# President Barack Obama's approval rating is below George W. Bush



## min0 lee (Dec 7, 2010)

> This one's gotta hurt. President Obama's approval rating has dipped below, gulp, George W. Bush.
> 
> The ex-President's approval rating rose to 47% in recent weeks according to a Gallup poll released Monday, which is one point higher than Obama's rating in a survey also taken this week.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## irish_2003 (Dec 7, 2010)

i never ever doubted for a second that Barry Hussein would be rated the worst president ever.......he is very good at getting individuals together in the ghetto in the projects and getting more free shit from taxpayers and hardworker americans though


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 7, 2010)

He'll be a one termer fo sho.  He's Jimmy Carter Jr.  If he runs to the center, like Bill, he might have a chance.  But, I don't see that happening.  His liberal base would be irate.


----------



## LAM (Dec 7, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> He'll be a one termer fo sho.  He's Jimmy Carter Jr.  If he runs to the center, like Bill, he might have a chance.  But, I don't see that happening.  His liberal base would be irate.



not if Palin runs and wins the GOP nomination...the more she talks the less any people want here anywhere near another political office.  only the far right likes to elect idiots to office.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 7, 2010)

She won't get it.  But, IDK about only far right electing idiots.  If that's the case, explain why Pelosi is back in as house minority leader.


----------



## LAM (Dec 7, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> She won't get it.  But, IDK about only far right electing idiots.  If that's the case, explain why Pelosi is back in as house minority leader.



would have been nice if GWB had left the next POTUS some actual money to work with but that has always been the trend.  GOP POTUS run up great deficits then the DEM POUTS have to come in and try to clean up the mess.  we would be the exact same economic situation if not worst if McCain and the retard had won. the fact that GWB created the least amount of jobs of any pres since WWII certainly hasn't helped out the employment situation.  Obama didn't have a chance as the grand old pussies stated when he won they were going to do whatever it takes to see him fail, apparently that means screwing the average american for the sake of politics.


----------



## lnvanry (Dec 7, 2010)

LAM said:


> would have been nice if GWB had left the next POTUS some actual money to work with but that has always been the trend.  GOP POTUS run up great deficits then the DEM POUTS have to come in and try to clean up the mess.  we would be the exact same economic situation if not worst if McCain and the retard had won. the fact that GWB created the least amount of jobs of any pres since WWII certainly hasn't helped out the employment situation.  Obama didn't have a chance as the grand old pussies stated when he won they were going to do whatever it takes to see him fail, apparently that means screwing the average american for the sake of politics.



Its not a GOP trend...its a modern president trend.  Clinton was the outlier








I'm not blindly defending the GOP, but you come off as so jaded against the GOP that you blindly endorse the "other option"....which really isn't much different at when it comes to the two biggest issues: monetary policy and foreign policy.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 8, 2010)

Once again, sounds like two wrongs somehow make a right.  If Bush let spending get out of control, somehow that makes it a good thing when Obama takes it to an unprecedented level.  If he's trying to clean anything up, why is he not doing the opposite of what was done in the last admin?  Why is unemployment still rising two years into this admin?  Obama doesn't seem like he needs anyone's help as far as failing.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 8, 2010)

*Extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy seals the raw deal for taxpayers*

So basically they would OK if the rich also got a tax break which they don't need....wow.
Nice to know the GOP's priority but then again if they don't give the pampered breaks then they won't get the votes and gifts the rich give out.



> Throw down some beats, please. Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner must be ready to shimmy after President Obama's compromise to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
> 
> Call it the tax-break dance. And set it to a James Brown soundtrack:
> 
> ...



Read more: Extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy seals the raw deal for taxpayers


----------



## bio-chem (Dec 8, 2010)

I hate the idea that because people have money that means that they should be taxed for it. the thought that the poor are somehow entitled to the riches money through taxation and government entitlements is so bassackwards stupid fucking thinking that it makes me sick. anyone want to tell me what percentage of taxes the richest 1% of americans pay as a percentage of the whole? The 200k and up club pay their "fair share", and the "fair share" of a lot of other people too. I'm realistic to understand that that is the only way the system is going to work. But demonizing the rich for being wealthy is such a load of shit.


