US midterm elections: Barack Obama’s legacy could be ruined in one day

[thaibeachlovers]

the deficit (which has been shrinking quite nicely without their help).

????????? Last time I looked it was about 17 TRILLION $ and rising. Shrink that!

Please look up the following words:

(1) Deficit

(2) Debt

You can't reduce the debt until you eliminate the deficit and go into the black.

e.g.

or

OK, so I messed up the definition. However, I and a lot of other people do not think it will be possible to pay off the 17 trillion and it certainly doesn't help to be increasing it like Obama is doing.

Just paying the interest on it means many good things will never be affordable.

BTW, just because I don't support Obama does not mean I support/ respect/ admire Bush. IMO he was a very bad man and did very bad things to the US.

[thaibeachlovers]

Mr Obama's approval rating with working class white Americans drops to 27%... It appears these folks know who is screwing them...

Is Gallup a reliable source?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179753/obama-approval-drops-among-working-class-whites.aspx

Unfortunately they are a minority in the US. The majority are the ones with their hands out demanding residency for illegals, and welfare ie Democrat voters.

Expect more of the same under Hillary.

[lannarebirth]

You seem to be avoiding the statement that Republicans are trying to end tax credits for the working poor, while extending what amounts to $440Bn tax breaks that will benefit their corporate paymasters.

That was in the NY Times, not the Daily Kos, which you would have known had you read the link. I posted that version because it highlighted only the relevant parts.

If you want to read the full NYT story it's here.

Now, my question again: Do you have any evidence that this is not true?

Perhaps you might consider reading both publications for comparison's sake.

The NY Times version had this to say, which was omitted from the Daily Kos article.

"Republican aides involved in the negotiations reacted angrily to the White House’s efforts to torpedo the talks. They noted that Mr. Obama had pushed for his own version of a permanent, expanded research and development credit as a boon to the economy and embraced a narrower proposal to let small businesses deduct the cost of investments. Now, they say, he is reversing himself rather than accept yes for an answer."

BOTH PARTIES want to end the two tax breaks because the flood of newly legalized illegal immigrants would overwhelm the system.

The Daily Kos took more than a little literary license to get their anti-Republican point across.

I see no reason why you can't put rules in place to exclude those immigrants protected by temporary relief. They are already not entitled to other Federal benefits.

On the other issue, From what I read the issue is the Dems want these tax breaks at individual level as well as for business, but the Republicans want to exclude the individual credits.

Also, if the Republicans force through this bill it adds $440Bn to the deficit over ten years.

They don't seem to mind increasing deficits when it suits their paymasters.

CMN said:

About 43% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes, and many of those receive some sort of welfare. The tax credit they are talking about means little to nothing to a person that don't pay income taxes (poor people).

The articles refer throughout to what they call the "Working Poor".

What partisans usually fail to realize is that both of the tax credits under discussion, including the "working poor" tax credit are both forms of corporate welfare giveaways. But for the US governments meddling and subsidization of these peoples incomes, corporations would be forced to pay a wage commensurate with the value of the work. Not only do the credits (both) impact the deficit negatively, they rob the treasury of taxes that higher wages would create if the subsidy were removed.

[Chicog]

the deficit (which has been shrinking quite nicely without their help).

????????? Last time I looked it was about 17 TRILLION $ and rising. Shrink that!

Please look up the following words:

(1) Deficit

(2) Debt

You can't reduce the debt until you eliminate the deficit and go into the black.

e.g.

or

OK, so I messed up the definition. However, I and a lot of other people do not think it will be possible to pay off the 17 trillion and it certainly doesn't help to be increasing it like Obama is doing.

Just paying the interest on it means many good things will never be affordable.

BTW, just because I don't support Obama does not mean I support/ respect/ admire Bush. IMO he was a very bad man and did very bad things to the US.

Obama is reducing the deficit which skyrocketed because of the mess that Bush left. You should be able to see that from the graph above.

You cannot reduce the debt until you have a surplus.

That's why I find it mystifying that the Republicans who keep banging on about the debt are so happy to add $440Bn to it over ten years, because they certainly aren't funding any of those tax breaks they want to give their buddies.

