Why does Barack Obama suck?

Why does Barack Obama suck? I’ll give you 10 good reasons… Note: Barack Obama has an IQ of 125. Are you smarter than him? Take this IQ test and find out! I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the words “Obama” and “Messiah” used in the same sentence. To liberals, Barack Obama is a spotless god-like figure who will save America from the scourge of neo-conservatism. I’m totally sick of hearing and reading your hero-worshiping crap, folks. Let’s face reality: like so many other powerful politicians in this country, Barack Obama sucks:

1. The Race Card: Whether it be in suggesting that anyone who doesn’t vote for him because he is black is probably a republican, or in blaming Bush administration racism on a slow response to Hurricane Katrina, Obama is quite comfortable playing the race card.

2. Anti-Indian: After the Obama campaign released a paper disparaging other candidates for their ties to the Indian-American community, the chairman of the bipartisan US India Political Action Committee, Sanjay Puri, stated that the Obama Campaign was “engaging in the worst kind of anti-Indian American stereotyping.” Of course, Obama denied any hand in the racist document put out by his campaign.

3. Corrupt Buddies: Tony Rezko, a long time friend and fund-raiser for Obama, was indicted last fall on federal charges that accuse him of demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state business. When asked about his friend, Obama said, “I’ve never done any favors for him.” This turned out to be a lie, as evidence turned up proving that Obama had written letters to city and state officials praising Rezko’s business practices.

4. Wal-Mart Ties: While bashing of Wal-Mart’s labor practices in public, Obama has been profiting from their business through the money his wife made as a member of the board of directors for a company that produces food for the mega-corporation.

5. Religious Ties: Is Obama a Muslim? Is he a Christian? Nobody is 100% sure, but it is true that Obama was raised in a Muslim family and at one time attended an Islamic school. He currently claims to be a convert to Christianity, but some are concerned about his Muslim upbringing.

6. Anti-Second Amendment: Obama is one of the most anti-Second Amendment legislators in the country. He supports a ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

7. Gas-guzzler: Obama might attack American automakers for not making enough environmental friendly automobiles, but when he goes home he drives a gas-guzzling V-8 hemi-powered Chrysler 300.

 8. Obama Ringtones: The most annoying campaign tool ever.

9. Obama Girl: I take back what I said about the ringtones. This girl is far more annoying.

10. His Unelectable Name: Barack Hussein Obama, ’nuff said.

 

Attention Yedda Posters.Lenore (aka defrogpong)will try to disrupt this question with unrelated cuts and paste ARTICLES,because he has limited capabilities,And as usual has nothing of any significant value to contribute!!!

Liked this question? Tell your friends about it

291 Answers

Order by
Oldest to Newest
Newest to Oldest
Votes

Why Obama sucks Reason No. 11: Commitment to America, NOT!!!

Obama mentioned his church during an appearance with Oprah. It’s the Trinity Church of Christ. Please read and go to this church’s website and read what is written there. It is very alarming.

Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S. If you look at the first page of their website, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. No where is AMERICA even mentioned. Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama’s church… B-L-A-C-K!!! Doesn’t look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing.

Are you aware that Obama’s middle name is Mohammed? Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. This guy desires to rule over America
while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa!
This is information that should be all over the TV and newspapers.

This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all. To think that Obama has even the slightest chance to be our president is really scary.

This is the web page for the church Barack Obama belongs to:

http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

I don't wish to be argumentative ,but I disagree with the Islamic belief that I should be killed! " If radical atheists decided they needed to kill believers to ensure their place in nothingness, I'd be criticizing that too."

Well here's several reasons off the top of my head.