----------



## irish_2003 (Dec 8, 2010)

if i was in the "rich" bracket and taxed more, i definitely would look into moving my businesses overseas.....americans have been spoiled with "funny money" for the last 40 years....now it's time to cut spending/borrowing and pay up......wah wah wah dems.....america IS NOT A HOUSING PROJECT.......but we are a WELFARE NATION unfortunately


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 8, 2010)

There's not a single economist who'd claim that raising taxes in the midst of the worst economic downturn in 75 years is healthy.  Those evil rich are the very people that pay the majority of all Fed income tax and create the jobs.  If the govt takes (and squanders, as it would) more cash out of circulation, it will stifle growth.  Businesses particularly small to midsized ones, drive the economy.   Therefore, if it's bad for business, it's bad for all of us; regardless  of how much some on the left hate business.  

It seems many folks on the left couldn't care less what this tax increase would have had on the economy, but were more anxious to sock it to the wealthy.  It's not like any of the additional revenue would've been used to pay off debt or shut off the deficit.  Your taxes aren't going either, so quit moaning about what someone else is paying.  It's NOYFB.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 8, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> I hate the idea that because people have money that means that they should be taxed for it. the thought that the poor are somehow entitled to the riches money through taxation and government entitlements is so bassackwards stupid fucking thinking that it makes me sick. anyone want to tell me what percentage of taxes the richest 1% of americans pay as a percentage of the whole? The 200k and up club pay their "fair share", and the "fair share" of a lot of other people too. I'm realistic to understand that that is the only way the system is going to work. But demonizing the rich for being wealthy is such a load of shit.





irish_2003 said:


> if i was in the "rich" bracket and taxed more, i definitely would look into moving my businesses overseas.....americans have been spoiled with "funny money" for the last 40 years....now it's time to cut spending/borrowing and pay up......wah wah wah dems.....america IS NOT A HOUSING PROJECT.......but we are a WELFARE NATION unfortunately


Who is talking about more taxes for the rich which I am sure neither of the two are, my opinion is that they don't need this tax break now....I am pretty sure they are not starving.

This was actually a decent year for us money wise, we almost made 200k and we are about to buy a house.......in NYC, where the taxes are one of the highest.
Trust me, I don't hate on the rich....I don't think they need it as bad as some of the middle class.

Irish, that's a part of the reason we are hurting. Those bastards already sent middle and low class jobs overseas.


----------



## juggernaut (Dec 8, 2010)

I used to have a network admin job that was done in NJ. The fucking economy went to shit right after 911 and then my job was handed over to a jerkoff that cant say America and lives a third world country because it's cheaper to pay him.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 8, 2010)

You guys do know that they have their own interests at hand, these guys are only looking out for themselves.....not you Bio nor Irish. Open your eyes. 


*How the White House cut its deal and lost its base
By Ezra Klein*



> If you look at the numbers alone, the tax cut deal looks to have robbed Republicans blind. The GOP got around $95 billion in tax cuts for wealthy Americans and $30 billion in estate tax cuts. Democrats got $120 billion in payroll-tax cuts, $40 billion in refundable tax credits (Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and education tax credits), $56 billion in unemployment insurance, and, depending on how you count it, about $180 billion (two-year cost) or $30 billion (10-year cost) in new tax incentives for businesses to invest.
> 
> But that's not how it's being understood. Republicans are treating it as a victory, and liberals as a defeat. Which raises two separate questions: Why did Republicans give Obama so much? And why aren't Democrats happier about it?
> 
> ...


Photo credit: J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press


----------



## maniclion (Dec 8, 2010)

irish_2003 said:


> if i was in the "rich" bracket and taxed more, i definitely would look into moving my businesses overseas.....americans have been spoiled with "funny money" for the last 40 years....now it's time to cut spending/borrowing and pay up......wah wah wah dems.....america IS NOT A HOUSING PROJECT.......but we are a WELFARE NATION unfortunately


Maybe that's what we need to do, drive the rest of the disloyal businesses to other countries, rather than wait around for them to slowly move and outsource and start fresh with businesses who remain loyal to the country, give them all the incentives and tax breaks and rebuild our economy on a solid foundation......

  Businesses who won't bail on us through outsourcing and using cheap(not inexpensive actually CHEAP) parts from China and want to see the nation rise again by manufacturing quality well built American goods are what this country needs to build upon...The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is one step in that right direction, I have seen so many solar manufacturers building new plants all over these United States....SMA in Colorado, Kyocera in Cali., SolarWorld in Cali and Oregon(largest PV plant in the nation) and many more....Any company who would bail on us because they have to pay more taxes doesn't deserve shit from us.....I would think conservatives would be vehement (thats an odd word to say while stoned) about companies not being loyal to the country where they were allowed to grow....


