American Politics during the Obama Presidency [Archive] - Page 10

Wild Walleye

11-01-10, 22:27

Still, among those in the Democratic consulting class, there's a gloomy acknowledgment that many of the incumbents the DCCC has spent millions of dollars to protect won't be coming back to Congress.

'Everybody that is tied will lose, and everyone that is ahead by a few points will lose because of the GOP wave, ' said one party media consultant who is involved in a wide array of House races. 'There are going to be some surprises. '[/i]That is germane to the the "under counting" that I believe is taking place. I believe that any dem in a poll with less than a 4% lead is going to lose.

There will be, as there has already been in this election, fraud perpetrated by the left (Nevada, SC, etc. I expect that any race that has a republican winning by less than 3% will be contested and like the Al Franken debacle, stolen. On the other side, I do not expect Republicans to contest any losses with a margin greater than.5.

The slumbering giant has been awoken and (I believe) will vanquish many of America's foes, tomorrow. Yes, I believe that much of the left is America's foe, not merely loyal opposition.

I won't be able to sleep tonight, I am so excited to vote. Ok, that probably isn't true but it is pretty exciting. The fact that the possibility exists that America is heeding the call to REFORM (not remake, recast or whatever other BS the left pedals to obfuscate destroying the Constitution) the nation around its founding principles is truly exciting to me.

"Change for the sake of change" is a slogan for assholes. Why not play Russian roulette? The reason why many people, who might otherwise seem intelligent, vote for such hollow slogans is because they have become separated form their equity ownership in America and all for which she stands. Nobody would risk something they know to be priceless on some bumper sticker slogan. Yet, they do. They do it because they have lost touch with the irreplaceable value of that which they hold.

Well tomorrow, I believe that many Americans who have not fully participated in the past will become involved. Further, I believe that through their involvement and with the electoral results that I expect will materialize, they will become reunited with their equity ownership in America. Together, we, the American people, have the ability to return to the principles that founded this great nation (from which we started to diverge in a bad way during FDR) for the benefit of all Americans. The byproduct of this reform will also benefit the rest of the freeloading-nations around the world. So be it.

I believe that this is the greatest nation in the history of mankind, and history seems to back me up on this. Note that I didn't say America is perfect, it isn't. No man nor anything created by man is perfect. But man has never created anything its equal. Nothing created by man has provided more freedom, more liberty, more advancement or more good for the benefit of mankind that the USA.

[key the music]

God Bless America

Stan Da Man

11-01-10, 23:36

That is germane to the the "under counting" that I believe is taking place. I believe that any dem in a poll with less than a 4% lead is going to lose.

I won't be able to sleep tonight, I am so excited to vote. I feel much the same way. I rarely vote. My reasons are more practical than lazy: I've served on three juries and been called for jury duty five times in the past 10 years. I just don't have time for it any more. I show up for jury duty like anyone else when called, but I just can't afford to take a week or two off every three years. So, if I don't vote, I stay out of the federal jury pool. I'm still in the state juror pool, because they go off DMV records, which is why I still get summoned every other year. But, at least it's not double duty. I know how to get off jury duty by lying when asked questions, but I won't do that. So, I try to legitimately avoid the obligation by sacrificing my vote, which doesn't count for much in the grand scheme of things.

To get me riled up enough to risk that, I. E, getting called for a federal jury, is my litmus test. If I'm this pissed off, there are plenty of others who are too. And, I'll be at the voting booth bright and early tomorrow. My lame state failed to mail my absentee ballot despite two separate requests. Fortunately, I'll be in town so it won't matter.

The reason I give Toymann a chance on his bet, and you a chance on your prediction of 51 GOP Senators, is that all the rules from past elections don't really apply to this election. The pollsters are saying that they have never seen anything like the "enthusiasm gap" that exists this election. As a consequence, they don't know how to model "likely voter" very well.

If turnout is as they predict, it will be very difficult for Republicans to get control of the Senate. But, when even the pollsters are saying that their predictions may be way off, well, it will be interesting to see what pans out.

Most interesting for me is which direction they are off. Democrats have been trying to rouse their base for months with both exhortations and scare tactics. The former didn't work, so we've been hearing the drumbeat of 'if you don't vote, the neanderthals will be back; help us punish our enemies; Republicans want to take us backwards; etc, etc. ' Will that work? I doubt it. But Democrats have spent the past few decades buying votes through extended unemployment benefits, liberal illegal immigrant policies, welfare incentives that reward avoiding work, generous government-paid union giveaways, free* cash for cars and houses, loans to those who couldn't afford them, and now free* health care for all. The asterisk is next to "free" for obvious reasons. At some level, buying votes pays off. Obviously, there are some who can see through this pandering. Will it be enough? If so, then it will be a very long night for Democrats.

Esten

11-02-10, 02:17

First off. The "Rally To Restore Sanity And / Or Fear" was excellent. Who would have guessed we'd see Ozzy singing Crazy Train? Great signs people had as well. Here is my favorite:

27659

Glad to see you guys in a good mood. I will celebrate with you if Repubs win the House. I have said before, I am not averse to that. Of course I am aware that the current make up of Congress does not reflect the more centered make up of the country. With Dems in control with large numbers, the Great Recession, and a concerted right-wing effort to paint the last 2 years as a failure, it is no surprise Repubs will do well this election.

My prediction is still 51-49 Senate for Dems. Several tight races, we may not have a definate verdict on Wednesday. Nevada will be exciting. Reid needs turnout to win. Colorado, Washington, West Virginia, Illinois, Pennsylvania are all within a few points. I'm hoping for Sestak in PA though he is behind. Alaska will be fun to watch as well though that will be Repub.

As a "liberal" I am generally content with what we accomplished the past two years. Landmark healthcare reform was #1 and financial reform #2. The majorities Dems had in Congress are rare and Dems would not have been pleased if we had squandered the mandate and the opportunities while the window was open. The #3 on my list is the tax issue and while I'm not keen on extending tax cuts for the rich, if it goes that way for another 1-2 years, I'm OK with it as long as it gets decoupled from the middle class tax cuts. Down the road it will be a hard sell to just give a cut to the rich, and Dems will have achieved a permanent widening of the tax rate gap between rich and middle class.

I maintain that Wall Street and big business are responsible for much of our problems. Wall Street played a central role in causing the financial crisis, and both had central roles in locking up credit and / or laying off millions to increase their profits. It is too bad we don't have elections for big business CEO's, or the directors of organizations such as the USCoC.

Gridlock / sharing power with Repubs has certain advantages for Obama. Will weigh in on those and what I hope to see him do in the next two years later.

"Change for the sake of change" is a slogan for assholes. I agree. That reminds me of something this weekend in Nevada, apparently the GOP hired a plane to fly around with a banner saying "Anybody But Reid". There is a small but significant component to the Republican vote this election that just wants change, period. It is probably "assholes" like them (your word) that will give Repubs the House.

Wild Walleye

11-02-10, 03:01

First off. The "Rally To Restore Sanity And / Or Fear" was excellent. Who would have guessed we'd see Ozzy singing Crazy Train? You must have been the only one there. I enjoy my fair share of Ozzy and Sabbath but, having some senior citizen show up and play a golden oldie does absolutely nothing as far as getting me to give up on my dream for America. I guess you're just a cheap date.

Of course I am aware that the current make up of Congress does not reflect the more centered make up of the country.Wow, that is quite an admission coming form you.

With Dems in control with large numbers, the Great Recession, and a concerted right-wing effort to paint the last 2 years as a failure, it is no surprise Repubs will do well this election.Please find one person (other than yourself) that agrees with this point of view.

As a "liberal" I am generally content with what we accomplished the past two years. Landmark healthcare reform was #1 and financial reform #2.Please enlighten us with just a few examples from each piece of legislation that you believe are big steps forward.

The #3 on my list is the tax issue and while I'm not keen on extending tax cuts for the rich, if it goes that way for another 1-2 years, I'm OK with it as long as it gets decoupled from the middle class tax cuts. Down the road it will be a hard sell to just give a cut to the rich, and Dems will have achieved a permanent widening of the tax rate gap between rich and middle class.What? Do you even understand yourself?

I maintain that Wall Street and big business are responsible for much of our problems.I contend that excessive payments to professional athletes are responsible (makes about as much sense as your point)

Wall Street played a central role in causing the financial crisis, and both had central roles in locking up credit and / or laying off millions to increase their profits.You know absolutely nothing about how markets work, do you?

It is too bad we don't have elections for big business CEO's, or the directors of organizations such as the USCoC.You are showing your ignorance. There is far more accountability for corporate leaders than there is for political leaders.

Gridlock / sharing power with Repubs has certain advantages for Obama. Will weigh in on those and what I hope to see him do in the next two years later.I see that you are reading my posts. I agree, the biggest beneficiary of gridlock will be big ears.

I agree. That reminds me of something this weekend in Nevada, apparently the GOP hired a plane to fly around with a banner saying "Anybody But Reid". There is a small but significant component to the Republican vote this election that just wants change, period. It is probably "assholes" like them (your word) that will give Repubs the House.I haven't heard a single republican or tea party candidate make the argument that one should vote for them solely based upon "change for the sake of change"

Interesting, that is the only thing Obama ran on.

Stan Da Man

11-02-10, 14:21

Wow, that is quite an admission coming form you.He's just doing what many in the left wing media have been doing for the past few weeks. It's obvious that there is a route coming, and the agenda they advocated will be thoroughly rejected by the majority of the voting public. So, they now claim that they want Republicans to win control of something because too much of a "good" thing is, well, too much. Sure.

In Aesop's Fable terms, it's called Sour Grapes. But I have no illusions, he's lost, unredeemable.

Wild Walleye

11-02-10, 15:10

Stan Da Man

11-02-10, 17:49

Just heard that the daily expense of his junket to India will be around US$200 million. Per f-cking day!

All in this escapism will likely cost the US taxpayers $1.0B.

Just for a little perspective, that $1.0B could pay a US$50,000 salary to 20,000 currently unemployed workers for the next 12 months.

Tone deaf? It's called "getting the heck out of Dodge after you got your butt kicked." The fact that this trip was planned for immediately after the election is no accident. They've known for months that this was going to be really ugly.

You're right, he chose flight. The foreign media won't ask him nearly the same difficult questions as he would get back home after he officially gets rebuked on his agenda, and he can look like a big shot rather than a loser for a few weeks. What's a billion dollars when compared with not having to look yourself in the mirror at home? Call it the Medusa Trip.

Westy

11-03-10, 10:53

WASHINGTON – Republicans reaped a windfall from independent voters and tea party activists to seize control of the House in midterm elections, gained seats in the Senate and served notice Wednesday they will confront President Barack Obama with a conservative agenda to cut government and spur private-sector jobs.