1. U.S. Bail Out of the Banks.

2. U.S. Bail Out of Car Companies.

3. Obama and Gore's made up carbon problems that we paid for.

4. Cash for clunkers that we the taxpayers paid out millions.

5. The increasing Federal Deficit.

6. Obama PORK spending.

7. Obama is the worst President since Jimmy Carter. I believe Obama will make history for that one.

8. Obama has a Narcissistic behavior.

9. Obama not making INS do their jobs that the taxpayers are paying them to do.

10. Obama not treating the War in Afghanistan like a criminal conspiracy.

Don't just rock the boat, turn it over, if you're not on it! ______________________________________________ Life's Values Honesty, Courage, Gratitude, Responsibility, Charity, Moderation, Hope, Thrift, Hard Work, Reverence, Humility ___________________________________________________

Yes, I am smarter than Obama. But the fact is, really smart people have no desire whatsoever to be any kind of leaders. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the very fact that anybody WANTS to be president should automatically disqualify them from holding office. No matter how much I may like or dislike a president, I think that actually wanting the job is a definite indicator of both a mental and moral unbalance.

If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, then that makes me a burning truck filled with TNT hurtling through a rocket fuel depot.

Let's not forget, He's a Racist ...

"Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem.” Semper Fi Philippians 4:13 "I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength."

Obama apologized for American aggression and the many wars that we have been involved in around the world but there are many American soldiers in cemeteries all over the world and not one Nation have we colonized or taking over as we have fought to make each a free democracy. Had we not entered the two World Wars our planet would be under different rule with Germany as the world leader. We got into our war with Japan when they attacked us or did the slip the mind of the liberal apologist? If I recall correctly it was North Korea that attacked South Korea where our troops were stationed and Iraq attacked Kuwait that got us in the first Iraqi War. Where in all of that should we apologize?

I believe in CARE. Courtesy - Attitude - Respect - Enlightenment

Quick Fact: Varney again falsely claims that cutting taxes increases revenue

August 03, 2010 1:24 pm ET — 25 Comments


Fox News' Stuart Varney again falsely claimed that, "historically," tax cuts "actually bring in more money to the Treasury." In fact, virtually no economist believes the evidence supports the claim that tax cuts result in increased federal revenues.

EMBED

Embed this video:


Varney: "Historically ... when you lower rates on the rich, you actually bring in more money to the Treasury." On the August 3 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, purported business expert Stuart Varney falsely claimed that tax cuts "bring in more money to the Treasury":

VARNEY: Historically, it shows that when you raise [tax] rates, you actually bring in over the long term less money to the Treasury and the reverse is true as well. When you lower rates on the rich, you actually bring in more money to the treasury. What President Obama is doing, he's playing politics. I hate to say playing politics but this is a political issue. The very core of President Obama's administration is raise taxes on the rich, redistribute the wealth. That's what's -- that's what he's all about on January 1. Not economics. It's politics.  

Varney previously falsely claimed that Reagan, Bush tax cuts caused "a gigantic increase in revenues to the federal treasury, reducing deficits." As Media Matters noted, Varney falsely claimed on the July 26 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor that tax cuts enacted under Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush caused "a gigantic increase in revenues to the federal treasury, reducing deficits. That's historically accurate." 

Economists, including numerous Bush advisers, reject claim that previous tax cuts have increased revenues

Time: "Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues." In a December 6, 2007 article titled, "Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues," Time magazine noted that "economists agree" that the Republican talking point that tax cuts raise revenues is "false":

If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues. 

Bush CEA chair Mankiw: Claim that broad-based income tax cuts increase revenue is not "credible." Economist Greg Mankiw, who also served as chair of the Bush CEA wrote on July 2, 2007:

I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.

[...]

My other work has remained consistent with this view. In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the [sic] same thing.

Reagan economist Feldstein: "It's not that you get more revenue by lowering tax rates, it is that you don't lose as much." The New York Times reported on March 26, 2008:

While Mr. Laffer insists that tax revenue will rise when tax rates are cut, other supply-siders are less categorical. Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist who was the first chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers and now supports Senator McCain, estimates that a 10 percent tax cut would in fact reduce tax revenue -- but only by 3 to 5 percent.

"It is not that you get more revenue by lowering tax rates, it is that you don't lose as much," he said.

Feldstein also reportedly wrote in 1986 that "[t]he height of the supply-side hyperbole was the 'Laffer curve' proposition that the tax cut would actually increase tax revenue because it would unleash an enormously depressed supply of effort. ... I have no doubt that the loose talk of the supply-side extremists gave fundamentally good policies a bad name and led to quantitative mistakes that not only contributed to subsequent budget deficits, but also made it more difficult to modify policy when those deficits became apparent."

