David Corn

"This never happened when Bill Clinton came to town,"

And since Bubba the worst prez in the history of history made the Secret Service evolve and that would make a difference.

Since then we wiretap, torture and start wars based on packs of lies garnered by the torture.

The whole system is different, eh?

No presidential suite for Obama in Las Vegas

President stayed at Caesars Palace, his favorite hotel in Sin City

How is this for irony? The president of the United States spent the night at a Las Vegas hotel Tuesday but he didn't stay in the presidential suite.

But that's only because Caesars Palace — Barack Obama's favorite hotel in Sin City — doesn't have a room that's actually called that, even if it does offer accommodations lavish enough to fit the leader of the free world, or any other world for that matter.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30983557/

I'm SHOCKED!!! Freddie actually got something right, when he said the terrible shape of the economy and loss of jobs is "Booosh's fault".

That was quite a surprise. But now, go back to being fredo because we enjoy your nonsense. And remember, we're laughing AT YOU, not with you. lol

Damn, I'm gunna have to move Alan in my number one fan evah column.

Now I know how Obama feels about his goupie fans!

Alan, you can blame Boosh all you want, but it still doesn't spin Obamas dud of a stimulus plan as a bad case of erectile dysfunction.

It may have started under Boosh but Obama has taken over as a underperformer even after spending billions on viagra to get it up and running!!!

DC, you just don't get it! Obama just likes to spend money..................

Presidential Fundraising Trips Leave Taxpayers With Hefty Tab

President Obama left Tuesday for a two-day fundraising tour in Las Vegas and Los Angeles. The Democratic National Committee is expected to pick up part of the cost, but if history is any gauge, taxpayers will pick up most of the tab.
By Judson Berger

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

President Obama has the star power to raise millions of dollars for the candidates and organizations he graces with his stump speech.

But when the president hit the road Tuesday for a two-day fundraising tour to pack the party coffers, he also was racking up a $265,000 partisan bill for just one leg of the trip, according to a watchdog group -- part of which taxpayers, regardless of party affiliation, will have to pay.

Good thing the Shrub never went on any fund-raising trips. Otherwise the comment above might seem hypocritical.

You shouldn't even go there fredo. How many trips did bush take on the country's dime? Many many trips to Waco for unprecedented numbers of vacation days. The worst series of taxpayer funded sorties was his idiotic tour to try'n change Social Security. Remember that? Just think what kind of shape SS would be in now if you repugs had gotten away with THAT? I credit the AARP for being out front on that and it was the beginning of the end of America's long sleep. They FINALLY woke up to realize they had reelected the absolute worst president in our history. Billions and billions wasted on a war started with lies and thousands of unnecessary deaths, loss of a historic city with hundreds more dead, the list goes on and on... but it was the seniors that stood up when bushco messed with their money. From there it was all downhill for bush and his rubberstamp Congress. It's a damn shame that they took the greatest country in the world downhill with them.
We're headed back up now though! GOBAMA!

Good thing the Shrub never went on any fund-raising trips.

``````````

Nothing hypocritical here Anti- I condemn all wasted tax dollars. Obama is just better at it, as DC has pointed out with his post.

Why does Obama need to fund raise anyway? He's got the fruadulent minions at ACORN doing his bidding on our tax dollars.

You shouldn't even go there fredo. How many trips did bush take on the country's dime? Many many trips to Waco for unprecedented numbers of vacation days.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I am not a Bush defender Alan, he was more of one of you guys than one of me. Bush loved to spend money like a drunken Democrat on steriods. I do defend the tax cuts and war on terror-the only things he got right (or I should say Cheney).

Obama can't get anything right! He can't make up his mind if he's Bush lite on terror or Jimmy Carter heavy on the economy!!!!!

What happened to the $20 average guy internet donations to Obama?

Those days are long gone now thats he's in power.

$15,000 per person fund raisers are now more hip than Obama shirtless photos that drive you libs wild with glee!

Bush's tax cuts went to the rich and were counter-productive to economic growth.

Obama Tries to Rally Grassroots for Health Care Fight

[...]

On June 6, Organizing for America begins a multi-platform health care reform kick-off, featuring house parties, online chats, story-sharing and telephone calls. DNC officials insist that OFA's earlier efforts have been successful tests of capacity and have built the foundation for grassroots activity that will change the voting totals in Congress.

Organizing for America director Mitch Stewart told supporters, "We want to demonstrate wide support for our health care principles."

Former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe urged on the OFA members. "You need to take ownership of this," he said.

Along with health care, energy reform and education reform are the group's stated priorities. The call today, with its special guest, was also designed to recruit volunteers. At its beginning, a DNC official asked participants who had not been contacted by an organizer to press "one" on their telephone.

The DNC is staffing up, adding organizing directors and staff in all 50 states.

http://tinyurl.com/lvgmo2

Antidote - you're stuck on stupid!
~~~~~~~~~

