Judging by the number of comments on the story, liberals are very offended that I believe Obama is the The Worst of All Possible Presidents. Somehow, I think, I'll learn to live with the guilt. Over time, I might even learn to laugh about it.
Yep: Time's up.
Joanne wrote: Isn't it true that our country seems to be moving more conservative because of the policies of the left, growing government at an alarming rate that escalate the deficits and our unpatriotic president who seems to think he wants to be leader of Euroamerica? - in response to The Worst of All Possible Presidents
Dear Joanne,
Yes. I think the country is moving to the right, quickly as a result of Obama policies that haven’t worked.
In Colorado this past week voters rejected a tax increase proposal; a proposal that liberals typically campaigned on as “for the children.”
The interesting part is not that Proposition 103 went down at the polls but that voters rejected the proposal by 66 percent of the vote.
It doesn’t bode well for liberals, like Obama, who are campaigning on tax increases to tackle everything from unemployment, to the budget deficit, to so-called global warming.
Obama won Colorado by over 8 points in 2008.Democrat Senator Michael Bennet squeaked out a victory –barely- in 2010. If the election were held today though I think both would lose badly whoever the GOP nominee is.
In the Majority wrote: "Growing government" = paying out Social Security and Medicare to the elderly; and, food stamps to the low-income worker and the unemployed (all while the 1 percent sit on their trillions of dollars of cash, blackmailing USA with: cut our taxes, cut EPA or else we'll kill the economy) - in response to The Worst of All Possible Presidents
Dear, err, Majority,
It’s real simple: Government has made promises beyond the capacity to pay.
Despite what you say, income “inequality” remains pretty much the same as it has for the last 15 years, including the years of the hallowed Clinton boom.
More importantly changing tax rates doesn’t change how much income is collected by the government. What affects it the most are recessions:
What we do see indicates that the maximum tax rate has little to no bearing on how much money the federal government collects per household in any given year. Since 1967, the government's RPH to MHI ratio has risen steadily on average, indicating that the U.S. government is collecting more and more money per household over time, with the changing level of the topmost income tax rate having little to no effect on the rate of that change.
With that being the case, there is no legitimate reason to set higher income tax rates today, as they are now demonstrated to have little to no effect on how much money the government collects in any given year. Increasing the top income tax rate in the U.S. is simply not an effective strategy for closing the gap between the government's spending per U.S. household and how much it collects in taxes per U.S. household, making any ongoing effort to do so an utter waste of time that could be put to much better use.
Bottom line is that if you aren’t reading Political Calculations, Peter Schiff, Mike Shedlock or some of our other contributors on Townhall Finance, you really don’t know what you are talking about economically.
Brad wrote: The deficit, government spending and the size of government all grew much, much faster during the first 3 years of the Bush Presidency. So Mr. Townhall Financial Editor do you have a solution for the Greece and Euro crisis? You do realize of course that our financial system is in much better shape the European financial system. - in response to The Worst of All Possible Presidents
Dear Brad,
Then why is your president- Obama- trying to make us just like Europe in terms of expensive social programs that are unsustainable if our financial system is in much better health? Are you really arguing that Obama has contributed to the financial security of the country by spending more and more money?
We now spend about 40 cents on every dollar on a government program. While we have made progress at the state and local level, the federal government is still hogging about 22.5 percent of our GDP. The scariest part is that we now pay the lowest interest rates in history on that debt. If interest rates go up- and they will- we’ll end up with all of the federal tax revenues just going to pay interest on debt that we borrowed and that includes the guarantees to companies just like Solyndra.
XJXJ wrote: Drama Queen Ransom. "Our hopes and dreams dissolved by golf vacations." "Our blood, our toil, our tears and sweat." Oh boy Ransom, looks like you've been watching one too many movies. Here's the deal so get yourself a pair of balls and listen up: Congress refuses to pass any jobs bill that would help Americans earn money, thereby increasing the likelihood of the dissolution of the American Dream. Republicans have acted like total and complete A ssholes - putting politics ahead of Americans and have said no to anything that Obama proposes that would help America. Who do you think you're fooling with your "blood, toils, stolen dreams"? Republicans are the scourge of this nation - in response to The Worst of All Possible Presidents
Dear XJXJ,
And you’re calling me the drama queen?
You got all the money Obama asked for in the first stimulus. If he wanted more, he could have asked for it before he got killed in the mid-terms. His plan didn’t work first time out. Won’t work the second time out either.
The bill isn’t a jobs plan, but a campaign plan. Voters see through it.
And the truth is that Obama is having a hard time getting Democrats on board another mini-stimulus.
The jobs bill isn’t dying because of GOP opposition. It’s dying because Democrats in the House don’t want to go back to competitive districts and explain to voters why they voted yes on it. There is no appetite for spending even if people would trust Obama again to make those spending decisions, which they won’t.
Believe me I have been begging House leadership to get the Dems on record on Obama’s jobs bill. Dems won’t go there.
What they will do is support the suspension of the ridiculous regulatory barriers to job creation, like the MACT standards.
And why? Because it’s a GOP proposal and the GOP has won the lion’s share of the election spoils since 2009.
