over the long term. Other developed countries manage to provide universal health coverage, maintain healthy populations, and pay half what the U.S. does. So again, the problem is soluble.

rural counsel: The point is, the tax burden has grown under Obama

No, it hasn't. However, they do intend to allow the tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest Americans.

rural counsel: The problem is SPENDING, not the false choice of tax cuts versus deficits.

What do you suggest the government cut?

Zachariel: It is incorrect to say Obama has raised taxes when 95% of Americans got a tax cut

Given nearly 50% of the population pays no income tax anyway, I find this statement to be disengenuous as well as overly vague. Perhaps you are referring to the 2008 stimulus payments or the 2009 recovery rebate credits? Crumbs thrown to the electorate when billions were being shoveled into the financial moral hazard.

Any income or estate/GST or gift rate decreases that have occured on Obama's watch came because of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax "cuts".

If overall tax revenue has dropped, it would only because the average taxpayer income has tanked. Though they do tax unemployment benefits!

Zachariel: That's no more a tax increase than Bush's tax cuts are called tax increases, which also pushed debt into the future.

They are tax increases. Trying to pin a different label on them, or saying Bush did so too, is childish nonsense. And you're delusional if you think none of it is relevant to the question of whether Obama is increasing the tax burden on the population.

rural counsel: There were no surpluses under Clinton.

Zachariel: Of course there were, unless you change the definition of surplus, which is the government taking in more than it's spending. The only reason to bring up Clinton is to point out that the fiscal problems facing the U.S. are not insoluble.

It was Clinton who redefined surplus, by including social security tax payments as if it were for the general funding. Akin to xeroxong money and claiming we're now in the black.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

During Bill Clinton’s presidency, from 1992 to 2000:
- Spending increased by 29.49%.
- Tax revenues increased by 85.58%. (DotCom Bubble days!)

But he still never ran a surplus.


I already indicated where the cuts must come. Social Security and Medicare (and eventually, Obamacare). The 900 pound gorillas in the room. It's inevitable. And a shame, because it really cheats the taxpayers who paid in. Just another fraud brought to you courtesy of Uncle Sam.

Social Security paid out more than it took in this year. Hardly "good shape" for a country with aging demographics.

rural counsel: Given nearly 50% of the population pays no income tax anyway, I find this statement to be disengenuous as well as overly vague.

I find your statement to be disengenuous. Nearly all working people contribute to the payroll tax, with the wealthy paying a smaller percentage than the working poor.

rural counsel: Any income or estate/GST or gift rate decreases that have occured on Obama's watch came because of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax "cuts".

Yes, the expiration of the tax cuts are also due to those tax bills.

rural counsel: If overall tax revenue has dropped, it would only because the average taxpayer income has tanked.

Yes, the recession has severely impacted federal, state and local budgets.

rural counsel: They are tax increases.

Then Bush was one of the biggest tax increasers in history, because he left the debt to the future. But everyone still calls it cutting taxes.

rural counsel: It was Clinton who redefined surplus, by including social security tax payments as if it were for the general funding.

A surplus/deficit is defined in terms of cash flow, and includes Social Security. The government had projected surpluses in the trillions of dollars. That's what the "lock box" discussion was all about in 2000, with Bush counting trillions on his fingers.

rural counsel: My name is Craig Steiner and I live in a suburb of Denver, Colorado.

Congressional Budget Office

rural counsel: I already indicated where the cuts must come. Social Security and Medicare (and eventually, Obamacare).

Most economists agree that medical costs need to be reined in. Again, we know it is possible because other developed nations have had success in this regard.

But to return to the point, Obama has not raised taxes, and the problems of Medicare predate Obama. Indeed, the unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug program instituted by Bush will cost more over the next ten years than the sum of the stimulus, the new health care law and TARP.

There is a great deal of misinformation in the electorate, not just on taxes, but the whole business about death panels and birth certificates, and so on.

"There is a great deal of misinformation in the electorate, not just on taxes, but the whole business about death panels and birth certificates, and so on."

Yeah, chump - and most of it comes from you libtards.

Show me my so-called "tax cut" or STFU.

Darth Venomous: Yeah, chump - and most of it comes from you libtards.

Good argument bound to convince even the most reasonable and knowledgeable of people.

The Making Work Pay Credit reduced the 2009 tax liability by 6.2 percent of earnings, up to a maximum reduction of $400 for singles or $800 for couples. The size of the credit was gradually reduced as incomes rise between $75,000 and $95,000 on single returns, and between $170,000 and $190,000 on joint returns.

95% of working Americans received a tax cut.

"Good argument bound to convince even the most reasonable and knowledgeable of people."

"The most reasonable and knowledgeable of people" have already come to the same conclusion - you're a moron.

"The Making Work Pay Credit reduced the 2009 tax liability by 6.2 percent of earnings, up to a maximum reduction of $400 for singles or $800 for couples. The size of the credit was gradually reduced as incomes rise between $75,000 and $95,000 on single returns, and between $170,000 and $190,000 on joint returns.

95% of working Americans received a tax cut."

You can repeat the meme as much as you want, chump, and it's still a lie. I'm about as "working American" as you can find, there's nothing "5%" special about me, and I never received a tax cut.

That you're parroting B. HUSSEIN!!! Obambi makes you both out to be liars.