Incomplete returns showed the GOP picked up at least 60 House seats and led for four more, far in excess of what was needed for a majority. About two dozen races remained too close to call. The next congress will have at least 240 Republicans, a comfortable majority for the GOP. Too bad the GOP didn't do quite as well in the Senate; Delaware, Nevada and California all went Dem.

Cartoon I'd like to see. Barack and the Democrat Donkey at a restaurant, where John Boehner in a chef's hat is serving them a dead crow on a platter."Eat hearty, we have plenty more in the kitchen!"

Wild Walleye

11-03-10, 12:49

The next congress will have at least 240 Republicans, a comfortable majority for the GOP. Too bad the GOP didn't do quite as well in the Senate; Delaware, Nevada and California all went Dem.

Cartoon I'd like to see. Barack and the Democrat Donkey at a restaurant, where John Boehner in a chef's hat is serving them a dead crow on a platter."Eat hearty, we have plenty more in the kitchen!"I can't see why BHO needs an entourage of 3,000 (yep, that is the number I read) to go to India. If they all fly over on military transports, that would technically constitute an invasion. Just more proof that BHO is in this for someone other than the American public. Further, when you can waste, and there is no denying that this is 100% wasteful spending, $1.0B of Americans' hard-earned money just to hide from your own responsibility you show yourself for the POS that you are.

While I had predicted that the GOP would take both the house and the senate, it is better that they won control of the house and have a very slight minority in the senate, as opposed to controlling both houses. As I mentioned sometime ago, when gridlock is reinstalled in Washington, the American economy will begin to heal itself. There is little doubt that if BHO had kept his hands off the economy, that we'd already be out of this recession and, sadly, the Democrats would still control both houses of congress. If, as I suspect, the economy improves over the next two years, BHO will certainly be touting it as his success despite the fact that any recovery will be inspite of his policies rather than caused or helped by them. He would further embellish his lies by saying that he got the car out of the ditch in the face of GOP control of both houses. Similarly, had the GOP had won the senate too, he would heap any and all failures on the GOP controlled house and senate. With the Dems in control of the senate, such arguments needed to be better crafted and are naturally more difficult to drive home. Further, the house controls the purse strings of the nation and initiates most legislation. Therefore, the GOP will be able to move legislation through the house (stopping by minority leader pelosi's office to rub her nose in it) and force it on the senate. With the narrow margin in the senate, they can't reject out of hand what the house sends them. Too many Dem senators won yesterday by the slimmest of margins in districts where six months ago they thought they were slam dunks. To ignore that is certain defeat in 24 months. Therefore, the senate will be forced to move some legislation onto the president who will have to either sign it or veto it. Unfortunately, for BHO, he won't be able to vote present.

First up in January will be the extension of the Bush-tax cuts. I doubt that the lame duck congress will act on this because they will be looking to punish the public rather than helping them out. Side note, the lame duck congress will need to be careful on forcing more unwanted legislation through against the wishes of the public (Cap and Tax, immigration, etc) . First week or two in January, the house passes tax-cut extension and sends it to the Senate. Senate will have to pass it or the blood bath for Dems will continue in 2012. It then goes to BHO's desk, before the state of the union address. What will he do then? He'll sign it and say it was all his idea to help out the poor working stiff. Whatever, so long as it gets done.

Then, hopefully, the gloves will come off. The mandate of the next congress is to dismantle, de-fund and destroy government excess and waste starting with Obamacare (too bad they can't cancel Obama's $1.0B boondoggle to India) reduce the size and scope of government and stop the governmental intrusion and infringement upon individual liberty. If these newly elected legislators do not carry this fight to the enemy (using the president's terminology) they too will be burned at the stake in 24 short months.

As for how they go about repealing Obamacare, that is a challenge. I doubt that they can do it with a full frontal assault (I. E. Repeal the whole thing with one piece of legislation. If the house voted to repeal it and sent it to the senate, the GOP would need to pull a couple blue dogs over to their side. I find it hard to believe that Obama would sign into law a law repealing his signature legislation and the core element of his effort to destroy the country. Therefore, there is no way it becomes law, so Dem defections would only serve to oppose the commie in chief, rather than advance legislation towards becoming law. Of course, I am sure that any defectors would immediately be added to BHO's enemies list.

Stan Da Man

11-03-10, 17:35

Cartoon I'd like to see. Barack and the Democrat Donkey at a restaurant, where John Boehner in a chef's hat is serving them a dead crow on a platter."Eat hearty, we have plenty more in the kitchen!"He he. I love the vision. I might change the tagline a bit: "We've CHANGED our menu. I HOPE you like this crow." I'm not sure that improves it, but there should be a way to work in that whole HopeyChangey thing he was so big on two years ago.

There are obvious dynamics to the results last night. It was the largest rebuke a sitting President ever has received, at least if one measures by the numbers. The Senate definitely broke a bit more for Democrats than many, including myself, predicted. But, this was by far and away the biggest number of House seats ever lost. Even more importantly, it's also likely the biggest number of governships and state legislatures to ever change hands mid-term. Regardless of the final outcome in the Senate, it's also among the highest number of Senate seats to change parties. I don't have stats on these latter two, but in many ways this was unprecedented. There's no legitimate way to look at the result, other than to say it was a stern rebuff of Obama's agenda and performance. There are illegitimate ways to look at it. But, the numbers don't lie: This result is far and away a greater loss of raw power than what happens in either a normal mid-term, or even what happens in a mid-term when the economy is bad.

Now, here's what I find interesting. The sitting Senators know that. Whether they'll publicly admit it is a different story. But, that doesn't matter: They know it. In two years, there are another 33 of them up for re-election. Of that, 23 of them are Democrats. Only 10 are Republicans, and nearly all of those are in so-called "safe" states. How many of the 23 Senators running for re-election in two years are going to be watching how they vote extra carefully now? My hunch is that it will be more than a handful. Many of these were seats that changed hands in 2006 and, as we saw last night, they can quickly flip back.

This is where Republicans can make some headway. They need to force issues to vote and make these Democratic Senators worry about defending their record in two years. Obama still has veto power, obviously, but he'll get weaker every time he wields it to defeat what would be bi-partisan legislation. Spending cuts and program cuts should be top priority.

In my opinion, that will be the key to the next two years. A number of the 23 Democrats up for re-election just got a glimpse of what their fate could be like. Freshly elected Democrats in the House who supported ObamaCare and the Stimulus were routed, especially if they came from conservative-leaning districts. Senators up for re-election in two years will have a much harder time supporting an unpopular agenda when their neck is on the line and they see what fate befell their peers. Should be interesting.

Wild Walleye

11-03-10, 19:59

He he. I love the vision. I might change the tagline a bit: "We've CHANGED our menu. I HOPE you like this crow." I'm not sure that improves it, but there should be a way to work in that whole HopeyChangey thing he was so big on two years ago.Another good cartoon would have past and present snapshots.

In the 'past' drawing, luminary democrats like Hugo Black and Robert Bird would be serving "Jim Crow" to black customers at the lunch counter.

In the 'present' they could have Pelosi, Ried and Obama in the kitchen serving plain old crow to themselves, sitting at the counter.

Now, here's what I find interesting. The sitting Senators know that. Whether they'll publicly admit it is a different story. But, that doesn't matter: They know it. In two years, there are another 33 of them up for re-election. Of that, 23 of them are Democrats. Only 10 are Republicans, and nearly all of those are in so-called "safe" states. How many of the 23 Senators running for re-election in two years are going to be watching how they vote extra carefully now? My hunch is that it will be more than a handful. Many of these were seats that changed hands in 2006 and, as we saw last night, they can quickly flip back.

This is where Republicans can make some headway. They need to force issues to vote and make these Democratic Senators worry about defending their record in two years. Obama still has veto power, obviously, but he'll get weaker every time he wields it to defeat what would be bi-partisan legislation. Spending cuts and program cuts should be top priority.

In my opinion, that will be the key to the next two years. A number of the 23 Democrats up for re-election just got a glimpse of what their fate could be like. Freshly elected Democrats in the House who supported ObamaCare and the Stimulus were routed, especially if they came from conservative-leaning districts. Senators up for re-election in two years will have a much harder time supporting an unpopular agenda when their neck is on the line and they see what fate befell their peers. Should be interesting. All of which make it is better not to have control of the senate. The GOP house can pass whatever it wants and force it on the senate. If they stay true to what the proclaimed last night (always a big risk with politicians) that would have tax cuts and regulation cuts followed by cuts to the size and scope of the federal government. It will be very hard for Dems in the senate, who will face reelection in 24 months, to be on the wrong side of the issues.

Therefore, it is quite possible to get lots of "bi-partisan" legislation (leaning more to the right given the situation, but they will have to give some stuff to the Dems to get it through-it is Washington after all) to the president's desk intended to curtail and repeal his agenda. He will be forced to veto or accept. No more 'present' votes. Let the people see more evidence of who he really is.

Stan Da Man

11-03-10, 22:21

Therefore, it is quite possible to get lots of "bi-partisan" legislation (leaning more to the right given the situation, but they will have to give some stuff to the Dems to get it through-it is Washington after all) to the president's desk intended to curtail and repeal his agenda. He will be forced to veto or accept. No more 'present' votes. Let the people see more evidence of who he really is.Yep. Get legislation out there that is intended to create jobs rather than the economy-stifling stuff we've seen the past two years. Tax cuts coupled with government spending cuts should be included here. How about legislation providing that we'll keep all the tax increases from ObamaCare but, instead of funding that plan, we'll use it to bring down the deficit? That would be far more cost effective. The guys who estimated the cost of ObamaCare are the same sort of folks who did the projections on the New Jersey tunnel that Christie just killed. We can't "afford" this program, so we may as well kill it now.

I doubt it will be tough to pick off 3 or 4 votes in the Senate to get most economic legislation to Obama's desk, although Dems could always refuse to bring items to the floor. But, that's OK, too. Those are the sort of games that got them in trouble with ObamaCare. If they want to wear that badge for the next round of elections, let them explain to the American public why it was in everyone's best interest that they stifle legislation intended to get the economy going again.

Let Democrats in the Senate propose more of the same sort of stuff we've been seeing: Cap and Tax, Cash for People Who Can't Repay It or Don't Need It,"free" Healthcare for All, More Misguided Stimulus; Comprehensive Immigration "Reform", Better Benefits for Their Union Buddies; Campaign Finance Reform That Excludes Their Union Buddies; Bailouts of Companies Where Their Union Buddies and Wall Street Allies Work; Etc, Etc.

I'm already tired of hearing Obama lie that he now wants to work together in a bipartisan way, just days after he said Republicans were his enemies and that they had to right in the back. The guy is truth-challenged, and he's certainly done his best to dispel any notion that he's smart.

Esten

11-04-10, 01:52

An excellent showing for Repubs last night.

Not enough for the Senate though. I predicted 51 for Dems with a shot at 52; we got 52 with Washington in the balance.