Taxes Were Cut, But Revenues Went Up

by Jerry Bowyer

06/20/2006

Probably the most controversial claim of supply-side economics is that cuts in tax rates can lead to increases in tax revenues. Disbelief in this phenomenon may be why some of President Bush’s critics incorrectly blame his tax cuts for “exploding deficits as far as the eye can see.” The data prove them wrong.

Eight months into fiscal year 2003, President Bush signed a bill that accelerated his income-tax cuts on individuals and dropped the capital gain and dividend tax rates to 15%. Up until then, the federal government had received less than $1.2 trillion in revenues for fiscal 2003. During the first eight months of this fiscal year, revenues have soared to over $1.5 trillion. Despite the cuts in tax rates, tax revenues for fiscal 2006 are $386 billion ahead of tax revenues for fiscal 2003. This has caused the CBO to report a lower deficit than expected.

This year alone, federal revenues are up almost 13%. Because of improved profitability, corporate tax revenues have increased. However, personal income tax revenues have increased slightly more than other revenues, going up 14%. That confirms what the personal income statistics have been saying (and that critics of the Bush tax cuts have been denying): It’s not just business that is doing well under supply-side policies, but also individual Americans.

Under Obama-

Income Tax Revenues Drop by 34%

Posted by Kim Priestap

Published: May 27, 2009 - 7:15 PM

As predictable as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, the tax revenues drop during a recession. But this recession is no run of the mill recession because we have as president a man who does not understand the concept of spending within one's means, so we have exploding deficits that will just explode that much further. Can you see the catastrophe on the horizon?

Federal tax revenue plunged $138 billion, or 34%, in April vs. a year ago -- the biggest April drop since 1981, a study released Tuesday by the American Institute for Economic Research says.
When the economy slumps, so does tax revenue, and this recession has been no different, says Kerry Lynch, senior fellow at the AIER and author of the study. "It illustrates how severe the recession has been."

For example, 6 million people lost jobs in the 12 months ended in April -- and that means far fewer dollars from income taxes. Income tax revenue dropped 44% from a year ago.

"These are staggering numbers," Lynch says.

Big revenue losses mean that the U.S. budget deficit may be larger than predicted this year and in future years.

"It's one of the drivers of the ongoing expansion of the federal budget deficit," says John Lonski, chief economist for Moody's Investors Service. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $1.7 trillion budget deficit for fiscal year 2009.

The other deficit driver is government spending, which, the AIER's report says, is the main culprit for the federal budget deficit.

Now Obama wants to take away that huge $400 tax cut to 95% he promised and add a 10% sales tax on everyone.

I would rather have no tax cut over the rich getting one than have my taxes go up, up and up along with the rich..................

"Stand with Sotomayor" (from an email)

Please add your name today to show you stand with Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/sotomayorstand

*****

Once signed you can send the $20!

Bush Lied, Soldiers Keep Dying.

