OBAMA: You can put lipstick on a pig . . .

[Episcopus]

The media needs to take thier focus off of Palin and get back to the candidates. I don't think the media is doing it's job.

Sarah Palin is a candidate. An unknown at that. I think the media is doing its job by telling the public about Palin. That said, the media surely could focus on issues instead of Palin's haircut, daughter, glasses or whatever else that doesn't matter. That would give them time to report on Obama, McCain and Biden a bit more.

 

[Justus]

So no one should vote anything other than gun rights?
Bad news people, gun rights aren't even on the radar for most people this election.

You are assuming I am an Obama supporter that I have repeatedly denied.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ard_why_are_we_debating_obama.html#post115992

I'm confused, one of your previous posts states that you would
vote for Obama if his position on gun control wasn't so bad.
Are you voting against Obama because of gun rights?


Quote:"If Obama wasn't so anti-gun I would likely vote for him if for no other reason than McCain is just Bush-lite & we definitely don't need any more of the crap we had with the last eight years of Bushit."

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...t_another_slip_ofthe_tongue-2.html#post111270

 

[finity]

What was the tax rate under Johnson or Carter compared to Reagan? What was the unemployment rate or interest rate under Reagan or GHW Bush compared to any Democrat in the last 40 years? You don't know what you're talking about.

The Misery Index is a number that adds the unemployment rate to the inflation rate.

I can't find the my other post on the subject so here are the numbers again. All these numbers are at the end of the administration.

------------------------Unemp---------Infl-------------Misery Index

Truman (D)------------------------3.03-----------------2.29-----------------------5.32

Eisenhower(R)--------------------5.54-----------------1.46----------------------7.00

Kennedy (D)----------------------5.57-----------------1.20-----------------------6.77

Johnson (D)----------------------3.56------------------4.27-----------------------7.83

Nixon (R)--------------------------4.86------------------6.16----------------------11.02

Ford (R)----------------------------7.70------------------5.75----------------------13.45

Carter (D)--------------------------7.18------------------13.58--------------------20.76

Reagan (R)-------------------------5.49------------------4.08-----------------------9.57

Bush, G.H.W. (R)-----------------7.49------------------3.03---------------------10.52

Clinton(D)--------------------------3.97------------------3.38----------------------7.35

Bush, G.W. (R)---------------------4.61------------------2.85---------------------7.46


Ranking

President--------------Time Period------------Average Misery Index ​

Jimmy Carter-----------1977 - 1980 (4yrs)---------------16.27 ​

Gerald Ford-------------1974 - 1976 (2yrs)---------------15.93 ​

Ronald Reagan--------1981 - 1988 (8yrs)---------------12.19 ​

George H.W. Bush---1989 - 1992 (4 yrs) --------------10.68 ​

Richard Nixon---------1969 - 1973 (4 yrs)----------------9.98 ​

George W. Bush------2001 - 2007 (7 yrs)----------------7.89 ​

Harry Truman----------1948 - 1952 (4yrs)----------------7.87 ​

William J. Clinton-----1993 - 2000 (8 yrs)---------------7.80 ​

John F. Kennedy------1961 - 1962 (2yrs)----------------7.27 ​

Lyndon Johnson------1963 - 1968 (6 yrs)---------------6.78 ​

Dwight Eisenhower---1953 - 1960 (8 yrs)---------------6.26 ​

Tax Rates​

Truman 22.2 – 92 %

Eisenhower 20 – 91%

Kennedy 20 – 91%

Johnson 14- 70%

Nixon 14 – 70%

Ford 14 – 70%

Carter 0 – 70%

Reagan 15 – 28%

Bush I 15 – 31%

Clinton 15 – 39.6%

Bush II 10 – 35%

Johnson was the first to lower taxes on wealthy people since 1948. Reagan lowered taxes on the wealthy but raised taxes on the poor, both substantially.

Interest rate is set by the Fed in response to economic indicators not the President.

So I would say overall people are generally economically better off during a Democratically controlled administration. Now who doesn't know what they are talking about?

 

[finity]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ard_why_are_we_debating_obama.html#post115992

I'm confused, one of your previous posts states that you would
vote for Obama if his position on gun control wasn't so bad.
Are you voting against Obama because of gun rights?


Quote:"If Obama wasn't so anti-gun I would likely vote for him if for no other reason than McCain is just Bush-lite & we definitely don't need any more of the crap we had with the last eight years of Bushit."

