Well what’s one more promise broken

S. Lindsey's picture

President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.

Agnostic defined

1. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood
Synonyms: doubting, uncertain, unsure, unconvinced, skeptical, undecided, doubtful, dubious, hesitant

“No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." Barack Husain Obama

Although he has already broken that promise with the cigarette tax Obamanites love to point out we actually got a tax cut not an increase???

Other Obama Promises made but not kept:

End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000

The Promise-"Will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors -- saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all."

The Results-“It wasn't part of the tax cuts in the economic stimulus bill, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It wasn't in Obama's first budget outline, which was approved by Congress on April 2, 2009. And it's not part of any proposed legislation that we can find.” Politifact

End no-bid contracts above $25,000

The Promise-"Will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid."

The Results- Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News

Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

The Promise- To reduce bills rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them, Obama "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

The Results- The camera lights still outshine sunlight at the Obama White House. In his latest violation of this promise, President Barack Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009 on May 22, only two days after the bill was finalized in Congress.

The law doesn't take effect for a full year, so it clearly is not emergency legislation. Politifact

Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials

The Promise- No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration

The Results- We found that the administration has granted waivers to several former lobbyists, allowing them to serve. The administration also allows recusals, where former lobbyists simply recuse themselves from discussions concerning whatever interest it is for which they used to lobby. The recusals have not been made public, and we don't know how many have been issued.

Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit

The Promise- Will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government (to pay for a national service plan that will cost about $3.5 billion per year when it is fully implemented). This plan will be paid for in part by cancelling tax provisions that would otherwise help multinational corporations pay less in U.S. taxes starting in 2008 by reallocating tax deductions for interest expenses between income earned in the U.S. and income earned abroad. The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with ending the war in Iraq

The Results- To demonstrate his commitment to fiscal responsibility, Barack Obama promised during his campaign that he would offset the costs of his national service plan with savings from changes in tax law and ending the war in Iraq.

Unfortunately, that would require bookkeeping gymnastics that are not permissible. We've also seen no public statements or comments by President Obama or congressional leaders that indicate he has truly made a commitment to pay for the plan.

Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels

The Promise- Barack Obama is committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year, the level they were at before 1994

The Results- During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama said that he is "committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year, the level they were at before 1994." Steve Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, told PolitiFact during early January that the group's running tally of congressional earmarks -- a tabulation widely noted in Washington circles -- had already exceeded $10 billion for the fiscal 2010 appropriations bills. That number includes the earmarks that Congress has disclosed. But judging by past experience, Ellis said, that number is likely to rise as the group continues its research, because in the past, many earmarks that have been created were never officially disclosed by Congress.

Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009

The Promise- Obama and Biden are calling for legislation that would allow withdrawals of 15% up to $10,000 from retirement accounts without penalty (although subject to the normal taxes). This would apply to withdrawals in 2008 (including retroactively) and 2009

The Results- We've tracked this promise on penalty-free 401(k) withdrawals since President Barack Obama took office. It seems like it's time to stick a fork in it and declare it done.

Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN

The Promise- To achieve health care reform, "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."

The Results- So no, there haven't been any round-table negotiations on C-SPAN. And there are plenty of questions still to be answered. To our mind, one of the most important questions will be the details behind what's known as the public option, which Obama has said he supports.

S. Lindsey's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Gort on Sat, 02/13/2010 - 9:27am.

S.Lindsey, did you write all that stuff by yourself or did Rush Limbaugh’s liposuction machine explode over your keyboard when you were typing?

The biggest “broken promise” told over the past 30 years was the Republican version of “Supply Side Economics.” The full effects of that strategy came to dramatic climax during President G.W. Bush’s administration. You must like what you got because you are constantly advocating for more of the same.

But that don’t mean the Republican tax cuts, didn’t create more jobs, like it promised. I think it did create more jobs. Unfortunately, for too many Americans, the new jobs opened up in China, India, and Brazil. The Republican tax cuts effectively looted our treasury so more jobs could be created where, out of work, Americans can’t get at them.