Good thing for Toymann he did not accept the original bet. But well done Toymann, if / when we are in town at the same time we should still hit Madahos together.

Though Repubs got more seats in the House than I would have liked, I am glad they won the House. I would not be so if Dems also lost the Senate, or if Dems had not passed the health care and financial reforms. But those are done and cannot be repealed, so now it is time for Repubs to share some of the responsibility. There has been some chatter on "stopping Obama's agenda", but I'm wondering what is being stopped? Out of control spending? Big government? All make-believe. Dems did not have other major reforms or spending programs planned. The heavy lifting was done the first two years with huge majorities that were destined to get reduced. One issue that comes to mind going forward is clean energy, but there is room to make progress on that going forward.

The plan has been and still is to focus on the deficit from here forward, with recommendations pending from the bipartisan financial commission due to report on December 1. That will be very interesting. I think the odds are Obama will continue to be seen as more willing to work with Repubs than vice-versa, but we shall see.

I believe the Repub win last night increased Obama's chances of re-election in 2012 by at least 10%.

Speaking of crow, I wonder what the Tea Party Express folks had at their "Victory Watch Party" in the same Las Vegas hotel as Reid. They were planning to rub it in his face. Pretty low, glad that didn't work out for them. I remember hearing last week a Reid aid said they weren't concerned because their own polling showed Reid up 6 points. This when all other polls showed Angle ahead. And he won by 5 points. Reid is the man.

I honestly do hope the Repub win leads to more hiring and job growth. Time will tell whether Repubs can disprove polls like the one below.

Most Voters Think House GOP Likely To Disappoint By 2012
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2010/most_voters_think_house_gop_likely_to_disappoint_by_2012

Esten

11-04-10, 02:06

All of which make it is better not to have control of the senate. Careful, according to Stan, being OK with a loss is Sour Grapes. That's makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Jackson

11-04-10, 02:50

if Dems had not passed the health care and financial reforms. But those are done and cannot be repealed...Don't bet on it.

The heavy lifting was done the first two years...I think you mean "the heavy lifting un-lubricated butt-fucking the Dems gave the American people was done the first two years".

BadMan

11-04-10, 09:33

I got one word for you : Stall.

Wild Walleye

11-04-10, 12:12

...passed the health care and financial reforms. But those are done and cannot be repealed, The new congress was elected as a reponse to Obamacare. If they do not repeal or dismantle it, they will be out, too.

so now it is time for Repubs to share some of the responsibility.Yes, they have the responsibility to follow through on their promises. As for 'sharing' responsibility, the Democrat party, led by Obama, Ried and Pelosi own this financial mess, the healthcare disaster and the out of control spending (doesn't mean people before them didn't contribute. The Republicans in congress held together in a rare showing of unity against the stimulus and health care, which are the two biggest factors in their wins on Tuesday.

There has been some chatter on "stopping Obama's agenda", If the biggest repudiation of a president's agenda since 1938 is 'chatter', I wonder what it would take to get your attention.

but I'm wondering what is being stopped?If it comes out of BHO or a Dem, stop it dead in its tracks. Rollback and repeal whatever you can.

Out of control spending? Big government? All make-believe.So, I guess all those trillions of debt are make believe too? The US$1.0B being spent on BHO's trip to India (3,000 people, 40 aircraft, 34 warships, etc) is make believe. The 17% unemployment rate is make believe.

Dems did not have other major reforms or spending programs planned.Cap and Tax and Immigration "Reform" are not major reforms or programs in your eyes?

The heavy lifting was done the first two years with huge majorities that were destined to get reduced.Those majorities were slashed and decimated, not 'reduced', precisely because they were used to abuse the American public, the American economy and the Constitution for the personal and political gain of a handful of powerful Democrats.

One issue that comes to mind going forward is clean energy, but there is room to make progress on that going forward.What a waste of money. Eliminate all restrictions on drilling within US territories and lets see what happens.

The plan has been and still is to focus on the deficit from here forward,You are a lying sack of s. BHO has pathologically lied about focusing on the deficit, jobs and the broader economy since before his election. He has done absolutely nothing except work to advance his marxist agenda.

with recommendations pending from the bipartisan financial commission due to report on December 1. That will be very interesting.Wow, what a great panel. I wonder what they are going to say? Raise taxes! Why couldn't the executive and legislative branches of our government conduct their own investigations? Do they lack the personnel or resources? No. It is because the objective of this admin and the outgoing congress is to raise taxes and to continue their efforts to weaken the Unites States of America. Therefore they come up with a "Blue Ribbon 'Bi-partisan' Panel" to look into what can be done. Are you fuc*ing kidding me? This is a ruse that was fixed from the get go to deliver a third party recommendation to raise taxes. Alan Simpson is there so they can say it was bi-partisan so when the dems raise taxes and further harm our economy, they will shrug and say "It wasn't us. It was the bi-partisan commission. We had to do it"

I think the odds are Obama will continue to be seen as more willing to work with Repubs than vice-versa, but we shall see.Err? Who is it that currently sees him to be more willing to work with the republicans than vice-versa?"The Rebulicans can come along, but they got to ride in the back" "Elections have consequences, I won, you lost"

I believe the Repub win last night increased Obama's chances of re-election in 2012 by at least 10%.Glad you agree with me. I hope that you have enjoyed reading my posts. I won't venture a guess on the improved probability. It is peculiar that while Esten is admitting that the effect of an empowered legislative house blocking the president's agenda and attempting to roll-back his legacy will be positive for the nation (benefiting the president politically) he still clings (bitterly, I might add) to the vapid, unrealistic neo-marxist ideology that got us in this mess in the first place. Albert Einstein is credited with defining insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Since we are on the subject of Einstein, he had more than a few good quotes. Two more that seem apropros for Esten are:

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be" and "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits"

Speaking of crow, I wonder what the Tea Party Express folks had at their "Victory Watch Party" in the same Las Vegas hotel as Reid. They were planning to rub it in his face. Pretty low, glad that didn't work out for them. I remember hearing last week a Reid aid said they weren't concerned because their own polling showed Reid up 6 points. This when all other polls showed Angle ahead. And he won by 5 points. Reid is the man.

The Tea Party and their agenda shaped this rout of the Dems. I am not sure what they were drinking at the Tea Party party. However, liberals across the country didn't have room in their mouths for crow because they were filled with the sacks of all those Teabaggers.

I honestly do hope the Repub win leads to more hiring and job growth.

Because lord knows that no one on your side is capable of doing it.

Time will tell whether Repubs can disprove polls like the one below.

Most Voters Think House GOP Likely To Disappoint By 2012.

Give it up Esten. If the American public didn't want the grown ups to come in and clean up this mess, Tuesday would have worked out a little differently for your guys.

America, in the most convincing way just told the world through a historic electoral *****-slapping that they are disappointed in the dismal performance of the Democrat party. The Dems are so loathed that potential, future disappointment is favored over the continuation of proven disappointment. Go figure.

Wild Walleye

11-04-10, 14:11

However, I do think that the action in the stock market today is interesting.

The first few news stories (from the main stream media) are trying to credit the fed's plan to buy $1.0T in bonds. I guess if you didn't know any better, this might seem plausible. But why are equity markets improving while oil is at a recent high, unemployment is increasing and the govt is essentially guaranteeing short term capital gains for bond traders? Additionally, why are US equity markets responding when the Fed action may devalue the dollar by as much as 20% ?

The short answer? Because they expect better returns there than they can get elsewhere.

The Fed action is an attempt to alter credit markets via a route other than through rate setting policy where they have very little wiggle room. As for rate setting policy, the Fed is like a werewolf hunter down to his last couple of silver bullets, you can't risk wasting any, in case you really, really, really need to. They are trying to drive interest rates lower with the hope of making credit more available (unlikely in this environment, increasing money supply and driving capital into the equity markets and other investments that might spur growth.

However, bonds have both prices and yields (interest rates. Sort of) therefore in the most basic terms you can make (and lose) money on bonds two ways: playing the yields or playing the prices. First, you can buy and hold the bond thereby receiving the interest payments related to the bond. You can also trade them, based upon their prices, and if you buy low and sell high, you will make a capital gain. For bonds, price and yield to maturity (essentially int income you would make holding the bond until it matures) are inversely related. That is to say if the price goes up, the yield goes down. By reducing the supply (buying something makes it more scarce for others to buy) you are impacting the supply and demand relationship moving the pricing equilibrium upward. Typically, as yields drop, money is forced out of the credit market and into the equity markets and other investments that can provide better returns.

However, if you have a whale at the table who is determined to blow $1.0T before retiring to the high-rollers' suite, why wouldn't you stick around to take some of his capital? In fact, if your capital is currently involved in another money making activity, why not reconsider deploying it into the debt markets to make short-term capital gains on trading bonds? With derivatives (there's that dirty word) you can mitigate much of your exposure to the declining interest rates of your underlying asset (the bod) while playing the upside on the price.

Therefore, increased interest in equities must mean that the perceived opportunities in equities will yield greater risk-adjusted returns than those that can be made in a debt markets with an artificial pricing anomaly that tells investors precisely which directions prices must go.

Therefore, the Fed's plan has a slight flaw in that the professionally managed moneys will likely not rapidly redeploy into job creating investments, rather they will suck the $1.0T out of the Fed and make a profit doing so. That is not to say that the end result will not be lower rates, it will. However, the action will be less stimulative than expected.

To the contrary, I see today's buoyancy in the market being more related to the election results and confirmation from Boehner (if that were my name I would proudly pronounce it Boner) and company that the new congress will pursue strategies that are more conducive to conducting business than the soon-to-be predecessor congress. The promise of less regulation, less intangible-undefined big-brother risk and lower taxation will start to have immediate results because corporations will be better able to assess the true costs of expanding their businesses.

The stock market and commodity prices are leading economic indicators. The professional investors, at least today, are looking at an improved landscape for the US economy as evidenced by the equity market activity. The trend of rising oil prices, which has been going on for a while and it not necessarily related to the election results, is indicative of anticipated, future global demand (I. E. It is predictive of global growth) . The US economy has been one of the slowest to break the grip of the global economic crisis, while many international markets have seen marked improvement. Germany for instance is experiences remarkably low unemployment (probably not a coincidence that Merkle has been much more capitalistic than her US counter part) and even Argentina is growing.

Like I said, one day does not a recovery make. However, may I paraphrase Lao-Tzu (the father of Taoism? A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

As for the Fed action, an anonymous proverb (or cliche) comes to mind "every stick has two ends"

Rev BS

11-04-10, 16:07

However, I do think that the action in the stock market today is interesting.

The first few news stories (from the main stream media) are trying to credit the fed's plan to buy $1.0T in bonds. I guess if you didn't know any better, this might seem plausible. But why are equity markets improving while oil is at a recent high, unemployment is increasing and the govt is essentially guaranteeing short term capital gains for bond traders? Additionally, why are US equity markets responding when the Fed action may devalue the dollar by as much as 20%?

