Barack Obama

[randolph]

Ah yes Tracy, I have been wondering where you get your statistics. Here is a brief analysis of the right wing Heritage Foundation, the experts on spin doctoring statistics.

From "Democratic Underground".
Back in college we had to read a book called "How to Lie With
Statistics". It was one of the best books I've read and incredibly
valuable in cutting though the fog of bullshit the politicians and
corporations use.

In this case I want to bring up examples of how the Right distorts the Reagan record. Here's a prime example on the issue tax cuts from
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1443es.cfm
I've edited out references to other tax cuts.

That propaganda house known as the Heritage Foundation shows some of the most creative misuse of statistics and distortions as can be imagined... all to paint a false picture of the Reagan record... then try to seal the deal with this conclusion:

"High rates of taxation and a tax code that punishes working, saving,
and investing do not add up to a recipe for long-term prosperity.
History shows clearly that lower tax rates are an integral part of a
reform package that maximizes freedom and prosperity. Reducing all
income tax rates is a responsible way to promote long-term economic
growth."

Let's look at their claims

CLAIM: "Lesson #1: Lower tax rates mean faster growth.
The Reagan tax cuts: The economic effects of the Reagan tax cuts were
dramatic. The tax cuts helped to pull the economy out of a severe
downturn and ushered in a period of record peacetime economic growth.
During the seven-year Reagan boom, yearly economic growth averaged 4
percent."

This is the classic one variable analysis. It pretends NOTHING else
was going on in the economy that led to the recovery. In reality businesses had learned to become more energy efficient after repeated oil shocks. Oil prices had dropped from record highs... nearly $75 a barrel constant 2000 dollars. Interest rates also dropped as a result of the Fed's tight money policy. Then there was pent-up consumer demand. Last was Reagan's own deficit spending for his defense buildup. Do they get any credit? Nah.... just tax cuts. Why is that?

Heritages claims also do not prove any causal relationship between tax cuts and economic growth. They only claim one. In reality there have been economic recoveries without tax cuts.... and even with tax HIKES... as we've seen in 93.

The Right lauds JFK's tax cuts for producing an economic boom yet the
top rate was 70%? How can that be when Heritage also claim "History shows clearly that lower tax rates are an integral part of a reform package that maximizes freedom and prosperity." OK... bring back the JFK tax levels!!!!

CLAIM: "Lesson #2: Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
The Reagan tax cuts: Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during
the 1980s. The results are even more impressive, however, when one
looks at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the
economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, personal
income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54
percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation)."

There are four kinds of distortions used here.

The first is bait and switch. What do they mean by "during the 1980s"?
Doesn't that include both Carter and Bush1's terms? While their
statement is technically true.... revenues were 517 Billion in 1980
and 1032 billion in 1990... which I assume are the years they used...
the Heritage Foundation fails to mention that Reagan's own first FY82
budget bought in a mere 617 billion... going up to 991.2 billion in FY89... Reagan's last budget. Where Heritage implies a 515 Billion dollar increase there was but 374 billion.... 72% of their number. In reality revenue growth was predictably anemic after Reagan's tax cuts.

The second distortion is not to include Reagan's own tax HIKES in
those revenue numbers. How could they have omitted that?

There is more on the site.

[TracyCoxx]

And your source is democratic underground. Do I really need to point out the bias here?

[randolph]

I think the bankruptcy of GM signals the end of the US as the dominant world power. The myopia of Greenspan and the worship of Milton Friedman's faulty economic theories allowed a runaway housing boom to turn into a gigantic Ponzi scam. We now risk rampant inflation in order to pay for the misdeeds. If Obama and his advisers can get us out of this mess he would deserve more than the Nobel prize. I am not holding my breath.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by randolph

I think the bankruptcy of GM signals the end of the US as the dominant world power. The myopia of Greenspan and the worship of Milton Friedman's faulty economic theories allowed a runaway housing boom to turn into a gigantic Ponzi scam. We now risk rampant inflation in order to pay for the misdeeds. If Obama and his advisers can get us out of this mess he would deserve more than the Nobel prize. I am not holding my breath.

During WWII we pumped out more jeeps, planes, tanks, guns, bullets you name it and that was a big reason we won now every thing is made over seas if another wolrd war breaks out we are screwed because we can no longer make anything anymore, And Greenspan was only following orders from King George oh yes Regan nomics baby the biggest ever invented Jennifer

[randolph]

Originally Posted by transjen

During WWII we pumped out more jeeps, planes, tanks, guns, bullets you name it and that was a big reason we won now every thing is made over seas if another wolrd war breaks out we are screwed because we can no longer make anything anymore, And Greenspan was only following orders from King George oh yes Regan nomics baby the biggest ever invented Jennifer

Yes Jen, right on!
Eisenhower must be spinning in his grave, the last real Republican.
He warned us but nobody listened.

[TracyCoxx]

Awe man! All of this has been staring me in the face and I've only just now picked up on it. Why does Hank in Indonesia obsess over US affairs? Why is he so smitten with BO?

Because Obama, aka Barry Soetero was (perhaps still is) a citizen of Indonesia. I knew about this for a while but just didn't connect the dots with Hank.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=72656

(And yes, normally one would not be qualified to be president of the US if one had ever been a citizen of another country, but this IS Obama after all)

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Awe man! All of this has been staring me in the face and I've only just now picked up on it. Why does Hank in Indonesia obsess over US affairs? Why is he so smitten with BO?

Because Obama, aka Barry Soetero was (perhaps still is) a citizen of Indonesia. I knew about this for a while but just didn't connect the dots with Hank.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=72656

(And yes, normally one would not be qualified to be president of the US if one had ever been a citizen of another country, but this IS Obama after all)

Question ,Was he actually a citizen or did he just live there? John McCain was born in Panama due to the fact his father was stationed there but i wouldn't call him a citizen of Panama Jennifer