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...t_another_slip_ofthe_tongue-2.html#post111270

No where have I stated who I will vote for. The above is just one consideration in my decision making process. I will grant you it is a very important one so, yes, I may possibly end up voting for McCain over his views on gun rights. I just haven't completely made up my mind yet.

I was just saying that to the majority of other people gun rights are not a big issue.

 

[Justus]

I was just saying that to the majority of other people gun rights are not a big issue.

This is a gun forum.
Gun rights are an issue here.
If you want to vote for Obama but can't, I'm sorry.
I guess you'll have a tough choice to make this November.

 

[Bigum1969]

This is a gun forum.
Gun rights are an issue here.
If you're a disgruntled liberal that wants to vote for Obama but can't, I'm sorry.
I guess you'll have a tough choice to make this November.

The more disgruntled liberals the better!

 

[CarmelHP]

Interest rate is set by the Fed in response to economic indicators not the President.

So I would say overall people are generally economically better off during a Democratically controlled administration. Now who doesn't know what they are talking about?

You. Who controlled Congress when Ford was President, who controls Congress at the end of GW Bush's administration, who controlled Congress at the end of Clinton's administration? Maybe you think the President rules as a king or the Fed operates in a vacuum, but Congress is the only branch that has the power to initiate changes to the tax code and approve spending. Who controlled Congress during the Reagan years by a very slim margin? During Reagan's second term, when the control of Congress was at it's slimmest margins, the share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

The evidence is that if you have a very Democrat Congress you do worse regardless of the President. If you have a very Democrat Congress and a very liberal Democrat President, like under Carter, it's especially bad.

 

[Hoosier8]

The evidence is that if you have a very Democrat Congress you do worse regardless of the President. If you have a very Democrat Congress and a very liberal Democrat President, like under Carter, it's especially bad.

You mean like now? After all, Bush is considered surprisingly liberal in some quarters. Good point CarmelHP.

Hey finity, statistics only show correlation, not causality. The president proposes, the congress disposes.

 

[BloodEclipse]

You. Who controlled Congress when Ford was President, who controls Congress at the end of GW Bush's administration, who controlled Congress at the end of Clinton's administration? Maybe you think the President rules as a king or the Fed operates in a vacuum, but Congress is the only branch that has the power to initiate changes to the tax code and approve spending. Who controlled Congress during the Reagan years by a very slim margin? During Reagan's second term, when the control of Congress was at it's slimmest margins, the share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

The evidence is that if you have a very Democrat Congress you do worse regardless of the President. If you have a very Democrat Congress and a very liberal Democrat President, like under Carter, it's especially bad.

THE TAXPAYING MINORITY

The U.S. income tax system is so bad and increasingly reliant on a shrinking number of Americans to pay the nation's bills, that 40 percent of the country's households pay no income taxes at all, says Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary, and president of Ari Fleischer Communications.


Our tax system comes up short in a lot of areas; however, the one place where it does excel is at redistributing income, says Fleischer:

• According to a recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), those who make more than $43,200 (the top 40 percent) pay 99.1 percent of all income taxes.
• Those who made more than $87,300 in 2004, the top 10 percent, paid 70.8 percent of all income taxes.
• In other words, 10 percent pay 7 out of every 10 dollars and their share of the burden is rising.

And those super-rich one percenters? Their share of the nation's income has risen, but their tax burden has risen even faster:

• In 1979, affluent individuals made 9.3 percent of the nation's income and they paid 18.3 percent of the country's income tax.
• In 2004, they made 16.3 percent of the nation's income but their share of the income tax burden leaped to 36.7 percent.
• As for the middle class they make 13.9 percent of the nation's income and their share of the nation's income tax dropped to 4.7 percent.
• In 1979, they made 15.8 percent of the nation's income and paid 10.7 percent of the nation's income tax.

Instead of raising taxes and punishing the successful by making them pay even more, says Fleischer, it's time to junk the current system and start anew with a code that fosters economic growth for all, not increased redistribution of income for some.
Source: Ari Fleischer, "The Taxpaying Minority," Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2007.


I know that many of those who pay NO income tax actually get checks back for money they never even paid into. So not only do they not share in the income tax, they make money on the deal. Those of us who have our money stolen by the IRS and then redistributed to people who didn't even pay in, is not a fair system. When 40% of the Country pays no income taxes there is a real problem.

 

[finity]

You. Who controlled Congress when Ford was President, who controls Congress at the end of GW Bush's administration, who controlled Congress at the end of Clinton's administration? Maybe you think the President rules as a king or the Fed operates in a vacuum, but Congress is the only branch that has the power to initiate changes to the tax code and approve spending. Who controlled Congress during the Reagan years by a very slim margin? During Reagan's second term, when the control of Congress was at it's slimmest margins, the share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

The evidence is that if you have a very Democrat Congress you do worse regardless of the President. If you have a very Democrat Congress and a very liberal Democrat President, like under Carter, it's especially bad.