4,302 U.S. Military Fatalities in Iraq

690 U.S. Military Fatalities in Afghanistan

31,288 U.S. Military Maimed in Iraq (source: DoD Update as of May 19, 2009)

100,580 Iraqis Reported Killed (source: Iraq Body Count)

1,331,578 Iraqis Reported Killed (source: justforeignpolicy.org)

*****

And every single dollar spent in the debacle is a tax.

That'd be about a trillion dollars thanks to Bunnypants and his lies.

Obama vows: I have not yet begun to destroy the economy

posted at 4:05 pm on May 28, 2009 by Allahpundit

A quick-cut compilation of self-congratulation from last night’s fundraiser in L.A., culminating in a threat/promise that we ain’t seen nothing yet. Which is true: If you think it’s bad now, wait until the inevitable cost overruns on universal health care start rolling in and our AAA debt rating gets even shakier. You’ll be pleased to know the crowd to see the world’s biggest celebrity was itself littered with celebrities, some of whom paid $30,000 for a photo with The One and the privilege of hearing him repeat his half-assed nonsense about “creating or saving” jobs at a private dinner. Specter was there too, Obama’s coattails no doubt firmly in hand.

Did he at least have the stones to address Prop 8 and gay marriage, one of the few subjects on which he and the glitterati (ostensibly) disagree?

Operation Gringo: Can the Republicans Sacrifice the Hispanic Vote and Win the White House?

http://tinyurl.com/nuh3rg

Supreme Court Nominee Should Be Closely Questioned On Church-State Views, Says Americans United

http://tinyurl.com/ltug8c

*****

I hope a reasonable and thoughtful confirmation process will have the opportunity to ask a few hard and serious questions.

Maybe the GOP will decide to get serious and quit treating this important nominee as a gotcha sound bite.

If The President Is So Hip With New Media, How The Hell Did This Video Ever Get Released by The White House?

http://reason.com/blog/show/133759.html

(lollers)

Obama lied and the economy died!!!!!

Stimulus projects bypass hard-hit states

By Brad Heath, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — States hit hardest by the recession received only a few of the government's first stimulus contracts, even though the glut of new federal spending was meant to target places where the economic pain has been particularly severe.
Nationwide, federal agencies have awarded nearly $4 billion in contracts to help jump-start the economy since President Obama signed the massive stimulus package in February. But, with few exceptions, that money has not reached states where the unemployment rate is highest, according to a USA TODAY review of contracts disclosed through the Federal Procurement Data System.

In Michigan, for example — where years of economic tumult and a collapsing domestic auto industry have produced the nation's worst unemployment rate — federal agencies have spent about $2 million on stimulus contracts, or 21 cents per person. In Oregon, where unemployment is almost as high, they have spent $2.12 per capita, far less than the nationwide average of nearly $13.

That money "is needed nowhere more than it is needed in Michigan," says Leslee Fritz, a spokeswoman for the Michigan Economic Recovery Office, which is coordinating stimulus efforts in that state. She said officials are generally satisfied with the pace of federal aid, but added, "We certainly feel very intensely the need to move quickly."

The $787 billion recovery package was intended to help turn around the economy using federal money to create jobs, especially in places where the recession has taken the most severe toll. Most of that money goes directly to states to pay for work such as highway repairs, but federal agencies also will spend billions of dollars to do everything from fixing runways and improving national forests to cleaning up nuclear waste.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nice job Boy Wonder!!

Conservatism and cognitive ability

Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States' universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores.

http://tinyurl.com/d4zzqs

*****

I always thought it went without saying . .

I don't know where you get these poorly written and conclusory snippets of articles, Freddie. But, they are pretty shallow in their reasoning.

First, revenues ususally go up anyway year after year, except in a recession. Without the tax cut, they would have gone up even more.

Second, federal revenues went up much more during the Clinton years after he raised taxes; so, by your reasoning, the correlation between rising revenues and Clinton's tax increases should disprove supply-side economics.

Third, most economist now conclude that supply side economics do not work.

Fourth, skewing tax cuts to the rich, rather than fairly across the board, smacks of the type of "elistist" attitude that the Republicans are always so quick to accuse Democrats of.