Former Bush chief economist to CEA Samwick: "You know that tax cuts have not fueled record revenues." In a January 2007 "New Year's Plea," to "anyone in the [Bush] Administration who may read this blog," Andrew Samwick, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and former chief economist to the Council of Economic Advisers during the Bush administration, wrote:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

FactCheck.org: Revenue would have been higher without Bush tax cuts.  FactCheck.org concluded on June 11, 2007, that "it is clear" the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 "did not 'increase revenues'" as Sen. John McCain had claimed. The post further stated: "The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been - even if they spur some economic growth."

Former Bush economist: "[N]o dispute among economists" that Bush tax cuts reduced revenue. The Washington Post reported on October 17, 2006:

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."

Krugman: After Reagan's 1981 tax cuts, "revenues are permanently reduced relative to what they would otherwise have been." Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote on July 15 that "the revenue track under Reagan looks a lot like the track under Bush: a drop in revenues, then a resumption of growth, but no return to the previous trend." He added, "This is exactly what you would expect to see if supply-side economics were just plain wrong: revenues are permanently reduced relative to what they would otherwise have been."

Clinton economist: Reagan tax cuts and Bush tax cuts "contributed to record US budget deficits." Harvard economist and former Clinton economic advisor Jeffrey Frankel wrote in 2008 that cuts in federal income tax rates "reduces revenue ... this was the outcome of the two big experiments of recent decades: the Reagan tax cuts of 1981-83 and the Bush tax cuts of 2001-03, both of which contributed to record US budget deficits." Frankel added that this is "the view of almost all professional economists, including the illustrious economic advisers to Presidents Reagan and Bush."

Quick Fact: Varney again falsely claims that cutting taxes increases revenue

August 03, 2010 1:24 pm ET — 25 Comments


Fox News' Stuart Varney again falsely claimed that, "historically," tax cuts "actually bring in more money to the Treasury." In fact, virtually no economist believes the evidence supports the claim that tax cuts result in increased federal revenues.

EMBED

Embed this video:


Varney: "Historically ... when you lower rates on the rich, you actually bring in more money to the Treasury." On the August 3 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, purported business expert Stuart Varney falsely claimed that tax cuts "bring in more money to the Treasury":

VARNEY: Historically, it shows that when you raise [tax] rates, you actually bring in over the long term less money to the Treasury and the reverse is true as well. When you lower rates on the rich, you actually bring in more money to the treasury. What President Obama is doing, he's playing politics. I hate to say playing politics but this is a political issue. The very core of President Obama's administration is raise taxes on the rich, redistribute the wealth. That's what's -- that's what he's all about on January 1. Not economics. It's politics.  

Varney previously falsely claimed that Reagan, Bush tax cuts caused "a gigantic increase in revenues to the federal treasury, reducing deficits." As Media Matters noted, Varney falsely claimed on the July 26 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor that tax cuts enacted under Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush caused "a gigantic increase in revenues to the federal treasury, reducing deficits. That's historically accurate." 

Economists, including numerous Bush advisers, reject claim that previous tax cuts have increased revenues

Time: "Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues." In a December 6, 2007 article titled, "Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues," Time magazine noted that "economists agree" that the Republican talking point that tax cuts raise revenues is "false":

If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues. 

Bush CEA chair Mankiw: Claim that broad-based income tax cuts increase revenue is not "credible." Economist Greg Mankiw, who also served as chair of the Bush CEA wrote on July 2, 2007:

I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.

[...]

My other work has remained consistent with this view. In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the [sic] same thing.

Reagan economist Feldstein: "It's not that you get more revenue by lowering tax rates, it is that you don't lose as much." The New York Times reported on March 26, 2008:

While Mr. Laffer insists that tax revenue will rise when tax rates are cut, other supply-siders are less categorical. Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist who was the first chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers and now supports Senator McCain, estimates that a 10 percent tax cut would in fact reduce tax revenue -- but only by 3 to 5 percent.

"It is not that you get more revenue by lowering tax rates, it is that you don't lose as much," he said.