If the president isn't that important then why all the fuss about which one is elected?

Unless I'm mistaken the Democrats had controlled congress for 60 years untill 1994. So If you have a Democratically controlled congress & inflation/unemployment is low (Johnson) & you have a Democratically controlled congress & inflation/unemployment is high (Nixon) what is the variable?

I didn't say the president is th only cause, however you can't just pin it on "the cycle" or coincidence.

Carter was given the bad unemployment rate from Ford, he wasn't able to fix it. Inflation was super high due to the oil crisis. I'm not saying Carter wasn't at some fault but sometimes (sometimes) things happen you can't control.

 

[finity]

You mean like now? After all, Bush is considered surprisingly liberal in some quarters. Good point CarmelHP.

Hey finity, statistics only show correlation, not causality. The president proposes, the congress disposes.

So now Bush is a liberal (some say )? OMG!

Then I guess the rest of the Republican Congress was liberal then too? As was stated the President only proposes. The national debt is the largest in history right now. It was that way before the Democrats took control of Congress.

It's not fair to debate a topic then change the definitions & rules halfway through so that your right no matter what.

 

[Hoosier8]

It's not fair to debate a topic then change the definitions & rules halfway through so that your right no matter what.

Sorry but I didn't change my definition, maybe yours. I will always argue that the President has very little to do with the economy. I also believe the Congress has very little to do with it, just that if you are going to argue the Prez is responsible then you can argue, with the same intensity, that the Congress is responsible. The most they can affect it is with tax code (now 9 million words long) and that usually negatively with more taxes and positively with less taxes. I will argue that the $ are best left in the hands of the people who actually decide what to buy; thereby, influencing the economy. I am always surprised how many people think that their own money they can no longer use is better off in the hands of some bureaucrat making arbitrary decisions for them.

And yes, GWB is considered very liberal in spending and social programs such as the drug giveaway. An overriding principle of conservatism is to limit the role and influence of the federal government. Bush has extended the Dept of Educations reach in ways no democrat ever imagined. He has had the most diverse cabinet ever where the liberals make claim to all things in diversity. Even his stated reasons for going to war were not conservative ideals; that is, to rid the world of a bad guy.

One of the tactics that I run into often with my Liberal friends is that they start making accusations, instead of arguing the points, to deflect the fact that the argument is no longer tenable for them. So, sorry to stick to my guns on this one, but I am not changing the argument to always be right, I am sticking to my argument to contrast yours.

 

[BloodEclipse]

If the president isn't that important then why all the fuss about which one is elected?

Unless I'm mistaken the Democrats had controlled congress for 60 years untill 1994. So If you have a Democratically controlled congress & inflation/unemployment is low (Johnson) & you have a Democratically controlled congress & inflation/unemployment is high (Nixon) what is the variable?

I didn't say the president is th only cause, however you can't just pin it on "the cycle" or coincidence.

Carter was given the bad unemployment rate from Ford, he wasn't able to fix it. Inflation was super high due to the oil crisis. I'm not saying Carter wasn't at some fault but sometimes (sometimes) things happen you can't control.

Unemployment was low because we were at war.
World War II 1941-1945
Korean war 1950-1953
Vietnam war 1965-1973

The oil crisis could have been resolved much sooner, but it was Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party that failed to act.
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Carter's Oil Crisis

You also neglect to mention the advent of welfare. It is easier to be unemployed now then it was 60 years ago.
Add to that a policy of excessive legal and illegal immigration and it would be easy to see why in times of peace unemployment rises.

So I would say overall people are generally economically better off during a Democratically controlled administration. Now who doesn't know what they are talking about?

While this quote is dripping with arrogance if you read the charts you see it took Reagan less than 3 years to correct what Carter caused in 4 years.
Clinton sailed through on the previous tax cuts and was held for the most part in check by a Republican Congress.

http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbyyear.asp

Your misery Index also leaves out some important data such as tax rates.
While you included them they are wrong. I posted before that 40% of Americans pay no income taxes. Yet your chart doesn't reflect that. The lowest bracket may reflect 10% but reality shows that some of these people have a negative tax bracket. They get money back they never paid in.

 

[Bill of Rights]

One point that's been little mentioned here is that while the President can propose this or that and the Congress can change the tax code or increase or decrease appropriations for one or another project, the Federal Reserve, a private banking conglomerate, sets those interest rates and influences policy much more than either of the other two.