----------



## LAM (Dec 8, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> There's not a single economist who'd claim that raising taxes in the midst of the worst economic downturn in 75 years is healthy.  Those evil rich are the very people that pay the majority of all Fed income tax and create the jobs.  If the govt takes (and squanders, as it would) more cash out of circulation, it will stifle growth.  Businesses particularly small to midsized ones, drive the economy.   Therefore, if it's bad for business, it's bad for all of us; regardless  of how much some on the left hate business.
> 
> It seems many folks on the left couldn't care less what this tax increase would have had on the economy, but were more anxious to sock it to the wealthy.  It's not like any of the additional revenue would've been used to pay off debt or shut off the deficit.  Your taxes aren't going either, so quit moaning about what someone else is paying.  It's NOYFB.



it's not a tax raise, simply restoring the tax rate to pre-Bush levels.  Bush claimed they would stimulate R&D and create jobs of which they did neither in 8 years, only added billions to the budget deficit.  

tax cuts for the rich don't stimulate the economy only a fool would believe that bs.  they simply have more monies to save and invest more, they already have plenty of extra money to spend.


----------



## LAM (Dec 8, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> If Bush let spending get out of control, somehow that makes it a good thing when Obama takes it to an unprecedented level.



where is the data to support this statement?  what exactly did he spend the money on?  what pieces of legislation were passed which caused an increase to the budget deficit?

98% of the deficit is carry over from 8 years of GWB.

National Debt Increased by 81% under Bush:

2001 - $5.871 trillion
2008 - $10.640 trillion

National Debt Increased 24% Under Obama:

Jan 31st 2009 = $10.569-Tr*illion
June 30st 2010 = $13.149-Tr*illion

But of the $2.6-trill*ion increase, 98% was carry over from Bush programs:

Bush: $607-billi*on = Interest on Debt 2009/2010
Bush: $240-billi*on = Iraq War Spending 2009/2010
Bush: $319-billi*on = TARP/Bailo*ut Balance from 2008 (as of May 2010)
Bush: $419-billi*on = Bush Recession Caused Drop in taxes
Bush: $127-billi*on = Bush Medicare Drug Program 2009/2010
Bush: $141-billi*on = Bush Meicare Part-D 2009/2010
Bush: $514-billi*on = Bush Tax Cuts 2009/2010

Bush's contributi*ons:

2001 to 2008: $4.769-tri*llion
2009 to 2010: $2.367-tri*llion
Total: $7.136-tri*llion

Obama only contributi*on: $580-billi*on = Stimulus Spending (as of May 2010).

$1.24 trillion in cash sitting in U.S. companies??? coffers.
Payrolls at non-financ*ial companies dropped 3.75 percent in 2009.
Unemployme*nt reached a 26-year high of 10.1 percent in October.
General Electric Co. last month raised its quarterly dividend by 20 percent.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 8, 2010)

LAM said:


> tax cuts for the rich don't stimulate the economy only a fool would believe that bs.  they simply have more monies to save and invest more, they already have plenty of extra money to spend.



This.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 8, 2010)

> But of the $2.6-trill*ion increase, 98% was carry over from Bush programs:
> 
> Bush: $607-billi*on = Interest on Debt 2009/2010
> Bush: $240-billi*on = Iraq War Spending 2009/2010
> ...



Let's take a more honest look at these #s.  What issue of the NY Times did you pulls these from?  Just curious.

Anyhoo, there's no date noted on the *$419B* of lost revenue due to the "Bush Recession."  If it was 2009/2010, then this begs the question of when does this become Obama's economy.  He's been pres for two years and for two years, he's used the same lame excuse.  He just can't blame Bush for the next 2 years of his presidency.  
The *$514B *"spent" on Bush's tax cuts was not spent $.  It was money the govt did not collect.  It was not new spending.  



> Obama only contributi*on: $580-billi*on = Stimulus Spending (as of May 2010).
> 
> $1.24 trillion in cash sitting in U.S. companies??? coffers.
> Payrolls at non-financ*ial companies dropped 3.75 percent in 2009.
> ...



The stimuls plan was $787B, not $580.  Even though not all has been spent, it has already been allocated, just like the $26B jobs bill and the $1trillion+ healthcare reform.  Why no mention of this?


----------



## LAM (Dec 8, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> If it was 2009/2010, then this begs the question of when does this become Obama's economy.  He's been pres for two years and for two years, he's used the same lame excuse.  He just can't blame Bush for the next 2 years of his presidency.



one would have to look at the legislation passed under his administration and when the effects of that legislation are real.