Joint Economic Comittee
Congress of the United States

Thursday, July 20, 1995

Tax Policy, Economic Growth and American Families

Introduction

Over the past decade and a half, Americans have been presented with two radically different visions of the role of government. The first vision, articulated and implemented by President Reagan in the 1980s, declares that government taxation and burdensome regulations are harmful to the natural market forces that generate economic growth. Since economic growth is the only way to truly create jobs and raise incomes, policies that reduce taxes and government intervention are the keys to higher living standards for all Americans.

President Clinton espouses the second vision, which maintains that the expansion of government does not have harmful effects on the economy and, in fact, may actually be a source of economic growth. Proponents of this vision believe that it is largely through government policies that people can be made better off. According to this vision, tax increases, such as those enacted in 1990 by President Bush and in 1993 by President Clinton, are valid and effective means by which to achieve such policies. When tax increases are not politically feasible, continued deficit spending is the next-best alternative.

In one sense, President Clinton's fiscal policies are a continuation of the Bush Administration's fiscal policies -- both administrations sought to reduce the budget deficit by raising taxes. President Clinton's agenda, however, is far more harmful than his predecessor's, as evident by Clinton's massive 1993 tax increase, his attempt in 1994 to socialize health care, and Clinton's original budget plan this year that proposed hundreds of billions of dollars in new debt for the United States.

Clinton's tax-and-spend policies have been in place for almost three years and it is now possible to compare the record of the pro-economic growth policies advocated by Republicans to the pro-government growth policies of President Clinton and the Democrats. The best comparison of these policies is a side-by-side examination of the economic recovery under President Reagan in the 1980s and the current recovery under Presidents Bush and Clinton.

Summary
With four years of data on the current economic recovery (extending back to the Bush Administration), it is now possible to tally up the scorecard and compare the Bush/Clinton recovery that started in 1991 with the Reagan recovery that began in 1982.[1] President Clinton has boasted that his policies have spurred economic growth, added jobs, and helped the middle class. However, the data show that the Bush/Clinton recovery is weak compared to the Reagan recovery along several important measures. Both economic growth and job creation in the current recovery lag behind the Reagan recovery by two full years. The middle class is suffering an actual loss in real median family income, while during the Reagan recovery it gained. Moreover, tax revenues increased more rapidly under Reagan's tax cuts than under the Bush/Clinton tax increases.

The most outstanding policy differences between the two recoveries are in the realm of tax policy. Reagan instituted across-the-board reductions in tax rates, while Bush and Clinton both pushed massive tax increases. The most disturbing conclusion is that the 1990 and 1993 tax increases have cost Americans far more than the extra earnings collected by the IRS; they have cost the economy at least two years of growth. Comparing the two recoveries:

Real GDP grew more in five years under Reagan (23 percent cumulative growth) than it is projected to grow in seven years under Bush/Clinton (21 percent cumulative growth).

After four years, 4 million more jobs were created under Reagan than under Bush/Clinton.

Federal revenues, adjusted for inflation, grew much faster under Reagan (33 percent cumulative growth) than projected under Bush/Clinton (20 percent cumulative growth).

Real per capita disposable income grew more in two years under Reagan than in all four years combined thus far in the Bush/Clinton recovery (8.2 percent versus 7.8 percent).

Median family income grew in all of the first three recovery years under Reagan, compared to three consecutive declines under Bush/Clinton.
In other words, during the economic expansion following Reagan's tax cuts, the economy grew faster, experienced stronger revenue growth, created more jobs, and saw more rapid income growth than the current expansion under the high tax policies of Presidents Bush and Clinton.