Why is such a hoopla made over who is elected to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? Because that person is the executive of the largest (arguably) free nation in the world. This person is inappropriately given credit or blame much as a sports team's coach is credited or blamed for the actions or inactions of the team. Why? He didn't miss the field goal or catch the final out of the inning, and he didn't shoot the winning free throw, but a losing season is blamed on the coach.

The greater concern in a presidential election should be on the candidates' plan to execute the laws of the country. As the head of the Executive branch, that is his or her job, not to manage the economy. In a free society, that is the job of the market, not the government.

Blessings,
B

 

[Hoosier8]

Hear Hear, B of R!

 

[CarmelHP]

If the president isn't that important then why all the fuss about which one is elected?

Perhaps you don't know how this country operates, but the President nominatess judicial officers, directs foreign and military policy, and has veto power. He's not there just to send you a check each month.

 

[Steelman]

One point that's been little mentioned here is that while the President can propose this or that and the Congress can change the tax code or increase or decrease appropriations for one or another project, the Federal Reserve, a private banking conglomerate, sets those interest rates and influences policy much more than either of the other two.

Why is such a hoopla made over who is elected to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? Because that person is the executive of the largest (arguably) free nation in the world. This person is inappropriately given credit or blame much as a sports team's coach is credited or blamed for the actions or inactions of the team. Why? He didn't miss the field goal or catch the final out of the inning, and he didn't shoot the winning free throw, but a losing season is blamed on the coach.

The greater concern in a presidential election should be on the candidates' plan to execute the laws of the country. As the head of the Executive branch, that is his or her job, not to manage the economy. In a free society, that is the job of the market, not the government.

Blessings,
B

The POTUS appoints the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Most politicians follow the long standing policy of appointing those that will fall in-line with the interests of their political agenda. So, by proxy, the POTUS has an over-shadowing influence over the Fed.

The next President will appoint a new Chr of the Fed. Bernanke's term ends in 2010.

Why we have a private bank profiting off the printing of our currency is beyond me.

I've not heard ANY ideas from these two candidates that would benefit our economy.

Obama likes change and will spend most of our $change$ on social programs that should be handled by private charities.

McCain supports the failed "trickle down" tax cuts (depending on which interview he is giving) and will most definitely bankrupt this country in his support for the never-ending war in Iraq.

The better part of this thread is way off topic.

 

[CarmelHP]

McCain supports the failed "trickle down" tax cuts (depending on which interview he is giving) and will most definitely bankrupt this country in his support for the never-ending war in Iraq.

Iraq will end because Iraq wants it to end, it's their country and their war now. Obama is on record as wanting us to lift the entire continent of Africa out of poverty and solving their problems. I could clean out hell with a garden hose cheaper and easier than anyone could accomplish that. As far as bankruptcy, Obama is definitely suggesting we take the fast track.

Why we have a private bank profiting off the printing of our currency is beyond me.

This is a question for Joe Biden, Mr. MBNA. Loaning to banks at 3% or under and they loan it out at 30%. Talk about bankrupting the country!

 

[Steelman]

Iraq will end because Iraq wants it to end, it's their country and their war now.

I hope to God that this statement does not imply that you support the war. I fear that it does.

This is a question for Joe Biden, Mr. MBNA. Loaning to banks at 3% or under and they loan it out at 30%. Talk about bankrupting the country!

No, that is a question for Woodrow Wilson and his Congress who enacted the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.

Obama is on record as wanting us to lift the entire continent of Africa out of poverty and solving their problems.

Ya know what? Eff Africa's couch and their current economic/political conditions.

For the amount of money we spend in foreign aid we fail to see a return on our investment.

We have spent 600 billion in Iraq to rebuild the country we destroyed. We give 2.76 billion in aid/weapons to Israel annually.

Muslims and Jews have been fighting since Moses wore short pants. Why are we involved???

 

[Bill of Rights]

The next President will appoint a new Chr of the Fed. Bernanke's term ends in 2010.

I had forgotten that the President appoints the head of the Federal Reserve, so thanks for the reminder.

As to the above quote, the next President may appoint a new chairman of the fed. How long was Greenspan in charge? If it's Obama, he certainly will, but if McCain, we don't know.

I still want to see a strict Constitutionalist in the Oval Office, along with one at the Naval Observatory, a majority of them in the Capitol, and nine of them at the NW corner of 1st and Capitol Sts.

The likelihood may be slim, but it's a goal.

Blessings,
B