[thaibeachlovers]

the deficit (which has been shrinking quite nicely without their help).

????????? Last time I looked it was about 17 TRILLION $ and rising. Shrink that!

Please look up the following words:

(1) Deficit

(2) Debt

You can't reduce the debt until you eliminate the deficit and go into the black.

e.g.

or

OK, so I messed up the definition. However, I and a lot of other people do not think it will be possible to pay off the 17 trillion and it certainly doesn't help to be increasing it like Obama is doing.

Just paying the interest on it means many good things will never be affordable.

BTW, just because I don't support Obama does not mean I support/ respect/ admire Bush. IMO he was a very bad man and did very bad things to the US.

Obama is reducing the deficit which skyrocketed because of the mess that Bush left. You should be able to see that from the graph above.

You cannot reduce the debt until you have a surplus.

That's why I find it mystifying that the Republicans who keep banging on about the debt are so happy to add $440Bn to it over ten years, because they certainly aren't funding any of those tax breaks they want to give their buddies.

I find it mystifying

Why? They are all politicians, and how many respect politicians.............................................

What we need now are statesmen, and there are none around, only politicians.

[Chicog]

True enough.

[snarky66]

Certain British subjects seem to think that they know an awful lot about American politics and Fox News in particular.

Unable to come to grips with the fact vet MSNBC, CNN, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News and the New York Times are all liberal rags, in business solely to shield Obama's sorry butt from criticism.

[lannarebirth]

Certain British subjects seem to think that they know an awful lot about American politics and Fox News in particular.

Unable to come to grips with the fact vet MSNBC, CNN, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News and the New York Times are all liberal rags, in business solely to shield Obama's sorry butt from criticism.

It is certainly true that there are enough biased media outlets that one need never hear or read a view that differs from the one they already hold.

[Chicog]

Certain British subjects seem to think that they know an awful lot about American politics and Fox News in particular.

Unable to come to grips with the fact vet MSNBC, CNN, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News and the New York Times are all liberal rags, in business solely to shield Obama's sorry butt from criticism.

Certain Americans think that they have the monopoly on being able to discern actual news from the chaff put out by people the likes of Kelly or Maddow.

[JDGRUEN]

Democrat squabbling only a few weeks after the mid-term elections. Hagle lashing back, Democrat Senators favoring Keystone... Two more years of this and any semblance of a presidential legacy will be non existent ...

As Democratic infighting intensifies, Hagel allies fire back at the White House


“There is clearly a lot of unhappiness and a lot of mistrust that exists between the president and his congressional party,” Rutgers University professor Ross Baker told Reuters.



http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/30/as-democratic-infighting-intensifies-hagel-allies-fire-back-at-the-white-house/

[chuckd]

the deficit (which has been shrinking quite nicely without their help).

????????? Last time I looked it was about 17 TRILLION $ and rising. Shrink that!

Please look up the following words:

(1) Deficit

(2) Debt

You can't reduce the debt until you eliminate the deficit and go into the black.

e.g.

or

OK, so I messed up the definition. However, I and a lot of other people do not think it will be possible to pay off the 17 trillion and it certainly doesn't help to be increasing it like Obama is doing.

Just paying the interest on it means many good things will never be affordable.

BTW, just because I don't support Obama does not mean I support/ respect/ admire Bush. IMO he was a very bad man and did very bad things to the US.

Obama is reducing the deficit which skyrocketed because of the mess that Bush left. You should be able to see that from the graph above.

You cannot reduce the debt until you have a surplus.

That's why I find it mystifying that the Republicans who keep banging on about the debt are so happy to add $440Bn to it over ten years, because they certainly aren't funding any of those tax breaks they want to give their buddies.

There are exactly two ways to reduce the federal annual deficit.

One is to raise taxes.

The other is to cut spending.

Which one of the two do you think has had an impact on the annual deficit for the past two years?

[NeverSure]

Obama is reducing the deficit which skyrocketed because of the mess that Bush left. You should be able to see that from the graph above.

You cannot reduce the debt until you have a surplus.