The short answer? Because they expect better returns there than they can get elsewhere.

The Fed action is an attempt to alter credit markets via a route other than through rate setting policy where they have very little wiggle room. As for rate setting policy, the Fed is like a werewolf hunter down to his last couple of silver bullets, you can't risk wasting any, in case you really, really, really need to. They are trying to drive interest rates lower with the hope of making credit more available (unlikely in this environment, increasing money supply and driving capital into the equity markets and other investments that might spur growth.

However, bonds have both prices and yields (interest rates. Sort of) therefore in the most basic terms you can make (and lose) money on bonds two ways: playing the yields or playing the prices. First, you can buy and hold the bond thereby receiving the interest payments related to the bond. You can also trade them, based upon their prices, and if you buy low and sell high, you will make a capital gain. For bonds, price and yield to maturity (essentially int income you would make holding the bond until it matures) are inversely related. That is to say if the price goes up, the yield goes down. By reducing the supply (buying something makes it more scarce for others to buy) you are impacting the supply and demand relationship moving the pricing equilibrium upward. Typically, as yields drop, money is forced out of the credit market and into the equity markets and other investments that can provide better returns.

However, if you have a whale at the table who is determined to blow $1.0T before retiring to the high-rollers' suite, why wouldn't you stick around to take some of his capital? In fact, if your capital is currently involved in another money making activity, why not reconsider deploying it into the debt markets to make short-term capital gains on trading bonds? With derivatives (there's that dirty word) you can mitigate much of your exposure to the declining interest rates of your underlying asset (the bod) while playing the upside on the price.

Therefore, increased interest in equities must mean that the perceived opportunities in equities will yield greater risk-adjusted returns than those that can be made in a debt markets with an artificial pricing anomaly that tells investors precisely which directions prices must go.

Therefore, the Fed's plan has a slight flaw in that the professionally managed moneys will likely not rapidly redeploy into job creating investments, rather they will suck the $1.0T out of the Fed and make a profit doing so. That is not to say that the end result will not be lower rates, it will. However, the action will be less stimulative than expected.

To the contrary, I see today's buoyancy in the market being more related to the election results and confirmation from Boehner (if that were my name I would proudly pronounce it Boner) and company that the new congress will pursue strategies that are more conducive to conducting business than the soon-to-be predecessor congress. The promise of less regulation, less intangible-undefined big-brother risk and lower taxation will start to have immediate results because corporations will be better able to assess the true costs of expanding their businesses.

The stock market and commodity prices are leading economic indicators. The professional investors, at least today, are looking at an improved landscape for the US economy as evidenced by the equity market activity. The trend of rising oil prices, which has been going on for a while and it not necessarily related to the election results, is indicative of anticipated, future global demand (I. E. It is predictive of global growth) . The US economy has been one of the slowest to break the grip of the global economic crisis, while many international markets have seen marked improvement. Germany for instance is experiences remarkably low unemployment (probably not a coincidence that Merkle has been much more capitalistic than her US counter part) and even Argentina is growing.

Like I said, one day does not a recovery make. However, may I paraphrase Lao-Tzu (the father of Taoism? A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

As for the Fed action, an anonymous proverb (or cliche) comes to mind "every stick has two ends"Thanks, very informative and interesting post. Unfortunately, you had to screw it up earlier with your Obama rant. Now, I am no economic expert or historian, but a friend of mine who is, told me that our recovery from the financial crisis is way ahead of the recession of 2000 which took 6 or 7 years to recover. So after 2 years, sitting where we are on Wall Street, IMHO, we are on a magic carpet, at least for me.

Yes, the unemployed? Maybe, if Americans were stronger in the sciences, rather than say, cheerleader / dance / drill teams, it would not be the disaster it is now. And whimpering about China on the international arena, that is pitiful.

Member #4112

11-04-10, 17:32

Esten, while you assert ObamaCare and the Financial regulations are a done deal I must respectfully disagree. These Legislative Acts are reversible. Perhaps you are familiar with the 18th Amendment which was ratified on January 16,1919, and took effect on January 16,1920. In case you are not familiar with the 18th Amendment it was known as Prohibition. Now this was an AMENDMENT to the Constitution of the United States and not a mere LEGISLATIVE act. The 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment on December 5,1933, yet a second AMENDMENT. If the American people can enact an amendment then repeal it with yet another amendment, don't you think they can reverse a mere legislative act? I believe that is exactly what will occur. I also believe the House and the Senate will pass legislation which Obama will veto and some vetoes will be overridden and Obama will be diminished with each veto of legislation demanded by the people that crosses his desk. His hubris will be his down fall.

Black Shirt, well maybe if the liberal's hadn't controlled education for so many years with their 'feel good' and 'there can't be any losers everyone has to win' approach to education which did not stress the hard sciences you are probably right we would have less unemployment. But what we got is kids that graduated with 'soft' degrees from universities but can sing a mean 'cum by ya'. If you look at the countries that rate above the US in the hard sciences you will find they don't give a damn about social engineering, have longer scholastic years, reward academic success and punish failure. Their primary mission is the hard sciences since they have realized that is where real growth comes from, people who can do things!

Wild Walleye

11-04-10, 22:00

Thanks, very informative and interesting post. Unfortunately, you had to screw it up earlier with your Obama rant. Now, I am no economic expert or historian, but a friend of mine who is, told me that our recovery from the financial crisis is way ahead of the recession of 2000 which took 6 or 7 years to recover. So after 2 years, sitting where we are on Wall Street, IMHO, we are on a magic carpet, at least for me.

Yes, the unemployed? Maybe, if Americans were stronger in the sciences, rather than say, cheerleader / dance / drill teams, it would not be the disaster it is now. And whimpering about China on the international arena, that is pitiful. You are correct, unemployment in the Great Recession has clearly has made matters much worse.

I don't concur with your analysis of America's capabilities. We did invent the doughnut, after all. However, I think somewhere within your statement there is an important fact (maybe I just put it there because I like you) and that is that America must compete. On the global stage, productivity is king. We as a society have allow certain forces (organized crime. I mean organized labor) to distort the dynamics of our productivity by increasing labor costs in many different ways making us less competitive.

I think your friend, who is probably a lovely guy to hang with, is mistaken. The recession of 2000 lasted 11 months during which the peak unemployment ran a little under 6.5. The first dip of the current recession ran Dec 2007-June 2009 or 18 months, by far the longest in modern US history, with peak unemployment of 10.2. However, the GDP 'growth' in Q3 & Q4 of 2009, which technically ended the Great Recession, is suspect at best. The growth was, in my opinion, an artificial byproduct of governmental interference and has dropped of precipitously since then creating a double dip in declining GDP, while not yet technically qualifying as a double dip recession.

I stand by my assertion that had the federal government done nothing, we'd already be well on our way to recovery.

Stan Da Man

11-04-10, 22:10

Now, I am no economic expert or historian, but a friend of mine who is, told me that our recovery from the financial crisis is way ahead of the recession of 2000 which took 6 or 7 years to recover. So after 2 years, sitting where we are on Wall Street, IMHO, we are on a magic carpet, at least for me.I don't mean to engage in overstatement, Black Shirt, but I don't believe there's a single economist worth his salt that would agree with that assessment. Personally, I don't hold economists in high regard, so that doesn't necessarily mean much. But, an unnamed friend on Wall Street doesn't count for much, either.

If you're really interested in the topic, here's a website with graphs comparing recoveries from past recessions. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/14/chart-of-the-day-2/ The underlying data comes from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve.

Both in terms of economic output and employment, this recovery from this recession is worse than any in the past 60 years. Comparison with the one in 2000 (technically, 2001) isn't even close. If this is your broker on Wall Street telling you this, I suggest you watch your account. Admittedly, the chart is 10 months old, but we know that unemployment has not improved in that time, and GDP has been meager. In other words, extending the chart through today's date would still place this as the worst recovery in 60 years.

According to the NBER, the current recession started in December 2007. If you look at those charts, look closely at when this recession began to accelerate downward. That's right, it was in December 2008. Just after Obama was elected with all his rhetoric about tax raises, free medical care, etc. Your friend on Wall Street notwithstanding, businesses and employers aren't collectively stupid. They saw what was coming and things collectively seized up. Watch what happens now that there's some light at the end of the tunnel with a new congress.

Separate and apart from the hard data, here's why you know that the notion of a "good recovery" is a lie by any real measure: If it were true, we would have heard Democrats trumpet it LOUD and CLEAR for the past 6 months. They started to squeak about adding jobs a bit during the last few weeks but stopped after they were laughed out of the room by prospective voters. Almost to a one, the Democrats conceded that the economy sucked and still sucks. Those that could, campaigned on the notion that they voted against The Stimulus and against ObamaCare. Not a one claimed that we were coming out of it faster than the post-2000 recession. There's a reason for that: There's nothing to back up such claims. Usually, that wouldn't stop this administration, but even they Were too sheepish to make such a laughable claim.

Rev BS

11-04-10, 23:20

I don't mean to engage in overstatement, Black Shirt, but I don't believe there's a single economist worth his salt that would agree with that assessment. Personally, I don't hold economists in high regard, so that doesn't necessarily mean much. But, an unnamed friend on Wall Street doesn't count for much, either.

If you're really interested in the topic, here's a website with graphs comparing recoveries from past recessions. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/14/chart-of-the-day-2/ The underlying data comes from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve.

Both in terms of economic output and employment, this recovery from this recession is worse than any in the past 60 years. Comparison with the one in 2000 (technically, 2001) isn't even close. If this is your broker on Wall Street telling you this, I suggest you watch your account. Admittedly, the chart is 10 months old, but we know that unemployment has not improved in that time, and GDP has been meager. In other words, extending the chart through today's date would still place this as the worst recovery in 60 years.

According to the NBER, the current recession started in December 2007. If you look at those charts, look closely at when this recession began to accelerate downward. That's right, it was in December 2008. Just after Obama was elected with all his rhetoric about tax raises, free medical care, etc. Your friend on Wall Street notwithstanding, businesses and employers aren't collectively stupid. They saw what was coming and things collectively seized up. Watch what happens now that there's some light at the end of the tunnel with a new congress.

Separate and apart from the hard data, here's why you know that the notion of a "good recovery" is a lie by any real measure: If it were true, we would have heard Democrats trumpet it LOUD and CLEAR for the past 6 months. They started to squeak about adding jobs a bit during the last few weeks but stopped after they were laughed out of the room by prospective voters. Almost to a one, the Democrats conceded that the economy sucked and still sucks. Those that could, campaigned on the notion that they voted against The Stimulus and against ObamaCare. Not a one claimed that we were coming out of it faster than the post-2000 recession. There's a reason for that: There's nothing to back up such claims. Usually, that wouldn't stop this administration, but even they Were too sheepish to make such a laughable claim. I am not in the position to be able to debate you on this issue. And I wanted to make it clear that the "magic carpet" was in reference to my own status rather than the overall economy. To come from 6,000+ to 11,000+ in 2 years, is a better ride than your average boliche ride.