BTW, I seen your lament about poor Exxon Mobile Corporation and the tiny margins it’s forced to operate under. The injustice of it brought tears to my eyes. I’m sure Mr. R. W. Tillerson will see to it that your “Tea Party” is adequately rewarded for carrying the water for them. Keep an eye on Dick Armey. If he gets a new limo, you’ll know the check cleared and you can all cry out in unison at the next “Tea Party” gathering, “We are a grass-roots organization!”

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Sat, 02/13/2010 - 9:45am.

any of the failures of Obama.. Attacking the messager is all you got?

I noticed you worked in all the usual suspects.. Let's see you got Rush in and yeah the new left bash a group the Teaparty.. You worked in some evil Tax cuts and those super EVIL oil companies..

You obviously don't know economics at all.. Tax cuts RAISED revenue to the FED.. It does so EVERY time it's been done.. The problem is they raise SPENDING as well..

How do you feel about Obama QUADRUPLING that "BUSH" DEBT?

Go back under your rock.. You want Socialism go to France..

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

Submitted by kevin king on Sat, 02/13/2010 - 3:02pm.

today. Smiling

Now Joe's is just downright funny. The idea that he is so worked up over CSPAN is a true indicator of the slack in those emotional hinges of his. Hopefully they saved some stints for him cause I swear that man be bout to blow.

Now, Steve, I must ask here: Are you an economist? I'm just honestly wondering because your condescension rivals that of the "liberal elite" with this retort:

"You obviously don't know economics at all"

So if we cut taxes to ZERO, using your logic, the Fed will take in more money? Let's just use history as our guide. President Clinton and the Republican-lead Congress RAISED taxes and cut spending to balance the Federal Budget. You will not be able, with all of your vast economic knowledge, to point to a modern example of tax cuts ACTUALLY producing a balanced federal budget. In the real world that we live in. Reagan the tax cut hero deficit spent like a Hollywood elitist. Oh yeah, he WAS a Hollywood elitist Eye-wink.

As for the current budget deficits, you confuse me. The whole reason Bernanke and Bush developed the TARP was to free up economic markets and stem job loss. Isn't ECON 101 the concept of running Federal deficits in a recession to save jobs? But you want a balanced budget AND jobs? What school of econ did you go to my brother?

And I love the way Obama can't claim any credit for the surge in Iraq but gets all of the deficit blame for the TARP which started before him. Just be honest, dude. How much of the deficit is from the Bush TARP and how much is Obama's? Let's spread the wealth of blame around Eye-wink.

"Go back under your rock.. You want Socialism go to France.."

Funny you should mention that.

I'm sure you won't, as you say, attack the messenger here. But France happens to be rated the best country in the world to live in.

Here's the lead paragraph.

"Welcome to France, voted the best place in the world to live for the fifth year in a row by International Living magazine, which has been analyzing data and publishing its annual Quality of Life Index for 30 years.

One of the reasons France keeps winning the ranking is its world-class health care system, which Dupouy just experienced first-hand."

Headed there for the fourth time in two months. Great place, actually. And very nice, literate, and VERY HEALTHY people; their diets; their medical care. They don't seem to be complaining like we do here in The "everyone for themselves" USA. Go figure.

you conservative guys have an interesting way of being experts on socialized medicine having never lived under it.

But Welllpoint, INC. appreciates your Tea Partying efforts!

Even though Wellpoint posted a 727.3% gain on its bottom line during the fourth quarter,

they are raising premiums 30-39% for some insured folks. No doubt some of the effected are probably Tea Party Patriots.!Doubt you will argue their case though. It seems conservatives often pay lip service to being on the side of "normal moms and dads," but tend to dress out with the CIGNAs and Wellpoints of the world.