Economic Growth Spurred by Tax Cuts, Slowed by Tax Increases

Nothing illustrates the negative effect of tax increases as well as comparing economic growth following Reagan's 1981 tax cuts and the tax increases in 1990 and 1993. Both the tax cuts and the tax increases had profound effects on the subsequent economic recoveries, which began in 1982 and 1991, respectively. Comparing the cumulative real GDP growth experienced in the 1980s and 1990s, it is evident that Reagan's tax cuts led to a strong, healthy recovery, with GDP growing 29 percent in just 7 years. Over the same time span following the Bush/Clinton tax increases, real GDP is expected to increase only 21 percent. In fact, the economy after Reagan's tax cuts grew more in 5 years than the Bush/Clinton recovery will in 7 years. In other words, the burden of tax increases on the economy has "cost" the American economy 2 years of growth.

To put the consequences of slow growth in perspective, consider what would have happened had the current recovery matched the Reagan recovery. Real GDP is expected to be $7.2 trillion in 1998. If the economic expansion that began in 1991 were to match the growth under Reagan, real GDP would be $500 billion higher in 1998 and $2.8 trillion higher over 1992-98. Real GDP "lost" to slow growth would amount to over $7,300 per American family of four in 1998.

Job Creation Falters Under Bush/Clinton Tax Increases

The effects of higher taxes and increased government regulation have been painfully felt by working Americans, particularly those who have not been able to find jobs. Just one year after emerging from the recession, employment grew 3.5 percent under Reagan. [4] At the same point in the current recovery, employment actually fell 0.2 percent. Under the Bush/Clinton recovery, 7.5 million jobs have been created in the past four years (Figure 2). While this may seem substantial, it pales in comparison to the 11.5 million jobs created in the first four years of the Reagan recovery.

The 2 year growth gap in real GDP is reflected in the figures for job creation. Two years of the Reagan recovery nearly match four full years of job growth under Bush/Clinton. During the first four years of the Reagan recovery, there were an average of 240,000 jobs created each month. In the four year period following the 1990-91 recession, the average monthly job growth was just 156,000. In other words, for every two jobs created between 1992-95, three jobs were created under Reagan between 1983-86.

Real Revenue Growth Under Reagan Out-Paced Bush/Clinton

Contrary to the claims of Democrats, tax cuts under Reagan were not the cause of persistent budget deficits. As Figure 3 shows, real revenue grew much faster in the Reagan recovery than in the Bush/Clinton recovery. Under Reagan, federal revenue, in inflation-adjusted dollars, grew at an average annual rate of 4.8 percent, compared to 3.2 percent growth under Bush/Clinton.[5] After six years of economic expansion, real revenues under Reagan (with tax cuts) grew a cumulative 32.6 percent. Even with two tax increases, Bush/Clinton revenues are projected to increase just over 20 percent in six years, a feat Reagan accomplished two years quicker.
Click here to see Figure 3..

Even measured in absolute terms, revenue growth was much greater under Reagan than under Bush/Clinton. After six years of economic expansion, Reagan real revenues were $277 billion higher than at the end of the recession. Projected revenues under Clinton show that six years after the 1990-91 recession ended, revenues will be just $225 billion higher.

The reason for this is simple: The growth of revenues is tied to growth of the economy. Tax cuts stimulate economic growth, which in turn means that incomes are higher than they would be otherwise. Conversely, tax increases hinder growth and constrain economic expansion. Thus, revenue during the Reagan recovery actually grew faster than revenue in the Bush/Clinton recovery, despite the fact that Reagan instituted tax cuts while Bush and Clinton raised taxes.

Real Revenue Growth Under Reagan Out-Paced Bush/Clinton

Contrary to the claims of Democrats, tax cuts under Reagan were not the cause of persistent budget deficits. As Figure 3 shows, real revenue grew much faster in the Reagan recovery than in the Bush/Clinton recovery. Under Reagan, federal revenue, in inflation-adjusted dollars, grew at an average annual rate of 4.8 percent, compared to 3.2 percent growth under Bush/Clinton.[5] After six years of economic expansion, real revenues under Reagan (with tax cuts) grew a cumulative 32.6 percent. Even with two tax increases, Bush/Clinton revenues are projected to increase just over 20 percent in six years, a feat Reagan accomplished two years quicker.
Click here to see Figure 3..