Feldstein also reportedly wrote in 1986 that "[t]he height of the supply-side hyperbole was the 'Laffer curve' proposition that the tax cut would actually increase tax revenue because it would unleash an enormously depressed supply of effort. ... I have no doubt that the loose talk of the supply-side extremists gave fundamentally good policies a bad name and led to quantitative mistakes that not only contributed to subsequent budget deficits, but also made it more difficult to modify policy when those deficits became apparent."

Former Bush chief economist to CEA Samwick: "You know that tax cuts have not fueled record revenues." In a January 2007 "New Year's Plea," to "anyone in the [Bush] Administration who may read this blog," Andrew Samwick, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and former chief economist to the Council of Economic Advisers during the Bush administration, wrote:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

FactCheck.org: Revenue would have been higher without Bush tax cuts.  FactCheck.org concluded on June 11, 2007, that "it is clear" the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 "did not 'increase revenues'" as Sen. John McCain had claimed. The post further stated: "The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been - even if they spur some economic growth."

Former Bush economist: "[N]o dispute among economists" that Bush tax cuts reduced revenue. The Washington Post reported on October 17, 2006:

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."

Krugman: After Reagan's 1981 tax cuts, "revenues are permanently reduced relative to what they would otherwise have been." Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote on July 15 that "the revenue track under Reagan looks a lot like the track under Bush: a drop in revenues, then a resumption of growth, but no return to the previous trend." He added, "This is exactly what you would expect to see if supply-side economics were just plain wrong: revenues are permanently reduced relative to what they would otherwise have been."

Clinton economist: Reagan tax cuts and Bush tax cuts "contributed to record US budget deficits." Harvard economist and former Clinton economic advisor Jeffrey Frankel wrote in 2008 that cuts in federal income tax rates "reduces revenue ... this was the outcome of the two big experiments of recent decades: the Reagan tax cuts of 1981-83 and the Bush tax cuts of 2001-03, both of which contributed to record US budget deficits." Frankel added that this is "the view of almost all professional economists, including the illustrious economic advisers to Presidents Reagan and Bush."

Hayes retells myth that Reagan ended recession with tax cuts

August 02, 2010 10:28 pm ET — 88 Comments


Stephen Hayes criticized the Obama administration's response to the recession by reviving the myth that President Reagan ended the 1981 recession by cutting taxes. In fact, economists have said that the recession was ended under Reagan primarily due to federal interest rate cuts.

EMBED

Embed this video:

Hayes claims Reagan ended recession by cutting taxes
Hayes: "President Reagan cut taxes and you had growth of 5 percent, 8 percent and 9 percent." During the August 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Steven Hayes said, "Go back and look at the aftermath of the 1981 recession. President Reagan cut taxes, and you had growth in consecutive quarters, I think, of 5 percent, 8 percent, and 9 percent," and that "the policies that President Reagan enacted led to -- the recovery was much more pronounced than we're seeing now."
Hannity: If Obama "followed Reagan policies, I would argue probably we're in a good position for a recovery." During the discussion, Hannity claimed, "The economy was in far worse shape when Reagan came into the presidency, and what's happening here is the Obama policies are the antithesis of those of Reagan." Hannity added that if Obama "had followed Reagan policies, I would argue probably we're in a good position for a recovery, but I think he went in the wrong way." Economists attribute Reagan-era recovery to interest rate cuts
Federal interest rates dropped throughout early 1980s recession, but are already currently at near-record lows. The recession to which Hannity and Hayes referred began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982. The federal funds rate peaked at 20 percent in late May 1981 and dropped to 9.5 percent by mid-October 1982, while the discount rate peaked at 14 percent in early May 1981 and dropped to 9.5 percent in mid-October 1982. By contrast, the current federal funds rate is between zero percent and 0.25 percent, while the primary discount rate is at 0.75 percent and the secondary discount rate is at 1.25 percent.
CBO: "Lower interest rates after mid-1982 permitted the recovery to begin." An August 1983 CBO report, titled "The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update," concluded that "[l]ower interest rates after mid-1982 permitted the recovery to begin":

The Economy At Mid-1983

Recovery started in December 1982 from the deepest postwar recession, the second of two since 1980. Both recessions were brought on by monetary restriction aimed at bringing inflation under control. Lower interest rates after mid-1982 permitted the recovery to begin. Real GNP grew at a 2.6 percent annual rate in the first quarter and at an 8.7 percent annual rate in the second quarter of 1983.