* looks like American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is the first piece which effected the budget

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. S.J.RES.3 : A joint resolution ensuring that the compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of the Interior are those which were in effect on January 1, 2005.

2. S.181 : A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.

3. H.R.2 : To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

4. S.352 : A bill to postpone the DTV transition date.

5. H.R.1 : Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

6. H.J.RES.38 : Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes.

7. S.234 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2105 East Cook Street in Springfield, Illinois, as the "Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building".

8. H.R.1105 : Making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

9. H.R.1127 : To extend certain immigration programs.

10. H.R.1541 : To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.

11. H.R.146 : An act to designate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes.

12. H.R.1512 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes.

13. H.R.1388 : A bill entitled "The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws."

14. S.520 : A bill to designate the United States courthouse under construction at 327 South Church Street, Rockford, Illinois, as the "Stanley J. Roszkowski United States Courthouse".

15. S.383 : A bill to amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (division A of Public Law 110-343) to provide the Special Inspector General with additional authorities and responsibilities, and for other purposes.

16. H.R.1626 : To make technical amendments to laws containing time periods affecting judicial proceedings.

17. S.J.RES.8 : A joint resolution providing for the appointment of David M. Rubenstein as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

18. S.39 : A bill to repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the "Bennett Freeze".

19. H.R.586 : To direct the Librarian of Congress and the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to carry out a joint project at the Library of Congress and the National Museum of African American History and Culture to collect video and audio recordings of personal histories and testimonials of individuals who participated in the Civil Rights movement, and for other purposes.

20. S.735 : A bill to ensure States receive adoption incentive payments for fiscal year 2008 in accordance with the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008.

21. S.386 : An Act to improve enforcement of mortgage fraud, securities and commodities fraud, financial institution fraud, and other frauds related to Federal assistance and relief programs, for the recovery of funds lost to these frauds, and for other purposes.

22. S.896 : A bill to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability.

23. S.454 : A bill to improve the organization and procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapon systems, and for other purposes.

24. H.R.627 : To amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes.

25. H.R.131 : To establish the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission.

26. H.R.663 : To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12877 Broad Street in Sparta, Georgia, as the "Yv
Source(s):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d111:./list/bd/d111pl.lst:1[1-32]%28Public_Laws%29|TOM:/bss/d111query.html|


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 8, 2010)

LAM said:


> one would have to look at the legislation passed under his administration and when the effects of that legislation are real.
> 
> * looks like American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is the first piece which effected the budget
> 
> ...



Why do you even bother, no matter how compelling the evidence, even if it were irrefutable, he would still question it and provide no evidence of why he disagrees.  It's GOP 101.


----------



## lnvanry (Dec 8, 2010)

LAM said:


> where is the data to support this statement?  what exactly did he spend the money on?  what pieces of legislation were passed which caused an increase to the budget deficit?
> 
> 98% of the deficit is carry over from 8 years of GWB.
> 
> ...



So Obama raised the debt almost as much as Bush (about 60% in gross $) and he did it in only 1 yr instead of eight...I"m sure you can extrapolate where the final data point ends


----------



## lnvanry (Dec 8, 2010)

LAM said:


> it's not a tax raise, simply restoring the tax rate to pre-Bush levels.  Bush claimed they would stimulate R&D and create jobs of which they did neither in 8 years, only added billions to the budget deficit.
> 
> tax cuts for the rich don't stimulate the economy only a fool would believe that bs.  they simply have more monies to save and invest more, they already have plenty of extra money to spend.





The dollars are most stimulative when they are spent...not when they are saved or invested.  

One other thing...I always hear about how the rich create the jobs...I don't know one rich or wealth person that has "created jobs".  The bulk of our economy is employed by small to medium sized business.  Small and medium sized businesses are owned by a plethora of Americans all across the tax bracket spectrum.  Surely people who have larger incomes are in a better position to take risk and hire people, but that doesn't mean they do


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 8, 2010)

lnvanry said:


> The dollars are most stimulative when they are spent...not when they are saved or invested.
> 
> One other thing...I always hear about how the rich create the jobs...I don't know one rich or wealth person that has "created jobs".  The bulk of our economy is employed by small to medium sized business.  Small and medium sized businesses are owned by a plethora of Americans all across the tax bracket spectrum.  Surely people who have larger incomes are in a better position to take risk and hire people, but that doesn't mean they do



This is true.