Even measured in absolute terms, revenue growth was much greater under Reagan than under Bush/Clinton. After six years of economic expansion, Reagan real revenues were $277 billion higher than at the end of the recession. Projected revenues under Clinton show that six years after the 1990-91 recession ended, revenues will be just $225 billion higher.

The reason for this is simple: The growth of revenues is tied to growth of the economy. Tax cuts stimulate economic growth, which in turn means that incomes are higher than they would be otherwise. Conversely, tax increases hinder growth and constrain economic expansion. Thus, revenue during the Reagan recovery actually grew faster than revenue in the Bush/Clinton recovery, despite the fact that Reagan instituted tax cuts while Bush and Clinton raised taxes.

Higher Taxes Mean Less Disposable Income

Examination of disposable income further reinforces the negative role of taxes. Measured on a per capita basis in inflation-adjusted dollars, the Reagan recovery far outstripped the Bush/Clinton recovery in growth in disposable personal income, as illustrated in Figure 4. Real per capita disposable income grew a total of 11.3 percent in the first four years of the Reagan recovery.[6] Over an equivalent time period in the Bush/Clinton recovery, real per capita disposable income grew a meager 7.8 percent. Real per capita disposable income grew more under Reagan in two years (8.2 percent) than it did in four years under Bush and Clinton (7.8 percent).
Click here to see Figure 4..

Disposable income is defined as the amount of income that is left to individuals after paying taxes. As such, growth in disposable income is crucial for maintaining a rising standard of living. The anemic growth in disposable income under Bush/Clinton is indicative of two trends. First, higher taxes mean that Americans have to send a greater portion of their incomes to the federal government. Second, higher taxes stifle economic growth, which in turn means that the overall economy as well as individual incomes do not grow as fast as they would otherwise.

Nuthin like facts by a bipartisan Congressional panel~~~

Second, federal revenues went up much more during the Clinton years after he raised taxes..

Clinton at least had the brains to go along with Gingrich to balance the budget!

Obama has made it impossible to balance a budget for the next 100 years.........and has made Clintons tax increase look like Timmy Geithner turbo tax return look like a bad tip at a burger joint!

Clinton was a better President than Obama will ever be...

Dioes anyone remember anyone in the media recognizing that May was/is Mental Health Awareness Month - just curious...

I hope nobody bothered reading fredo's blather about reagan compared to Clinton. Notice how it completely skips over Clinton's last four years of BUDGET SURPLUSSES. I quit reading after it said something about "with four years of data..."
It took four years for Clinton to clean up reagan and bush's debts. Then everybody's boat raised with the tide, not just the rich. I only hope it doesn't take Obama 4 years, but he obviously is starting from a much deeper hole thanks to baby bush's supply side economics v.2. I'm sure y'all remember reagan letting the savings and loans go nuts and how we had to pay for the rich's crimes. Baby bush's deregulation of banks are reagan's policies on steroids... orders of magnitude worse. The rich took their cut and are doing quite well though.
Fredo is such a doofus. He even mentioned "facts". That had me rolling.
*waves atcha Fredo* --- bless your heart haha

Uh oh! Here's chainee himself saying reagan couldn't balance a budget and didn't even try.
===============================
O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency.

O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.
http://tinyurl.com/yq8pnn
========================
Lessee, there's accounting scandals, corporate crime, the "corporate crowd, a key constituency", record deficits, and chainee says "we're owed this".
He HAD to prove they were worse than reagan... and he succeeded at it.

I heard something funny on the TeeVee earlier. A snark about the new RNC... rush, newt, and chainee.

"Does anyone remember anyone in the media recognizing that May was/is Mental Health Awareness Month - just curious..."

No mention that I've heard . . .

"rush, newt, and chainee"

And now Bunnypants wants back into the limelight.

This is going to be GREAT!~

A massive GOP comeback based on the success of Bush Cheney and their popularity!

lol

And, the so-called "Reagan Recovery" didn't happen until he raised taxes.