Wild Walleye

11-05-10, 12:06

I am not in the position to be able to debate you on this issue. And I wanted to make it clear that the "magic carpet" was in reference to my own status rather than the overall economy. To come from 6,000+ to 11,000+ in 2 years, is a better ride than your average boliche ride.Black Shirt:

I think that there are two different recoveries being discussed here. The first, is the overall economic recovery (which hasn't shown up yet) and the recovery of equity prices on Wall St, which has been pretty good.

While the two are often related, as I mentioned earlier, the general relationship is that Wall St. Is a leading economic indicator. That is to say that what is happening in the stock market presently is indicative of what the prevailing outlook is for the future (among equity investors. You are correct that the stock market recoveries from 2001 and 2007 are vastly different. The asset bases going into both were also different. Each one was driven by a asset valuation bubble, dotcom stocks in the former and real estate in the latter. The primary difference, in my opinion, is that while many dotcom stocks went to 0% of their former values, real estate may have dropped to 60% of its former values and in the former unemployment didn't exceed 6.3. Both scenarios were disastrous. However, if real estate had gone to 0, we'd be breaking up the furniture to put in the fire place and roasting squirrels and acorns for dinner. Side note, the scenario where I could see certain real estate going to 0% is in the case of contamination from an NBC attack.

Stock market recoveries in general tend to be more V-shaped than economic recoveries. My theory as to why this occurs is pretty straight forward. When the shit hits the fan, you stop spending, you get rid of all obvious unnecessary expenditures and then you start to cut your variable costs, the largest of which is usually manpower, and you do more with less. What often happens is that improvement in profitability makes up for the lost volume in sales. Companies enjoy this leaner, more profitable phase and want to milk it as long as possible before eating into that new-found profit margin with additional overhead, related to expansion. Additionally, no one wants to take on new, unnecessary risk until they know that they are out of the woods.

Therefore, it would be consistent with my thoughtful analysis that coming out of the stock market crash, that precipitated the Great Recession, equities rebounded as expected based upon normalization of asset values (I. E. The market was so oversold that certain assets were clearly undervalued) improved profitability and the collective expectation that economic recovery would come along at some point within historical parameters. While this last item has not materialized, the first two did. Further, because of all of the additional risk that has been heaped on corporations, they do not know what the costs of expansion will be so they hold cash and do not invest in their businesses. That fact keeps somewhere between US$2-3T of cash invested in liquid securities and cash equivalents instead of office buildings, tractors, and the like. Further, the US citizenry is completely in the dark about what to do, so they too are sitting on their cash (about US$6T) which similarly is invested in publicly traded equities, money market accounts and the like rather than flat screen TVs, barcaloungers and other fundamental necessities of life. All of this additional cash in the investment marketplace represents increased demand for a relatively limited supply of securities (not too many new issues hitting the market these days) . Further pumping the market (to the benefit of those long and not to the benefit of the public at large) has been QE I (quantitative easing episode one) which over the past 28 months or so saw the Fed blow some $2.4T in a failed effort to jump start something. All the more reason that QEII (the coming second round of $600B+) is a bad idea. If you think Wall Street only got bailed out through TARP and stimulus and other deals you read about in the paper, you're missing most of the graft. These institutions received billions of direct cash payments in order to stimulate lending and easing credit. Rather than extend credit, they reduced credit and stuck the cash on the balance sheets to firm up their reserves. They then invested those and other govt-provided funds (fed rate is practically zero) into a fixed market where they are guaranteed a positive return. If you can borrow money at zero cost and invest it in a guaranteed security that will yield you 1% real return with absolutely no risk at all, why would you waste your time trying to lend money to a small business? The government has further exacerbated the crisis by allowing Wall Street to write their own bailout plan.

So this is what we've got:

Shitty economy, high unemployment, no credit, companies unwilling to expand, no growth prospects on the horizon

This is what the government has done to fix the problem:

-increased risk and uncertainty for employers.

-massively increased the cost of adding new employees.

-extended unemployment benefits to over three years (deterrent to seeking employment)

-provided banks with a risk-free arbitrage opportunity which prevents them from transacting in their normal course of business (I. E. Providing capital to individuals and companies)

-looming tax increases which will further harm individuals and companies.

-massively increasing federal debts.

-Trillions of dollars being wasted by the Fed to support Wall Street profits.

-devaluation of the dollar (15% so far)

Seems like all is well. I still can't figure out what all those voters were so worked up about. It was probably something on Fox news.

Stan Da Man

11-05-10, 20:20

I am not in the position to be able to debate you on this issue. And I wanted to make it clear that the "magic carpet" was in reference to my own status rather than the overall economy. To come from 6,000+ to 11,000+ in 2 years, is a better ride than your average boliche ride.Mea culpa, Black Shirt, I think I misconstrued what you were trying to say.

In terms of stock market recovery, there definitely has been one, and it's been good. Personally, I think it has more to do with low interest rates than anything. Essentially, publicly-traded companies can borrow at historically low costs. They've got access to capital and can issue debt at ultra-low rates. This affects their multiples and the price of stock in general. A good discussion of this is found here: http://www.reuters.com/article/idINN0525953020101105?rpc=44

While low interest rates have helped large companies, it has definitely hurt others. As the article notes, they have had a negative effect on the elderly living on fixed incomes. More directly, though, they have seriously hurt small businesses. As any small business owner can tell you, credit is hard to come by these days. I've recently switched my company to a new bank after the old one was taken over by the FDIC, and we're lucky business is good because otherwise most banks won't give you a second glance. They can essentially arbitrage their funds and stay out of the lending game entirely. Their returns are lower, but they have no risk. That's also a function of interest rates, and it also has something to do with the Fed's decision to buy bonds.

I'll add a side note unrelated to our discussion: I sat down with our insurance brokers yesterday to discuss our company's health care plan, and what effect ObamaCare will have on a small- to mid-sized business like ours. Bear in mind that these are health insurance experts. They know this area. While they were quick to point out that there is an extensive amount of uncertainty because many of the ObamaCare regs have yet to be written, at the conclusion of that meeting it was abundantly obvious what is going to happen: We will be dumping 1,000 or so employees onto the public option by 2014. The grandfathering rules and discrimination testing schemes that Congress cooked up are designed to do one thing, which is force employers to drop coverage for their employees and pay the penalties. Indeed, these are representatives who work for an insurance broker, and their livelihood is derived from helping employers figure out how to provide insurance for their employees. Nevertheless, after a two hour discussion, I looked at them and said: I know you don't want to hear this, but it sounds like our only option in a few years is going to be to drop coverage. They just looked at me stone-faced and nodded.

Bear in mind, this isn't a situation where we would mind paying a little more for insurance, say, 20% more than the normal 20% annual increases. But, the penalties associated with ObamaCare are so draconian, and the rules are so far stacked against employers, that there will be no responsible choice left. I could go into details, but it would require too much space and bore you more than I already have. Suffice it to say, it was worse than even I Expected, and that's saying a lot. This will be an unmitigated disaster if not repealed.

Finally, I'll add one final thought: Anyone watching Obama's apologies over the past few days has to be a bit bemused. The guy is apologizing, but for the wrong things. In effect, he's not apologizing at all. He's sorry that he didn't more clearly get the message out about what the legislation Dems rammed through Congress will accomplish, and about the benefits of the Stimulus? Huh? In other words, he reads the election results as either: (a) that he didn't discuss ObamaCare and other measures enough in the 40-plus speeches he gave on the topic; or (b) that the American people are too stupid to understand what he was trying to say, over and over again, in speech after speech for the past 12 months. He rejects the idea that people understand and just don't want it.

There have been several dozen articles written over the past few days with the title "Obama Doesn't Get It," or something to that effect. The truth is: They're all correct. This guy's clueless, and we're in dangerous waters for the next two years with him still at the helm.

Rev BS

11-05-10, 22:04

Stan, WW,

Alot to digest, since it AM, will do so with cafe con leche & breakfast. But not with Starbucks, high prices, so-so quality.

Ciao

Stan Da Man

11-05-10, 22:12

Stan, WW,

Alot to digest, since it AM, will do so with cafe con leche & breakfast. But not with Starbucks, high prices, so-so quality.

CiaoHeck, if you're in Argentina, don't even bother. Go have some fun! Don't waste your time reading my diatribe.

I'm going to be in Brazil in a week and a day and am looking forward to it. I do miss Argentina a bit, though, especially the restaurants, but also some of the favorite boliches. Word I get is that things are tough all over on the boliche scene, and likewise in Brazil in the termas.

You guys in Argentina are smart. I made an offer to trade Obama to the Argies in the Kirchner thread. Not a soul was stupid enough to take me up on it, and I was even offering to cover air fare. Unfortunately, you're stuck with Cristina, but I think you've got the lesser of the two evils.

Good luck with breakfast, but I hope you're having fun now. Stan

Rev BS

11-05-10, 23:36

Heck, if you're in Argentina, don't even bother. Go have some fun! Don't waste your time reading my diatribe.

I'm going to be in Brazil in a week and a day and am looking forward to it. I do miss Argentina a bit, though, especially the restaurants, but also some of the favorite boliches. Word I get is that things are tough all over on the boliche scene, and likewise in Brazil in the termas.

You guys in Argentina are smart. I made an offer to trade Obama to the Argies in the Kirchner thread. Not a soul was stupid enough to take me up on it, and I was even offering to cover air fare. Unfortunately, you're stuck with Cristina, but I think you've got the lesser of the two evils.

Good luck with breakfast, but I hope you're having fun now. Stan

Actually, right now, stuck in Bangkok but in a good way. Have been using the pseudo-russians, the Uzbeks as stand-ins for the Latinos, quite good but not the real deal. Will do Colombia in April, would be fun to get a posse together, Medellin, Bogota and even Quito. Pretty easy on the pocketbook, tickets are very reasonable.

Esten

11-06-10, 01:41

Black Shirt -

Draw your own conclusions as we all do, but I would caution to supplement anything you read from guys like WW and Stan with additional research from other sources. IMO, one of them has proven to be fact-challenged on far too many occasions to take anything he says seriously. The other has a better grasp of facts and what's going on, but most often presents a subset of available information and spins it to make his point, which is often a put-down.

If you haven't been following the posts and checking their statements this may not be apparent. But here is one giveaway: neither of them can barely make one post without including a jab, insult or rant against Obama, Dems or their values. This is easily verified. And this alone should tell you something about the prism through which they view things.