----------



## LAM (Dec 8, 2010)

lnvanry said:


> The dollars are most stimulative when they are spent...not when they are saved or invested.



small companies don't generate revenues high enough to give wage increases and barely yearly cost of living increases so spending monies on R&D is laughable at best.  only large companies have the budgets for R&D.  I was doing R&D in WAN technologies  during the 90's-2000 and worked for CMP Media, Agilent, Cisco and Intel.  they threw millions at us engineers for our budgets for whatever we needed, but they are all billion dollar companies.  when I left Silicon Valley the budget at small companies for R&D was $0.  small companies can neither afford the monies for supplies, materials let alone the additional cost in payroll for employees that do not actually general revenue.

the US economy will never recover until those make modest wages, and or are on the lower quintiles of the middle income have more disposable income.  nobody spends money like the poor, it goes as fast as it's gotten.  an economic recovery from the top down has got to be the most retarded solution ever conceived.  

how exactly does putting more money into the pockets of the wealthy contribute to tax revenues needed by state and local governments?  how will they ever get out of the red?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Dec 8, 2010)

> his one's gotta hurt. President Obama's approval rating has dipped below, gulp, George W. Bush.



Obama has been a disappointment to me, but as for poll numbers, I think any President would have bad poll numbers because of the high unemployment, and and bad economy.

That said, Obama has these low numbers also, because of his spending.

Independents are not warm on him.

What do these poll numbers mean?  Nothing, right now.

In 23 months....they may mean something.

23 months is a political lifetime in politics, however.


----------



## DEATH MATCH (Dec 9, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> She won't get it. But, IDK about only far right electing idiots. If that's the case, explain why Pelosi is back in as house minority leader.


 

because she can have the job and no one who had any type of power in the house was able to beat her per democrats. But that position doesnt mean shit anymore. Let her stay so she can keep screwing up things like she and barry have been and it just lets the amercian people know how awful she is which they already know.


----------



## DEATH MATCH (Dec 9, 2010)

LAM said:


> small companies don't generate revenues high enough to give wage increases and barely yearly cost of living increases so spending monies on R&D is laughable at best. only large companies have the budgets for R&D. I was doing R&D in WAN technologies during the 90's-2000 and worked for CMP Media, Agilent, Cisco and Intel. they threw millions at us engineers for our budgets for whatever we needed, but they are all billion dollar companies. when I left Silicon Valley the budget at small companies for R&D was $0. small companies can neither afford the monies for supplies, materials let alone the additional cost in payroll for employees that do not actually general revenue.
> 
> the US economy will never recover until those make modest wages, and or are on the lower quintiles of the middle income have more disposable income. nobody spends money like the poor, it goes as fast as it's gotten. an economic recovery from the top down has got to be the most retarded solution ever conceived.
> 
> how exactly does putting more money into the pockets of the wealthy contribute to tax revenues needed by state and local governments? how will they ever get out of the red?


 

Do you know when you post shit like this it makes you look so uneducated about politics,are you truly letting everyone here know that by saying  "how exactly does putting more money into the pockets of the wealthy contribute to tax revenues needed by state and local governments? how will they ever get out of the red?"  Really are you friggin serious because your libersalism has just diseased your brain to where you really dont have a real clue about this country or how its run.And by saying

small companies don't generate revenues high enough to give wage increases and barely yearly cost of living increases 

What planet are you from because you are wacked man. I dont ever go off on people but you truly or gone when it comes to politics or how its run. This is a perfect example of LIBERALISM FAR LEFT SHIT MAN and its best with you. 



Hey genius the US economy never will recover until taxes stay low and small business start hiring again. You are brain dead and seriouslt stop embarassing your self with the crap


----------



## juggernaut (Dec 9, 2010)

Obama may not be the greatest president we ever had, but I give th guy credit for taking a shitty job after the bullshit effort the last jerkoff we had did to the country. 
IMO, he's not another Carter; just a guy who got stuck with a big barrel of shit left over from the previous administration. Do I think he's doing all he can? No, but he's got a lot of opposition.


----------



## LAM (Dec 9, 2010)

DEATH MATCH said:


> Do you know when you post shit like this it makes you look so uneducated about politics,are you truly letting everyone here know that by saying  "how exactly does putting more money into the pockets of the wealthy contribute to tax revenues needed by state and local governments? how will they ever get out of the red?"  Really are you friggin serious because your libersalism has just diseased your brain to where you really dont have a real clue about this country or how its run.And by saying
> 
> small companies don't generate revenues high enough to give wage increases and barely yearly cost of living increases
> 
> ...



this is all you got?