Very dramatic.
Chris wrote: Funny enough Wisconsin unemployment has gone up as well, starting virtually the moment Scott Walker took office. Walker promised to create 250,000 private sector jobs in his four year term. So far he's just under 13,000. Only another 237,000 to go, just about there. I wonder why the article didn't mention that...... - in response to Gov Scott Walker, Grown-Up, Spanks Occupy Chicago Children
Dear Chris,
I didn’t go there because the unemployment rate in Wisconsin remains well below the national average since the spring when joblessness picked up.
But let’s go there now.
In January when Walker took over unemployment was at 7.4 percent for Wisconsin. Now it’s at 7.8. Hardly a shocker.
By contrast, Illinois has gone from 8.7 percent unemployment in April to 10 percent in September. That’s a significant difference.
What’s really interesting though is that you chose to attack a state that’s asking its public employees to contribute 33 percent more for their own benefits- that amounts to about ten cents on every dollar they are paid- while ignoring a state that’s asking ALL citizens to pay 66 percent more in taxes on all their income, while increasing business taxes by 46 percent- taxes that will be passed along directly to consumers.
Typical liberal. Equality for all, except…
Mac Wrote: Winning seems to be all the really matters...not for our country...heck with our country...but for your party - in response to Gov Scott Walker, Grown-Up, Spanks Occupy Chicago Children
Dear Mac,
We are winning a lot of elections.
Virginia, New Jersey, New York, Colorado. This list goes on an on.
And hey Mac: Get ready to lose even more elections.
Next year is going to be a very bad year to be a liberal.
Dianne wrote: Wisconsin didn't have a deficit when Walker took office. It was created when he gave tax breaks to business, and paid companies to relocate to Wisconsin in an effort to create jobs. His pitch was that the people here wanted jobs so badly that we would be happy to take minimum wage jobs and pay the taxes of the companies who came here. And, since we didn't have enough money to pay for all the breaks he gave to the those companies, he also had to void the contracts that had been made with all of the public workers. So, we have rotten schools, little police or fire protection, and higher taxes, since we have to pay our own taxes, and those company's. - in response to Gov Scott Walker, Grown-Up, Spanks Occupy Chicago Children
Dear Dianne,
Is there some sort of math disability that goes with being a liberal?
Walker didn’t create the budget deficit in Wisconsin. Any tax breaks he gave corporations has been more than offset by income taxes paid by employees. That’s why you give out incentives for companies to move to your state. Duh.
LibsforRomney wrote: I asked a Republican, "who in today's world would qualify as the least when Jesus said, "How you treat the least amongst you, is how you treat me." He said, "the millionares, the billionaires and corporations are treated the least by the US government under Obama." - in response to The Limited Government of Half the Agenda and Double the Price
Dear Libs,
Getting past the fact that you’re the normal troll who always starts out “I asked a Republican….”
First of all, I’m guessing you’re not even a Christian.
Second of all, Jesus didn’t have a philosophy of government. When he spoke about treating the least of us, he was talking about personal responsibility.
Want to know who cares?
Read Who Really Cares.
I dare you, any of you.
Midfielder wrote: Didn't you mean "Hugo" Chavez? Cesar's kind of out of it isn't he? - in response to The Limited Government of Half the Agenda and Double the Price
Dear Midfielder,
No, I meant Cesar, the community organizer. Obama would love to be Hugo, but he doesn’t have the brass tacks.
Anonymous wrote: I suspect you meant Obama-Care when you wrote Romney-Care, as the Beltway refers to DC.- in response to The Limited Government of Half the Agenda and Double the Price
Dear Anonymous,
Nope I meant Romneycare.
Romneycare was a part of the same Beltway mentality that says that if we accept half the Democrats’ agenda, we can call it limited government.
The Gosh Darn Liberal wrote: John must not be very knowledgeable about Wall Street or he is just a bad liar. Harry Reid bought an index fund? Wow! Go to the Motley Fool and they will give you the same advice. Buy a no-load index fund and it will match the market performance.- in response to Broke Green Co. Greases Director Six Figures for Obama Loans
Dear Gosh,
Reid sold specifically a Dow Jones energy index fund. He sold it at the top of the market, right before energy prices tumbled in 2008. That’s not advice that he likely got on Motley Fool. With the proceeds, he bought healthcare stocks –also in an index. Funny thing: Healthcare stocks did remarkably well as Reid helped re-write healthcare laws just months later.
Wow.
WPotier wrote: Where is the media on this transaction. This seem like a criminal act to me. Where is congress? The OWS need to move to Obama door. They are protesting in the wrong place. - in response to Broke Green Co. Greases Director Six Figures for Obama Loans
Dear WPotier,
Congratulations. Yours is the comment of the week.
That’s it for this week.
V/r,
JR
PS- If you friend me on Facebook you get sneak peeks of columns!
PS Part 2- The email function at the top of the page working again. Sorry it took so long. Let the Hate Mail begin!
John Ransom | Create Your Badge
Twitter http://twitter.com/#!/bamransom -See more top stories from Townhall Finance. New Homepage, more content. Be the best informed fiscal conservative.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member