Personally, at one point (way back) I thought perhaps I could learn something from these guys because they evidently have different vantage points in business than I. I think we all learn when we bring different ideas and views to the table. Instead, what I have learned is that they are disgruntled ideologues who have an axe to grind with others who do not share their views, and this permeates much of what they write here. Combined with fact checking I have done, I have come to conclude that most of what they write simply cannot be taken at face value.

You would get more accurate information from Fox News. Better yet, a reputable news source like CNN, NY Times or Washington Post.

Speaking of media, did you check the link that Stan posted? A website called "hotair.com". I never heard of that site before, so I spent a minute checking out the front page. Guess what? It's another one of these anti-Obama anti-Democrat conservative "news" websites. There are quite a few of them around, a page out of the GOP handbook, dedicated to portraying their opponents unfavorably. How interesting that Stan directed you there.

About your friend's comment on the strength of the recovery, that reminded me I have seen reports supporting that view as well. But it all depends on what metric you look at. Obviously the unemployment rate itself does not indicate a strong recovery. But another metric on jobs is quite interesting; from the recent article below: "Sustained, positive job formation began earlier in this recovery than in the prior two recoveries". It took 6 months to reach that milestone in the current recovery, vs. 22 months following the 2001 recession under Bush.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/02/news/economy/jobs_recovery/index.htm

The rate of job growth though positive is still anemic, though today's number of net 151,000 jobs added is a good sign, the best numbers since April. What's going on is big business squeezing more productivity out of fewer workers, sitting on healthy profits and transferring billions to shareholders. While politics dominates the media, in the background big business is effecting a massive transfer of wealth, mostly to the rich.

This is all rather depressing stuff, so I would concur with Stan on one thing, that you should go have some fun. I'll be in BA soon enough myself and am looking forward to it immensely.

Rev BS

11-06-10, 10:57

Esten,

Thanks for your input. Yes, I have been following your sparring match for awhile. Looks like you have been doing the "fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee" dance.

Living overseas for quite about 4 years now, I am losing my grasp on the political scene in the US, so in a way, I get updated by you guys. And as I said earlier, it is very dysfunctional right now. Kind of losing faith in the system, you know. Obama seems to have really touch a deep nerve with some people and I have never seen that much intensity with any president since Nixon was villified by the adolescent left.

So yes, I will take the prevailing advice given at the moment by the distinguished debaters, I will do my "safari" tonight and see what I come up with. It is possible I could be eaten alive tonight, so pray for my well being.

Wild Walleye

11-06-10, 12:31

Draw your own conclusions as we all do, but I would caution to supplement anything you read from guys like WW and Stan with additional research from other sources. IMO, one of them has proven to be fact-challenged on far too many occasions to take anything he says seriously. The other has a better grasp of facts and what's going on, but most often presents a subset of available information and spins it to make his point, which is often a put-down.I wouldn't put you down, it isn't nice to make fun of the mentally challenged.

If you haven't been following the posts and checking their statements this may not be apparent. But here is one giveaway: neither of them can barely make one post without including a jab, insult or rant against Obama, Dems or their values. This is easily verified. And this alone should tell you something about the prism through which they view things.I wouldn't be like this if all the Dems weren't degenerates and Obama wasn't trying to foist his marxist agenda on the downtrodden people.

Personally, at one point (way back) I thought perhaps I could learn something from these guys because they evidently have different vantage points in business than I. I think we all learn when we bring different ideas and views to the table. Instead, what I have learned is that they are disgruntled ideologues who have an axe to grind with others who do not share their views,Alas, after Tuesday's results, I feel so lonely. Why must I be the only one who thinks like this? Why god? Why?

and this permeates much of what they write here. Combined with fact checking I have done, I have come to conclude that most of what they write simply cannot be taken at face value.You get what you pay for. Which is exactly why your fact checking in worthless.

You would get more accurate information from Fox News. Better yet, a reputable news source like CNN, NY Times or Washington Post.I think the bloom if off the rose. The American public no longer trusts the liberal established media. The glaring examples of liberal agendas have dissolved any facade of objectivity. Overt actions of many of these entities, resulting in potential harm to US security haven't helped their reputations.

Speaking of media, did you check the link that Stan posted? A website called "hotair.com". I never heard of that site before, so I spent a minute checking out the front page. Guess what? It's another one of these anti-Obama anti-Democrat conservative "news" websites. There are quite a few of them around,If you would pay attention to what I am telling you, you wouldn't still be trying to figure out why there are so many anti-Obama opinions out there (hint: it is directly correlated to the majority of Americans that want him to be a one-termer) and why it is so hard to find anyone who still supports him, other than you of course.

About your friend's comment on the strength of the recovery, that reminded me I have seen reports supporting that view as well.You probably shouldn't rely on Olbermann or Stewart for economic analysis.

But it all depends on what metric you look at. Obviously the unemployment rate itself does not indicate a strong recovery. But another metric on jobs is quite interesting; from the recent article below: "Sustained, positive job formation began earlier in this recovery than in the prior two recoveries". It took 6 months to reach that milestone in the current recovery, vs. 22 months following the 2001 recession under Bush.You can whip up some statistics in almost any situation that will support your case. Coming out of Obama's recession, there were 22% more sunny days reflecting the possibility that he might actually be god and while not able to deal with the financial crisis (because he is the least experienced person in Washington) he was doing his best to brighten the situation."Four more years! Four more years!"

The rate of job growth though positive is still anemic, though today's number of net 151,000 jobs added is a good sign, the best numbers since AprilAnemic? The unemployment rate has been 9.4% or higher since May 2009 (it's November 2010, by the way) while the true number of those involuntarily out of work has hovered around 16-17.

I had to laugh at the 151K number, it was brought down by the loss of something like 8,000 govt jobs. I believe those were part-time census workers, who never should have been counted in the first place.

What's going on is big business squeezing more productivity out of fewer workers, sitting on healthy profits and transferring billions to shareholders.You were listening. Damn companies, passing profits on to their rightful owners!

While politics dominates the media, in the background big business is effecting a massive transfer of wealth, mostly to the rich.Of course they are. The government should step in and seize the fruits of their labor and prevent the owners of these businesses from keeping any of their profits. We should then change the name of the country to Obama-uela, name Obama president-for-life and design some sort of pseudo-military outfit for him to wear along with some big-ass aviator shades.

This is all rather depressing stuff,I would venture to guess that you say and have said this a lot, throughout your life.

so I would concur with Stan on one thing, that you should go have some fun.How can anyone have fun in such depressing times?

I'll be in BA soon enough myself and am looking forward to it immensely.Enjoy, if you can overcome the depressing nature of the world and the deleterious effects that freedom has had on it.

Punter 127

11-06-10, 16:09

After Democrats having just been "tea bagged" Nancy Pelosi has announced she's running for Minority Leader in the 112th Congress. I think keeping her in the spotlight as a reminder to the American people of the failed Obama agenda is a wonderful idea. Go Nan Go!

Member #3320

11-06-10, 17:47

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Irritants-apart-Indo-US-ties-will-endure/H1-Article1-622844.aspx

Interesting to know your comments on this article.

House Music

11-07-10, 10:58

KABUL (AFP) – The United States is bolstering its presence in Afghanistan with a 500 million dollar expansion of its Kabul embassy and the construction of two consulates, it announced Wednesday.

Washington's Kabul embassy is already its biggest in the world, with about 1,100 employees, projected to rise to 1,200 by the end of the year, officials said.

Hundreds have arrived over the course of this year as part of a "civilian surge" bringing development experts into the country to compliment the military effort already in its 10th year.

Good deal to finally get something done in this country.

House Music

11-07-10, 10:59

Great article.

Esten

11-07-10, 14:11

Doppel- You are correct there are ways in which repeal can happen. I meant it cannot (will not) happen under the current power sharing in Washington. We'll see if/how that changes in 2012.

Esten

11-07-10, 14:17

Jackson

11-07-10, 14:25

This is just the latest example of countless false statements and stories Walleye has posted.Presented by Esten, the king of liberal spinmesters.

By my count, the score is now...

Wild Walleye: 468 points

Esten: 1 point

Thanks,

Jackson

Rev BS

11-07-10, 22:48

Presented by Esten, the king of liberal spinmesters.

By my count, the score is now.

Wild Walleye: 468 points.

Esten: 1 point.

Thanks,

JacksonCome on, that's ridiculous! That's really home-court scorekeeping!

Member #4112

11-08-10, 12:12

Esten,

While I think it possible the current House & Senate could repeal ObamaCare, I agree it is unlikely as Obama will veto it and the required majority at the present time to override the veto is probably not there. That said, the House & Senate only need to withhold the necessary funding to stall it until the 2012 election cycle. I also believe the GOP will force enough bills through both houses which Obama will veto to make him unelectable in 2012 setting the stage for Hillary to run against him splitting the Democrats and setting up a GOP win.

If you did not believe in the 'ruling class' before, surely you must now after the election and Obama's response to the outcome, which was basically 'it not me or my policies, it's the public is too stupid to understand what is good for them'.

Hey Stan, if you are going to Brazil get ready for sticker shock. I spent 3 weeks in Brazil on a job in October and the exchange rate is US$1 to are$1.69 and inflation has been alive and well so things a much more expensive than last year when I was down for three weeks on a job. Still a great country with great people, enjoy.

Wild Walleye

11-08-10, 13:07

For anyone who thinks Walleye has even an ounce of credibility, continue reading.

Awhile back, Walleye posted supposed racist statements made by Obama and his wife. When challenged however, he could not provide proof that either of them ever said what he quoted. I cited examples. The fact that you are never satisfied with compelling evidence is indicative of your predisposition to your political beliefs over fact.

More recently, he posted about the cost of Obama's trip to Asia. And then in his last past described my fact checking as 'worthless'. Let's have a look.Thank you for at least quoting me accurately. I was referring to an article that I read on the subject which originated in India with New Delhi TV (which has a bigger audience than the three US majors, combined) which based its estimate upon the president's itinerary, provided by the WH. I no longer am part of the Obama advance team, therefore, I do not have direct access to the payables and receiveables related to the trip.

Well it turns out this also is false. See the video link below from CNN.I see no reason to place greater value on opinion pieces airing on CNN over other sources of information.