That's why I find it mystifying that the Republicans who keep banging on about the debt are so happy to add $440Bn to it over ten years, because they certainly aren't funding any of those tax breaks they want to give their buddies.

The deficit is reducing because the economy is improving and therefore more tax dollars are being paid.

Does someone thing that Obama, who never ran any kind of business figured out how to get the economy to improve?

US private industry is as good as there is. If government would get out of the way we'd really see some progress on deficits and even debt.

[Chicog]

Obama is reducing the deficit which skyrocketed because of the mess that Bush left. You should be able to see that from the graph above.

You cannot reduce the debt until you have a surplus.

That's why I find it mystifying that the Republicans who keep banging on about the debt are so happy to add $440Bn to it over ten years, because they certainly aren't funding any of those tax breaks they want to give their buddies.

The deficit is reducing because the economy is improving and therefore more tax dollars are being paid.

Does someone thing that Obama, who never ran any kind of business figured out how to get the economy to improve?

Must be a coincidence that the last President to bring the deficit down was Democrat too. And he was more famous for playing the saxophone and philandering than running a business.

Perhaps it's more that they follow the Third Way rather than letting corporations dictate economic policy that only benefits them and encourages boom and bust economics.

US private industry is as good as there is. If government would get out of the way we'd really see some progress on deficits and even debt.

No you wouldn't, you'd see a repeat of the unregulated mess into which the last administration got America.

[chuckd]

Obama is reducing the deficit which skyrocketed because of the mess that Bush left. You should be able to see that from the graph above.

You cannot reduce the debt until you have a surplus.

That's why I find it mystifying that the Republicans who keep banging on about the debt are so happy to add $440Bn to it over ten years, because they certainly aren't funding any of those tax breaks they want to give their buddies.

The deficit is reducing because the economy is improving and therefore more tax dollars are being paid.

Does someone thing that Obama, who never ran any kind of business figured out how to get the economy to improve?

Must be a coincidence that the last President to bring the deficit down was Democrat too. And he was more famous for playing the saxophone and philandering than running a business.

Perhaps it's more that they follow the Third Way rather than letting corporations dictate economic policy that only benefits them and encourages boom and bust economics.

US private industry is as good as there is. If government would get out of the way we'd really see some progress on deficits and even debt.

No you wouldn't, you'd see a repeat of the unregulated mess into which the last administration got America.

"Must be a coincidence that the last President to bring the deficit down was Democrat too. And he was more famous for playing the saxophone and philandering than running a business."

And the President to which you refer also had a Republican controlled Congress...both Houses. They drove his fiscal policies.

Let's also not forget the largest raw dollar tax increase in US history is coming into effect the last couple of years. That monstrosity known as Obamacare.

[Chicog]

And the President to which you refer also had a Republican controlled Congress...both Houses. They drove his fiscal policies.

Au contraire, they worked with him. As opposed to doing their best to sabotage everything he did. (Well, that's until they tried to stitch him up over his peccadiilos).

Let's also not forget the largest raw dollar tax increase in US history is coming into effect the last couple of years. That monstrosity known as Obamacare.

See, I think if they weren't too busy trying to give their corporate buddies $440Bn over ten years, that could probably be offset.

[thaibeachlovers]

And the President to which you refer also had a Republican controlled Congress...both Houses. They drove his fiscal policies.

Au contraire, they worked with him. As opposed to doing their best to sabotage everything he did. (Well, that's until they tried to stitch him up over his peccadiilos).

Let's also not forget the largest raw dollar tax increase in US history is coming into effect the last couple of years. That monstrosity known as Obamacare.

See, I think if they weren't too busy trying to give their corporate buddies $440Bn over ten years, that could probably be offset.

Au contraire, they worked with him

No, he worked with them.

Obama will not compromise, which is why the GOP will not cooperate with him.

[Chicog]

Au contraire, they worked with him

No, he worked with them.

Obama will not compromise, which is why the GOP will not cooperate with him.

Well there's a chicken and egg question.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Chicog

[chuckd]

Au contraire, they worked with him

No, he worked with them.

Obama will not compromise, which is why the GOP will not cooperate with him.

Well there's a chicken and egg question.

Simple question to your question.