Now you will point out that those profits were not typical, but they made 331 million last year. Not exactly an insolvent company.

No, S.L, the system is not broken, is it? People being milked like sick cows by for profit insurance companies is not a problem the Tea Party cares to face. Not nearly as big a deal as not having legislation 24/7 on CSPAN.

All bickering aside for a moment. Did you see the video of that luge accident? Can you imagine being the next Olympian down the pipe? I can't. Very tragic for Georgia.

We now continue with republican hand-ringing and revolution clamoring already in progress. Smiling


Submitted by Gort on Sat, 02/13/2010 - 2:44pm.

S.Lindsey, if “Obama” posted a blog on “The Citizen” I would probably ask him about a thing or two. But he doesn’t post here so, all I got is you.

I don’t know where you got the idea I think oil companies are evil? My comment was about your phony lament about how the poor oil companies have to operate with such narrow margins. You wrote about it, I just commented on what you wrote,

If you don’t like what I say about Rush or the Tea Party, maybe you should, “stop pal’in around with right wing terrorist,” or, as you like to tell me, “go to France.”

You said, “Tax cuts RAISED revenue…” Well see, we can agree on something! Unfortunately it wasn’t the US government that realized the increase. It was China, India, and Brazil. They also got the new jobs. And don’t forget all that cash they use to buy up our debt.

You also said, “The problem is they raise SPENDING.” We all know who the “they” were. It’s funny how you never remind us how the Republican majority, in the House and Senate, colluded with K Street lobbyist to rob America blind. And for six years the Republican President of the United States rubber stamped every piece of crap legislation sent to him. Pork and all!

I know how much you like to go into your, “call them a Socialist” mode, if anyone ever dares to make, even a mild criticism about the behavior of corporate interest. I criticize their excesses, not because I’m a socialist as you would like to think, but because I’m against the kind of “Crony Capitalism,” you are so eager to defend. I think it gives Capitalism a bad name!

Please accept my apology, if I can’t recognize your intellectual capacity for economics. Perhaps it’s because you have been wrong so many times in the past, I can almost bank on anything you say as being wrong.

By the way, you never did tell me how that whole “Supply Side Economics,” thingy, was work’in out for ya. (Wink, wink!)

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Sat, 02/13/2010 - 9:27pm.

George Bush cut the capital gains tax in 2003 and when they cut the income tax rate we got a huge bump in revenues.

The revenue to the FED INCREASED by $700 BILLION after the TAX CUTS. Look it up.

In the 1980s when they cut the top income tax rate from 70% all the way down to 28%, over that decade -- and you can look this up in President Bill Clinton's own budget documents. The federal revenues doubled. They doubled from $500 billion to $1 trillion.

So tell me again.. TAX cuts don't work... The problem is they never curb spending. It worked when JFK did it.. and it will work now.

And that's Economics 101...

And btw Hack.. 80% of Americans are happy with their Healthcare... yours is a straw argument. You can link all you want it still dosen't change that basic fact.. If everyone thought they where getting "milked" then we would have single payer by now.. Now wouldn't we?

If France was so great then why is everyone trying to get in here?

They've been having a little rioting issues lately.. Not too many really want to go there..

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

Submitted by Gort on Sun, 02/14/2010 - 9:45am.

S.Lindsey, you must be using Dick Armey tea bags if you believe that crap about the Bush tax cuts. Any increase in income tax revenue was the result of the temporary jobs created in the building boom, bubble, and finally busted, era of false prosperity brought to us by your Republican majority. Cutting the capital gains tax increased the flow of investments overseas into the emerging markets. We will all pay a high price for both events, for a very long time. That artificial prosperity was not some fluke of events that just happened but the end result of your Republican friends passing the legislation into law that made it all possible.

“By the way, you still never did tell me how that whole “Supply Side Economics,” thingy, was work’ in out for ya. (Wink, wink!)”

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Sun, 02/14/2010 - 10:11am.