Watch how Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann dodges questions on other topics to go off on how Obama's trip is costing taxpayers $200 million a day. Conservative talk show pundits also repeat it, including claims of including 34 warships (Walleye also referenced the warships in another post. But none of these guys apparently checked their sources. Both the White House and the Pentagon claim the costs are wildly exagerrated. This quote in particular from the Pentagon Press Secretary is notable:

"I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10% of the navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia. That's just comical, nothing close to that is being done."We are now back to the Clinton Era of parsing, I would be willing to bet that "Wildly exaggerated" is a much smaller margin than one would generally think. Obviously, they didn't "deploy" an carrier group specifically to support this BHO ridiculously, over-the-top spendo-rama. Carrier Strike Group (CSG) deployments are planned years in advance and constantly tweaked to support national defense, based upon available information regarding threats to the US and her interests and are typically for a duration of approximately six months. It would be ludicrous to create a "Deployment" to support a 10-day white-elephant. However, the Pentagon spokesman would be lying if he said that naval assets, including not one, but two carrier strike groups (CSG numbers 9 and 10: USS Abe Lincoln and the Harry S. Truman, already on an existing deployments) have not been redirected to provide close support of the president's trip and are currently off the coast of Mumbai, in the Arabian Sea. While no two carrier strike groups are identical (they are specifically designed to meet the mission) they typically consist of approximately ten ships, including two subs. The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers cost approximately $4.5B to build and the ships complement (that means the number of guys on board) is approximately 5,680. That is just the lead ship of the group, how much do you think it costs to operate such a group? How much do you think it costs to divert two such groups for a week to ten days?

This is just the latest example of countless false statements and stories Walleye has posted, interspersed between his jokes and insults. You would think surely with such an astronomical number for a trip, he would do some fact checking or at least qualify his statements. But nope, he just blindly posts it here as fact, and uses it to slam the President as a "POS".

Readers can judge for themselves the character of such a man, and the credibility of anything he writes.

Back on ignore mode he goes.That's it, put your head in the sand. Anything you disagree with will disappear. Good luck with that.

By the way, the above cited facts constitute more facts than you have put in all your posts combined.

Stan Da Man

11-08-10, 15:45

Hey Stan, if you are going to Brazil get ready for sticker shock. I spent 3 weeks in Brazil on a job in October and the exchange rate is US$1 to are$1.69 and inflation has been alive and well so things a much more expensive than last year when I was down for three weeks on a job. Still a great country with great people, enjoy.OT: Thanks. I still think Brazil is cheaper for me in most ways than Argentina, but it depends on how you do it. In Argentina, I don't like the privados. Never have. I prefer to go to the boliches, mostly Madaho's. That gets expensive because they mark up their drinks to such a great extent. It would be easy to try to cut that cost down, but I'm never down there long and I'd prefer to spend my free time doing what I like, so it's part of doing business.

In Brazil, the drink prices in the termas are next to nothing. The chica fees in the termas are about the same compared to Madaho's chicas. I realize I'm comparing apples to oranges, but my comparison is between what I like to do in both places. As a result, Brazil ends up being cheaper even though things, in general, tend to cost more. They just have a better set-up, in my opinion.

If I was to compare apples to apples, say, a comparison between Madaho's and Cafe Foto, then Argentina would win hands down. But, the chicas at Cafe Foto are an order of magnitude better than anything that exists in any boliche in B A, in my opinion, so that must be included in the mix, as well.

In truth, I'm looking forward to the sticker shock. Well, at least I'm looking forward to the idea of going to a place with stickers on display, unlike here where all the stickers are hidden.

Wild Walleye

11-09-10, 05:32

In fairness to my esteemed colleague, Esten, I thought it only appropriate to calibrate my unfounded, reckless postulations (which oddly have almost all been accurate) to his laser-like focus on the issues by revisiting some of his keenest insights. I hope that he will feel free to use his super-fact-checker powers on my posts. To illustrate how 'on point' he tends to be, let's examine the following:

Although it appears the Senate bill will be signed into law, the fix-it package still has to clear the Senate, and the bill must survive the state challenges being planned.

That aside, I must say the events leading up to and including the vote last night have made me very pleased, proud and impressed of Pelosi, Obama and the Democratic party. Since Brown's win in January, they came back and played this thing almost perfectly, with the televised meetings, setting the facts straight and shining the light on Republican lies and fear-mongering, putting together a reconciliation package that addressed budget-related House concerns and stripped out special deals, revised CBO estimates with favorable numbers, Obama's great speech to Dems on Saturday (". We don't just look out for ourselves. We look out for one another.") and the Executive order to address anti-abortion Dem concerns. Brilliant. Like I said before, these are very smart people. It could not have been accomplished otherwise. How's that working out for the new minority now?

Stan, without going into a point-by-point let me just say I disagree with pretty much everything you said. Your sweeping statement "where everyone is entitled to get something for nothing" sounds like another gross Republican mischaracterization (ie. lie). The vast majority of people will be paying for their insurance, not getting something for free. Especially the rich, which is as it should be. Those who cannot afford health insurance will be helped. Who knows, someday this could be you or one of your children who lost their job, and won't be faced with personal bankruptcy due to medical bills. You'll be glad of this reform then, I'm sure. And your claim that Dems do not have a sincere desire to help the uninsured is utterly obscene, but consistent with right wing cynicism. You have been drinking the Republican kool-aid. Right on!

Dems ran on a clear platform to reform health care and expand coverage. They were elected. And now they delivered on their campaign promise. And now they are in the minority and BHO is on track to be a one-termer with the Senate to fall in 2012, too.

20 years from now, this will be seen as a major step forward in US history.It is possible. However, if it is repealed, we'll never know.

Please keep illuminating us.

Jackson

11-09-10, 12:10

...and stripped out special deals...So the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback and the union exemptions were all removed from the final bill?

This is the first I've heard about that.

...revised CBO estimates with favorable numbers...So how are the latest CBO numbers looking now?

Wild Walleye

11-09-10, 13:42

So the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback and the union exemptions were all removed from the final bill? Maybe he meant that the nation would come to its senses, kick the left out and repeal the whole f-ing thing, thereby eliminating all of the above.

=So how are the latest CBO numbers looking now?While we're at it, maybe you could sum up all the rate hikes (AARP the latest to do so) and explain how paying more for health care actually means we are paying less for health care.

It is really too bad for the newly departed Dems in congress that they didn't actually read the legislation. Had they, they would have seen the following on the very last page: "If you are dumb enough or corrupt enough to vote for this, the voters will throw you out of office"

Stan Da Man

11-11-10, 19:15

Republicans have a rare opportunity given to them by, of all people, Barack Obama. The deficit reduction commission has issued its initial draft. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805004575606643067587042.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Democrats hate it. Republicans aren't fond of it. The best quote comes from Senator Dick Durbin (D IL)_ In saying he wouldn't vote for it, he added: "there are things in there that I hate like the devil hates holy water." Well put. He's comparing himself to the devil and the plan to holy water. A rare spot of candor from a Democrat. Couldn't have put it better myself.

There are conservative critics as well, but they are the partisan special interests that must be ignored. Business tax breaks get eliminated and, in return, the corporate tax rate and individual tax rates get reduced, and the mortgage interest deduction goes by the wayside. These are all things that the Republican party should be able to live with.

The deficit reduction committee will never vote to approve this draft or anything like it, and they are unlikely to get 14 votes to approve any plan before they adjourn. I guarantee you that there are Obama operatives right now working behind the scenes to ensure that they have at least five of the 18 members who will not approve. There's no reason for Republicans to wait. They need to start getting this ready for the next Congress now. Take this draft and start fleshing out the details within the confines of the draft. Get it up for a vote. Make Democrats reject the plan from the commission that their own party leader established. There's a possibility that the Senate wouldn't be able to muster enough votes to kill it, assuming it gets past filibuster. But, ANY result there would be favorable: It either passes or it puts the lie to Democrats' claims that they are interested in anything other than spending to increase dependency and buy votes. If they filibuster it to death or refuse to even put it up, the American public will crucify them next election. There are at least 23 Democratic Senators who are well aware of that, and who are up for re-election in two years.

If it passes the Senate, it goes to Obama. He would be hard pressed to refuse to sign it, although I suspect he could not bring himself to actually sign his name to legislation that takes 10% from the federal Democrat union workforce. He will squirm; he will hold his nose; he will choke; he will go visit other countries. But, he either signs it or the emperor has no clothes next election. Either way, it's a win.

Rev BS

11-11-10, 19:24

According to Forbes, the US has the most billionaires, while Singapore has the most millionaires (how did that happen).

According to my own statistics, if you were to check everybodys' pockets / wallets / handbags / underwear (population. 12 million, you would find that everybody in Zimbawe is at least a millionaire, billionaire or even trillionaire.

So much misinformation everywhere! Can't believe all the BS we have to deal with, O'Reilly, Olberman, everyone with an agenda. Good news, with the promise that we are printing even more money, you and I could soon be enjoying new monetary status. Imagine paying $10, 000 for a hamburger, I guarantee it, it will taste better. You still don't believe me! I drove a Lamborghini (I hope I spell that correctly) once, and my dick grew an extra five inches. Of course, adding that to the original 3 inches still make my dick smaller than some of you guys. By the way, I have retain those inches despite not owning a car anymore!

Suffering in Bangkok, and wishing I was in BA

Wild Walleye

11-11-10, 23:01

The deficit reduction commission has issued its initial draft.Stan, don't be fooled by this flaming piece of shit, it doesn't reduce anything. In fact it raises both spending and taxes to historical high percentages of GDP. This thind is a red herring. It is no coincidence that it was delivered early, which just so happens to coincide with Obama being on the other side of the planet, bowing to yet another leader. When was the last time something being created in Washington was delivered ahead of schedule?

This is not by any stretch of the imagination a plan for deficit reduction rather it is the codification of the nanny state.

The deficit reduction committee will never vote to approve this draft or anything like it, and they are unlikely to get 14 votes to approve any plan before they adjourn. I guarantee you that there are Obama operatives right now working behind the scenes to ensure that they have at least five of the 18 members who will not approve. There's no reason for Republicans to wait. They need to start getting this ready for the next Congress now. Take this draft and start fleshing out the details within the confines of the draft. Get it up for a vote.It is Obama that will seek to harvest from this POS things such as means testing social security, raising taxes and eliminating the mortgage interest deduction (you think we have a soft real estate market now? Just wait) and other gems.

Do not be fooled, this group and its findings are phony and do not do anything to reduce anything, especially government.

Make Democrats reject the plan from the commission that their own party leader established. There's a possibility that the Senate wouldn't be able to muster enough votes to kill it, assuming it gets past filibuster. But, ANY result there would be favorable: It either passes or it puts the lie to Democrats' claims that they are interested in anything other than spending to increase dependency and buy votes. If they filibuster it to death or refuse to even put it up, the American public will crucify them next election. There are at least 23 Democratic Senators who are well aware of that, and who are up for re-election in two years.Right strategy, wrong bone to fight over. The new congress should take a machete to the Fed government and reduce real expenditures by 15% over the next 10 years and riff at least 200K federal employees.

If it passes the Senate, it goes to Obama. He would be hard pressed to refuse to sign it, although I suspect he could not bring himself to actually sign his name to legislation that takes 10% from the federal Democrat union workforce. He will squirm; he will hold his nose; he will choke; he will go visit other countries. But, he either signs it or the emperor has no clothes next election. Either way, it's a win.It doesn't do any such thing (take 10% from federal unions, this is a 'head fake' and all I can say is don't buy it. We need to justify every last program and cut everything that isn't critical.