Where does legislation originate?

[Chicog]

Au contraire, they worked with him

No, he worked with them.

Obama will not compromise, which is why the GOP will not cooperate with him.

Well there's a chicken and egg question.

Simple question to your question.

Where does legislation originate?

In the minds of the people who want it. Why?

[chuckd]

Forget it. Not worth sniping over this nonsense.

[beechguy]

Certain British subjects seem to think that they know an awful lot about American politics and Fox News in particular.

Unable to come to grips with the fact vet MSNBC, CNN, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News and the New York Times are all liberal rags, in business solely to shield Obama's sorry butt from criticism.

Certain Americans think that they have the monopoly on being able to discern actual news from the chaff put out by people the likes of Kelly or Maddow.

Certain Americans, know that Obama didn't do anything, except get caught running his mouth on a budget deal, and the Republicans called his bluff.

However bad it may be, hopefully they can put an actual budget forward, and have enough votes, even to override any vetoes.

Edited December 1, 2014 by beechguy

[Chicog]

Forget it. Not worth sniping over this nonsense.

Yes, I didn't think you'd want to go down that road.

[Chicog]

Certain British subjects seem to think that they know an awful lot about American politics and Fox News in particular.

Unable to come to grips with the fact vet MSNBC, CNN, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News and the New York Times are all liberal rags, in business solely to shield Obama's sorry butt from criticism.

Certain Americans think that they have the monopoly on being able to discern actual news from the chaff put out by people the likes of Kelly or Maddow.

Certain Americans, know that Obama didn't do anything, except get caught running his mouth on a budget deal, and the Republicans called his bluff.

However bad it may be, hopefully they can put an actual budget forward, and have enough votes, even to override any vetoes.

Are you referring to a budget or the tax bill?

Either way, they only have until 11th December to do it before the lazy sods go on holiday AGAIN.

Best job in the world that one!

[Ulysses G.]

Forget it. Not worth sniping over this nonsense.

Yes, I didn't think you'd want to go down that road.

You have an answer for everything. Never one worth posting, but that does not stop you from doing it anyway.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

Forget it. Not worth sniping over this nonsense.

Yes, I didn't think you'd want to go down that road.

You have an answer for everything. Never one worth posting, but that does not stop you from doing it anyway.

It's called discussion. If someone asks me a question, I answer it as best I can.

Is your sniping supposed to contribute in any way?

[chuckd]

If that was the best answer you could come up with in talking about US legislation, either your knowledge of the subject matter is terribly lacking or your sarcasm button is overworked.

I lean towards the lack of knowledge.

[Chicog]

If that was the best answer you could come up with in talking about US legislation, either your knowledge of the subject matter is terribly lacking or your sarcasm button is overworked.

I lean towards the lack of knowledge.

My answer was correct, unless you wish to prove otherwise.

What I wanted you to do was explain why you would ask such a vague question.

I don't much care about how you lean to be honest, not my problem.

[Scott]

Please stay on topic and stop with the bickering.

[hawker9000]

Au contraire, they worked with him

No, he worked with them.

Obama will not compromise, which is why the GOP will not cooperate with him.

Well there's a chicken and egg question.

'More of a president wanting to salvage what he could of his legacy vs a recalcitrant one unwilling to work with anybody - seemingly including his own party - question.

[Chicog]

Au contraire, they worked with him

No, he worked with them.

Obama will not compromise, which is why the GOP will not cooperate with him.

Well there's a chicken and egg question.

'More of a president wanting to salvage what he could of his legacy vs a recalcitrant one unwilling to work with anybody - seemingly including his own party - question.

Out of interest, what do you think are the top three things he would like to consider his legacy?

The obvious ones would be Health Care and Immigration, but what else?

Anyway you slice it he has presided over a pretty decent repair of a heavily damaged economy, and I seem to remember Romney bashing on at the last election about him not doing enough to raise oil production, but right now the US is in a very decent position in that area.

As for "his own party", when Mary Landrieu went against him on Keystone, for example, it was simply to try and save her own behind, so I don't think it really relates to his "recalcitrance".

Edited December 2, 2014 by Chicog