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 9, 2010)

lnvanry said:


> The dollars are most stimulative when they are spent...not when they are saved or invested.
> 
> One other thing...I always hear about how the rich create the jobs...I don't know one rich or wealth person that has "created jobs".  The bulk of our economy is employed by small to medium sized business.  Small and medium sized businesses are owned by a plethora of Americans all across the tax bracket spectrum.  Surely people who have larger incomes are in a better position to take risk and hire people, but that doesn't mean they do



The majority of businesses in the US are small businesses. They are not owned by working class people.  These small to midsized business employ working class and middle class people and are owned by people in various tax brackets, many of which are in that $250k+ or "rich" category.  They are the ones who do create jobs.  Can you recall a poor person ever offering you a job?  

Yes, dollars stimulate when they are spent and when they are saved/invested.  I'd much rather see these businesses spending the extra $ than the Fed govt.  If it is invested in mutual funds, it is not idle.  It is circulating through pension funds, IRAs, and other investment vehicles.  If it is in stock, it is being utilized by businesses and going towards many things, maybe even an evil dividend for a joe 6-pack like you or me.  There is no such thing as idle capital, unless it's sitting in a safe.  It doesn't have to be confiscated by the federal govt to be circulated, thus stimulating the economy.  

In the long run, however, bumping up the top tax bracket a few %pts, or leaving it the same isn't going to make a huge difference, with spending being out of control, and the massive debt and deficit being what they are.  Leaving it where it is may result in an unemployment rate of 1-2% less than where it is now.  It's not going to fix all of the problems.  Again, the outrage over this seems to be more ideologically driven than anything else.


----------



## LAM (Dec 9, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Yes, dollars stimulate when they are spent and when they are saved/invested.  I'd much rather see these businesses spending the extra $ than the Fed govt.  If it is invested in mutual funds, it is not idle.  It is circulating through pension funds, IRAs, and other investment vehicles.  If it is in stock, it is being utilized by businesses and going towards many things, maybe even an evil dividend for a joe 6-pack like you or me.  There is no such thing as idle capital, unless it's sitting in a safe.  It doesn't have to be confiscated by the federal govt to be circulated, thus stimulating the economy.



dollar for dollar monies spent from consumption or savings have the same effect on GDP.  the effect from savings has a long term effect in terms of economic stimulus.  take for example the average price of a new car in the US is 28K and when a person buys that car those monies go into GDP.  if the same person took that 28K and deposited in the bank in theory the bank would lend those monies out for investment spending and increase GDP.  but how many people can afford to save right now?  and how many people have enough disposable income to actually save 28K?


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 9, 2010)

250k is rich?  Not in NYC.


----------



## bio-chem (Dec 9, 2010)

min0 lee said:


> 250k is rich?  Not in NYC.



when 250k a year doesn't make you rich it's time to move


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 9, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> when 250k a year doesn't make you rich it's time to move



LOL, all I know is NYC. 
Maybe when we both retire 20 years from now.


----------



## bio-chem (Dec 9, 2010)

min0 lee said:


> LOL, all I know is NYC.
> Maybe when we both retire 20 years from now.



you two need to get out more


----------



## LAM (Dec 9, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> when 250k a year doesn't make you rich it's time to move



that's 250K after deductions which means a good gross income of 350-400K+


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 9, 2010)

We do, we live in fun city.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 9, 2010)

LAM said:


> that's 250K after deductions which means a good gross income of 350-400K+



Oh, thats different.


----------



## lnvanry (Dec 9, 2010)

LAM said:


> that's 250K after deductions which means a good gross income of 350-400K+




A lot of people tend to forget that little fact (that the ceiling Obama and dems put on the middle class bracket eligible for tax credit was 250K AGI)...glad you pointed it out


----------



## newmass (Dec 2, 2013)

UMMM all the downward slopes are democrats..... clinton was just so great hes erased  the regan-bush disaster





lnvanry said:


> Its not a GOP trend...its a modern president trend.  Clinton was the outlier
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## newmass (Dec 2, 2013)

to Utah? you get what you pay for


----------



## maniclion (Dec 2, 2013)

lnvanry said:


> Its not a GOP trend...its a modern president trend.  Clinton was the outlier
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The only trend I see is warmongers making bank off of the sleepers....


----------