From facts.. Oh I know you can try but facts are facts.
Take a look at the revenues before and after the tax cuts.
The Fed saw an increase of $700 billion. That's facts for you,
sucks don't it. You may now go back to your rock.

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

Submitted by Gort on Sun, 02/14/2010 - 5:59pm.

S.Lindsey, show me the money! Show me the money! You can’t, it’s all gone, up in smoke and mirrors like your repetitious phony argument. Your Republican pals bankrupted not just the country but who knows how many businesses and families. Show them your damn statistic about how, “The Fed saw an increase of $700 billion,” and see how much it impresses them. You’re selling blue sky with that whopper.

Well, the weekend is over. Thanks for the laughs and I’ll see you again soon in the funny papers.

By the way, I don’t know where you studied economics but if print out your posts from this blog, mail it to the school you attended, and tell them the dates you attended class, I’m sure they would agree you are entitled to at least a partial tuition refund. Good luck!

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Sun, 02/14/2010 - 6:46pm.

that even you might understand.

In 1913 President Wilson signed in the Revenue Act 0f 1913. The intent was to levy taxes from the people to fund Progressive programs.
The top tax rate was supposed to be 6% and the bottom at 1%. This was supposed to be permanent and was never going to change.
The total revenue to the Government was at $1 BILLION dollars.

Just a few years later in 1919 FDR raised the top rate to 75% and the lowest rate to 25%.
(Side note- FDR wanted anyone that made more than $25k per years to pay 100%..)

Revenues fell from $1 Billion to $153 MILLION. right after the tax rate increase.

In 1921 after seeing Fed Revenue income continue shrinking the rates were decreased from 75% back to 24% . Revenues went from $155 Million to $301 Million after the TAX CUTS.

Note also Revenues DID NOT RETURN BACK TO THE $1 BILLION mark until many years later.

JFK ‘s tax cuts brought in an additional 11% more revenue than current projections

Reagan’s tax cuts brought in an additional 40% more revenues.

Gort it’s called the Laffer Curve.. Look it up.

Kevin tried to shift the Goal Post and attempted to frame the argument around Balanced Budgets.
That was not what we were talking about. Government has to curb SPENDING.

Revenues will flex downward until the flow of Money reaches the population. Once it does revenues always RISE.

The issue is one of FISCAL RESPONCIBILITY in Government. You can’t spend money knowing you will see an uptick and expect to balance a budget.

Gort that’s simple ECONOMICS.

Now as to your "Supply Side Economics"

Here is a basic definition..
"the single idea behind all three pillars is that production (i.e. the "supply" of goods and services) is the most important determinant of economic growth. The supply-side theory is typically held in stark contrast to Keynesian theory, which, among other facets, includes the idea that demand can falter, so if lagging consumer demand drags the economy into recession, the government should intervene with fiscal and monetary stimuli.""Supply-side actually goes further and claims that demand is largely irrelevant. It says that over-production and under-production are not really sustainable phenomena. Supply-siders argue that when companies temporarily "over-produce", excess inventory will be created, prices will subsequently fall and consumers will increase their purchases to offset the excess supply. As put by the Fountainhead Capital Group, "After all, what would cause consumers and businesses to stop demanding goods and services and force the economy into a recession or a depression? Keynes had no idea, and said as much….

It implies a reduced role for government and a less progressive tax policy.

I have no issue with that... The current Spending policy of balloning the debt to record levels is NOT a stable platform for growth..

Now I guess since you are more of a Keynesian guy.. Well History has already proved you wrong on that. Most Economist have thrown out models of Keynesian as any real driver of the economy.

Trickle down is the only way to sucessfully build the economy.. Re-distribution of wealth does not create wealth. Wealth creates jobs.. Jobs create wealth.. and the circle goes on..

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

Submitted by Gort on Sun, 02/14/2010 - 9:57pm.

