Obama: wealth redistributor

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

#1 is not proof.

#2 had nothing to do really with Clinton. He just happened to be in office during significant growth. No President, regardless politics can get credit nor can be blamed for the economy.

I ask again, what proof do you have to make a definitive statement, especially about all benefiting from it?

The rich have always benefited when the economy grows.

While Clinton did run into good fortune, he also contributed by keeping deficits low and eventually balancing the budgets to create confidence on Wall Street, kept social spending down, moved more people out of poverty than Reagan and Bush I combined by cutting welfare rolls by 60% through welfare reform, expanded trade by pushing for NAFTA's passage, and refusing to squander the surplus. He was the only president since WWII to have fiscal responsibility.

There is consensus among economists, regardless of ideological stripe, that he was the president most attentive to economic matters and he was one of the greatest economic presidents of all time.

And...he redistributed wealth.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

The rich have always benefited when the economy grows.

While Clinton did run into good fortune, he also contributed by keeping deficits low and eventually balancing the budgets to create confidence on Wall Street, kept social spending down, moved more people out of poverty than Reagan and Bush I combined by cutting welfare rolls by 60% through welfare reform, expanded trade by pushing for NAFTA's passage, and refusing to squander the surplus. He was the only president since WWII to have fiscal responsibility.

There is consensus among economists, regardless of ideological stripe, that he was the president most attentive to economic matters and he was one of the greatest economic presidents of all time.

And...he redistributed wealth.

First of all your statements contradict each other.

Moved people off of welfare, kept social spending down <> He redistributed wealth

Second, your statement about him Bill Clinton balancing budgets and keeping social spending down is completely OPPOSITE of what Obama is doing.

March Budget deficit sets record of 192 Billion. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090410/...federal_budget

btw... If you remember it was the republicans in congress that pushed for the balanced budgets in their notable "Contract with America". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

Are you seriously going to give Clinton credit for balancing the budget? That was clearly a republican driven measure.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

First of all your statements contradict each other.

Moved people off of welfare, kept social spending down <> He redistributed wealth

So raising the top rate from 31% to 39% isn't redistributing wealth then? In that case, tell your conservative buddies on here to stop whining.

Second, your statement about him Bill Clinton balancing budgets and keeping social spending down is completely OPPOSITE of what Obama is doing.

Obama has proposed the deepest cuts in discretionary spending ever.

March Budget deficit sets record of 192 Billion. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090410/...federal_budget

btw... If you remember it was the republicans in congress that pushed for the balanced budgets in their notable "Contract with America". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

Are you seriously going to give Clinton credit for balancing the budget? That was clearly a republican driven measure.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

Is that why Clinton's budget passed without a single Republican vote? The article says Clinton's budget actually projected a deficit. Well, that's what he promised. He ran promising to cut the deficit in half. By the time he ran for re-election, the deficit was reduced by 60%. The $200B deficit was less than what he promised.

Praise God for the internet boom that gave us the surplus, but it certainly would not have happened without Clinton either.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

So raising the top rate from 31% to 39% isn't redistributing wealth then? In that case, tell your conservative buddies on here to stop whining.

Increasing the tax rate is not redistributing the wealth its just bringing in more revenues. To REDISTRIBUTE means to spend those increased revenues.

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Obama has proposed the deepest cuts in discretionary spending ever.

March Budget deficit sets record of 192 Billion. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090410/...federal_budget

uhh its still a deficit and not a balanced budget.

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Is that why Clinton's budget passed without a single Republican vote? The article says Clinton's budget actually projected a deficit. Well, that's what he promised. He ran promising to cut the deficit in half. By the time he ran for re-election, the deficit was reduced by 60%.

Again reducing the deficit by 60% is not a balanced budget you still have 40% left.

Lets see a budget proposal that ran a deficit was not supported by republicans in congress. Thanks for proving my point.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Increasing the tax rate is not redistributing the wealth its just bringing in more revenues. To REDISTRIBUTE means to spend those increased revenues.

Clinton spent those revenues on tax cuts for those making <30K and by expanding the EITC.

Again reducing the deficit by 60% is not a balanced budget you still have 40% left.

Lets see a budget proposal that ran a deficit was not supported by republicans in congress. Thanks for proving my point.

Depends what you mean by balanced budget...time the money was budgeted or collecting more tax revenue than expenditures. I have a feeling we'd be arguing the definition like we are doing socialism.

But anyhow, crediting the Republicans with a balanced budget is, well, impossible when you also argue there was never a balanced budget.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Obama has proposed the deepest cuts in discretionary spending ever.

I would rather see Obama cut mandatory spending, as that is where most of the money is wasted by government.

That he would rather cut discretionary spending than social programs is just more evidence that he's a socialist and that is not a good thing.

Hopefully, he'll get only 4 years to do his damage, which will be 4 years too many.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What proof do you have to make a definitive statement, especially about how no president can get credit nor be blamed for the economy?

The more you try to differentiate the more you end up being the exact same

Cali = tex

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Nah, I am now just amused by your and the right's inability to comprehend the plain meaning of a word. None of you have any clue what the word actually means, so you have collectively stripped it of any meaning whatsoever by misapplying it so grotesquely. Consequently, the public now seems to think socialism might be a pretty good idea (not actual socialism, mind you, but the Obama version of "socialism" which isn't actually even close to real socialism). In your desire to negatively label your opponent, all you have done is persuade the public to embrace the concept of socialism. It really is quite funny. So carry on.

Still waiting on Tex's definition of socialism.

Now we're too stupid to know what a word means?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by tooblue

The more you try to differentiate the more you end up being the exact same

Cali = tex

Heh, wow. Talk about a non sequitur. Love you too, tooblue.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by tooblue

The more you try to differentiate the more you end up being the exact same

Cali = tex

Why insult Tex like this?