The report also concluded: "A dramatic decline in inflation, a fall in interest rates from levels that were extraordinarily high to levels that are merely high, and the stock market boom have contributed to the improvement in economic conditions."

Reagan economist suggests interest rate cuts drove economic recovery. Michael Mussa, a member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in an essay for American Economic Policy in the 1980s (University of Chicago Press, 1995) that when the Federal Reserve cut the discount rate a half percentage point on July 20, 1982, it "signal[ed] the beginning of what would become a four-and-a-half-year period of quite rapid monetary expansion. During this period, interest rates, both short and long term, would be driven significantly lower, and the U.S. economy would substantially recover from the devastation of both inflation and recession."

Krugman: "Right now, the interest rate is zero. The Fed can't rescue us this time, and that's why we can't do the things we did in the '80s." Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman said during the February 6, 2009, edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe that "in 1982, when the economy was deeply depressed, the Federal Reserve said, 'OK, we've got to do something about this,' and they cut interest rates from 13 percent to around 7 percent and the economy took off." Krugman continued: "Right now, the interest rate is zero. The Fed can't rescue us this time, and that's why we can't do the things we did in the '80s. We have to have an approach that harks back to the things that worked very well in the first four years of the New Deal until Franklin Roosevelt was persuaded to go orthodox all over again."

Obama did cut taxes for Americans as part of stimulus package

The $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included $288 billion in tax relief. As Media Matters for America has noted, the recovery act contained $288 billion in tax relief, including the Making Work Pay tax credit, an annual credit of $400 per individual or $800 for families. In addition, the recovery act included a temporary increase in the earned income tax credit, a temporary increase in the refundable portion of the child tax credit, an increase in the first-time homebuyer tax credit, and tax incentives for businesses.

William Gale: "[T]axes are literally at their lowest in decades." CBS News reported on April 15 that "taxes are at their lowest levels in 60 years, according to William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center and director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution." CBS News further reported:

"The relation between what is said in the tax debate and what is true about tax policy is often quite tenuous," Gale told Hotsheet. "The rise of the Tea Party at at time when taxes are literally at their lowest in decades is really hard to understand."

Bruce Bartlett: "[F]ederal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president." Bruce Bartlett, former adviser to President Reagan and Treasury Department economist under George H.W. Bush, wrote on March 19 that "federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year":

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies

Related Questions

Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:

Asked: Eliminate the President? it would be most ...

Eliminate the President? it would be most sensible to eliminate this least effective post in government. For the last 5-1/2 years, we have had an impotent figurehead named Obama doing busywork ...

Asked: Mesothelioma law suit- My father is deceased ...

mesothelioma law suit- My father is deceased but had a lawsuit filed, there are settlements pending. I have a sister who has been receiving checks, but there are 3 other siblings who have received ...

Asked: Alabama 1970 law reforms stops quickie divorces

alabama 1970 law reforms stops quickie divorces

Ask a Question... We'll forward it to people who know

More Questions

Did You Know USA President Barack Obama is also a Author?

A loser at every thing....Everyone know he didn't write Dreams from My Father...His bunky Bill Aryers wrote it.

What would you ask Obama?

I'd like to know why he goes around jumping up and down screaming God Damn America in the White House every day, just like his back slid ex preacher done. I never liked back slid false cults like that any way. No decent person would have stayed there. That is why Obatso is such a surly racist he ...

100 Days of President Obama

Obama started out very slow, and about six months into office he was declined Q-Presidential clearance: he could not pass reliability minimums for the nuclear weapons program due to recent and habitual illegal drug abuse. He was declined twice more, each time on grounds of psychological instability ...

Do you approve of President Obama's job performance?

Unfortunately, fools (and only fools) tolerate such defaults as "charisma." They will follow charismatic idiots as flies would follow a garbage truck. Hence we have the miseries that Obama inflicted and the obstructionist government this racket boss caused. This is the very sorest test of ...