S.Lindsey, I think I got your number right. Woodrow Wilson? FDR in 1919? What the heck are you talking about? You got to stop drinking that Dick Armey tea. It’s just not good for you.

Ah, what have we here, the “Laffer Curve.” I can work with that. The real trick to the “Laffer Curve,” is finding that elusive “T” isn’t it? The magic of that “T” is the correct tax point that maximizes tax revenue.

Do you see the dilemma this puts you in? The reason it’s a dilemma is because there is no such thing as a Republican that gives a damn about maximizing tax revenue. They just want tax cuts and that is the end of their tune. So, even your economic argument, based on the “Laffer Curve,” is just another fraud.

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 8:31am.

clearly shows how ignorant you are in basic Economic principles.

Finding the "T" is easy... It's been done throughout history. Not looking for it is the ignorance that invades the Progressive mindset.

The Conservatives like to look for the lowest point in the curve that gives max dollars to the Government while stimulating Economic growth..Progressives look to the HIGHEST point for the same effect..

The Republicans like to spend just as much as the Democrats.. They understand however they can spend more with more Revenues.. Simple.

Tax cuts COMBINED with smaller Government/Less spending will get us on track for an robust economic recovery.

The path we are on is not sustainable.. Heck even OBAMA said so.. but yet he's driving the bus right past the Bridge OUT signs as fast as he can.

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

Submitted by kevin king on Sun, 02/14/2010 - 12:11pm.

"And btw Hack.. 80% of Americans are happy with their Healthcare... yours is a straw argument."

Steve, you pulled that from the same place you pulled "tax cuts alone increased federal revenue." There are over 300 million Americans. In my bleeding heart, even if your "80% are happy" number was at all credible, I feel 60 million unhappy and potentially unhealthy Americans constitutes a significance far beyond straw men and women. The fact that I know quite a few of those underinsured "straw men" helps me do this empathy/sympathy thing, whereas I actually care about what other Americans are going through; not a journey you need to join me on, but that's the kind of caring about the lives of others that compels one to help others.

As for your fascination with tax cuts, you never did tell me when we actually BALANCED A BUDGET using tax cuts. When was it proven to work? When did tax cuts REDUCE THE DEFICIT?

You know, SL, in THEORY, the coefficient of friction is independent of surface area meaning that bike tires and car tires of the same material should have the same braking or acceleration effectiveness.

But we all KNOW that big old wide tires perform a whole lot better than skinny little 185s.

Your supply side economics have shown over and over and over and over again that they have not balanced a budget, even if you say they should on paper.

On to the next argument that will end in no mutual understanding, changed minds, or cumbayaas.

Gonna have dinner with some French folks. I'll ask them how hard they are fighting to give up their maternity / paternity leave and universal health care. Think I already know the answer though.


S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Sun, 02/14/2010 - 3:48pm.

The poll results. You don't believe them ok. Some people still believe
Obama can tell the truth.

"According to Gallup's data, 87% of people with private insurance and 82% of people on Medicare or Medicaid say that the quality of their health care is excellent or good."

As to tax cuts Historical Presidence proves me right.. See my response to Gort above..I never said they balanced the budget. I think
I was pretty clear when I said the spending increased
with the rise in federal revenues.

You can't increase revs and spending and expect a different result.

I thought that was pretty simple.

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

Joe Kawfi's picture
Submitted by Joe Kawfi on Sat, 02/13/2010 - 3:07am.

This "president" has been lying through his teeth since day one. He is nothing but a corrupt has been that can't even get a filibuster-proof majority in congress to pass his schemes without bribing them, and then he even fails.

WHAT AN ABSOLUTE FAILURE THIS PRESIDENT IS!! He lied about not raising taxes-- he lied about being transparent-- he lied about negotiating bills on c-span-- he lied about not allowing lobbyists and special interests in his cabinet--

He lies, and lies, and lies, and lies. He is a miserable failure he** bent on destroying America.

"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.