Stan Da Man

11-12-10, 21:01

Stan, don't be fooled by this flaming piece of shit, it doesn't reduce anything. In fact it raises both spending and taxes to historical high percentages of GDP. This thind is a red herring. It is no coincidence that it was delivered early, which just so happens to coincide with Obama being on the other side of the planet, bowing to yet another leader. When was the last time something being created in Washington was delivered ahead of schedule? I think you need to take a closer look:

The plan hasn't been delivered ahead of schedule. The commission hasn't even voted. This draft Wasn't scheduled to be released. It is just a draft. As I made clear in my post, there's no reason to await the final plan. It either won't get approved or it will be so watered down as to be useless.

The draft plan calls for bringing spending to 21% of GDP, which is in line with historical norms, not a historical high percentage:

Specifically, the plan calls for limiting growth in total federal health spending (Medicare, Medicaid, the health care law) to a rate of GDP-growth plus one percent. It also calls for bringing all spending down to 21 percent of GDP and capping revenue at that same level. Meanwhile Medicare costs are soaring and the government is about to add many billions in revenue and spending to its ledger when the health care law's main provisions take effect. That would mean, according to economists, that the law would either have to change significantly, or it would have to go.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-reduction-plan-would-imperil-health-care-reform.php

As the last sentence in the above quote illustrates, the draft doesn't directly address ObamaCare. No one could rightly expect that it would. But, it indirectly affects it by capping spending, essentially gutting the measure. What better vehicle for ridding the country of ObamaCare than the draft plan proposed by Obama's own blue ribbon commission? It is a perfect vehicle for starters, and that's the point. Use this as the initial vehicle.

This is not by any stretch of the imagination a plan for deficit reduction rather it is the codification of the nanny state.

It is Obama that will seek to harvest from this POS things such as means testing social security, raising taxes and eliminating the mortgage interest deduction (you think we have a soft real estate market now? Just wait) and other gems.

Do not be fooled, this group and its findings are phony and do not do anything to reduce anything, especially government.

Right strategy, wrong bone to fight over. The new congress should take a machete to the Fed government and reduce real expenditures by 15% over the next 10 years and riff at least 200K federal employees.

It doesn't do any such thing (take 10% from federal unions, this is a 'head fake' and all I can say is don't buy it. We need to justify every last program and cut everything that isn't critical. Whether you like it or not, means testing for social security is coming. Anyone with enough money to get disqualified due to means testing should already have figured that out. It's the same thought process anyone should go through when thinking about contributing to a 401k. All the experts will tell you it's a good idea because you can defer your tax obligation. What they don't tell you is what the tax rate will be when you start to draw on those funds. Of course, they can't know that. But, commonsense tells you that effective tax rates have not gone down historically. There are up and down blips, but the trend is unmistakeable since the income tax was introduced. For that reason, a Roth makes sense. But, introducing that concept into retirement planning is an obvious prelude to means testing social security. Be prepared for it. It's coming.

As far as eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, I can live with that. I don't know if the draft includes particulars, but I highly doubt that the proposal is to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction entirely on day 1. More likely it would be phased in, which means it would only gradually affect the property market. The time to do that is now, not when we have another bubble. The point is to reduce the overall rate and strip out the special exemptions. I've got no problem with that. I guarantee you I pay more than most in interest and, thus, stand to lose more. In fact, I'm above the cap on a fictional $1 million mortgage, so I end up deducting the absolute maximum allowed. I have no problem giving that up if they roll back the highest rates and make more people participate in the tax system at all Levels. That's the key. Right now, an average family of four making $50, 000 pays no taxes and actually gets more in fed tax dollars back. That has to stop. Once folks are forced to pay into the system, at any level, they will start to focus on what the government is doing with their Money. As matters stand right now, a near majority are simply part of the dependency state. They pay nothing.

You say you "don't buy it" about reducing the federal workforce by 10% and, instead, that Congress should "riff" 200, 000 federal jobs immediately. Including the post office, the federal workforce is about 2. 6 million. A 10% cut, as proposed, is 260, 000 federal employees.

Finally, you say that this is a "head fake". It will be if they wait for the final plan from this commission. That either will never exist or will be meaningless. My point, as I indicated earlier, is that Republicans should take this jointly-prepared draft, work up their own plan within the confines of this draft, and then bring it forward. It won't be a "head fake" at that point. And, as long as they stay within the confines of the draft, the pedigree always can be traced to the commission Obama created by executive order. It's an utterly defensible position. This plan is based on your Commission's draft. Sign it or explain why you won't to the American people.

I would suggest that you look at this plan more closely. There is pain for both sides of the aisle. Without that, it wouldn't be credible. But, all the weeping and gnashing of teeth going on over the particulars is coming from the left. The best proof that this is no head fake comes from the biggest economist idiot on the planet, Paul Krugman of the New York Times. He hates it. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html Therefore, it has to be pretty good.

If Republicans are smart, they will take this draft and run with it. No way Obama can support it. The items you mention are mere parts Of their recommendations (not including means testing) but that doesn't mean anything. He won't be able to use support for tax increases and deduction limitations as a fig leaf. He either gets behind the whole package, which Republicans have the opportunity to craft, or he is made to look the fool that he is. Either way, Republicans win.

Wild Walleye

11-12-10, 22:52

I think you need to take a closer look:

The plan hasn't been delivered ahead of schedule. The commission hasn't even voted. This draft Wasn't scheduled to be released. It is just a draft. Stan, this is Obama's panel. They held a public airing of their findings, while the president was in Indonesia. They wouldn't take a crap without the say so of BHO. This was a deliberate, advance publication of their findings timed to go public while the president was away so that he can try to claim that they are independent and not beholden to him.

As I made clear in my post, there's no reason to await the final plan. Agreed, there never will be one.

It either won't get approved or it will be so watered down as to be useless.The purpose is and always has been to create a boogie man, third party that says "we have to raise taxes, we have to secure entitlements, we have to reduce defense spending, and on and on" whereby Obama and Pelosi and Reid can ram it through congress on force it on the people. Wait a minute, with the election results, Pelosi is no longer a player. Hopefully, that makes this thing DOA.

The draft plan calls for bringing spending to 21% of GDP, which is in line with historical norms, not a historical high percentage:False. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP did not move permanently above 20% until the effects of Nixon's misguided social programs kicked in circa 1975.

Specifically, the plan calls for limiting growth in total federal health spending (Medicare, Medicaid, the health care law) to a rate of GDP-growth plus one percent.Therefore, growth in spending on these programs will always exceed the rate of growth in national production. If GDP grows 25% over 10 years, then federal spending on these programs grows 35. Isn't this the kind of math that got us into this problem in the first place?

It also calls for bringing all spending down to 21 percent of GDP and capping revenue at that same level.This and the prior citation regarding ever-expanding entitlements would mutually exclusive events. The only way you could delay the inevitable would be to eviscerate defense in order to fund social programs. Since that is the whole idea of this panel and the left in general, we shouldn't be surprised.

Meanwhile Medicare costs are soaring and the government is about to add many billions in revenue and spending to its ledger when the health care law's main provisions take effect. That would mean, according to economists, that the law would either have to change significantly, or it would have to go. Me thinks Big Ears ain't going to sign the legislation that repeals his signature assault on the US.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-reduction-plan-would-imperil-health-care-reform.php

As the last sentence in the above quote illustrates, the draft doesn't directly address ObamaCare. No one could rightly expect that it would. That's ok. The voters addressed health care for the second time on election day. You remember the first time? When the population said "don't do it" to Pelosi and friends. Seems like the voters wanted to get their message across.

But, it indirectly affects it by capping spending, essentially gutting the measure. What better vehicle for ridding the country of ObamaCare than the draft plan proposed by Obama's own blue ribbon commission? It is a perfect vehicle for starters, and that's the point. Use this as the initial vehicle.I like the way you think on this one, give him a metaphorical Haitian necktie with his own tire.

Whether you like it or not, means testing for social security is coming. Anyone with enough money to get disqualified due to means testing should already have figured that out. It's the same thought process anyone should go through when thinking about contributing to a 401k. All the experts will tell you it's a good idea because you can defer your tax obligation. What they don't tell you is what the tax rate will be when you start to draw on those funds. Of course, they can't know that. But, commonsense tells you that effective tax rates have not gone down historically. There are up and down blips, but the trend is unmistakeable since the income tax was introduced. For that reason, a Roth makes sense. But, introducing that concept into retirement planning is an obvious prelude to means testing social security. Be prepared for it. It's coming.How about making qualified retirement distributions tax free?

As far as eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, I can live with that. I don't know if the draft includes particulars, but I highly doubt that the proposal is to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction entirely on day 1. More likely it would be phased in, which means it would only gradually affect the property market.I believe that the initial effort would be to disallow interest on more than $500K, which would further destroy the real estate market. The goal of the left of course would be to eliminate it completely.

Of course the only way to really make taxes 'fair' would be to eliminate all deductions and make it a flat tax for everyone.

The time to do that is now, not when we have another bubble.I'd have to disagree. Further raising taxes in the midst of one of the nations longest recessions and with the largest potential tax hike in history looming in the not-too-distant-future seems to be a poor idea, in my opinion.

The point is to reduce the overall rate and strip out the special exemptions. I've got no problem with that. I guarantee you I pay more than most in interest and, thus, stand to lose more. In fact, I'm above the cap on a fictional $1 million mortgage, so I end up deducting the absolute maximum allowed. I have no problem giving that up if they roll back the highest rates and make more people participate in the tax system at all Levels.That'll be the day.

That's the key. Right now, an average family of four making $50, 000 pays no taxes and actually gets more in fed tax dollars back. That has to stop. Once folks are forced to pay into the system, at any level, they will start to focus on what the government is doing with their Money. As matters stand right now, a near majority are simply part of the dependency state. They pay nothing.And how does the panel's report address that?

You say you "don't buy it" about reducing the federal workforce by 10% and, instead, that Congress should "riff" 200, 000 federal jobs immediately. Including the post office, the federal workforce is about 2. 6 million. A 10% cut, as proposed, is 260, 000 federal employees.I mean, do it tomorrow. A Washington plan to reduce Govt headcount by 260k means to reduce potential new hires by 260k, after inflating planned new hires by 260k.

Finally, you say that this is a "head fake". It will be if they wait for the final plan from this commission. That either will never exist or will be meaningless."They" the new House of Reps has got its marching orders directly from the people. They should not in any way allow BHO or his minions to interpret that message for them.

My point, as I indicated earlier, is that Republicans should take this jointly-prepared draft, work up their own plan within the confines of this draft, and then bring it forward. It won't be a "head fake" at that point. And, as long as they stay within the confines of the draft, the pedigree always can be traced to the commission Obama created by executive order. It's an utterly defensible position. This plan is based on your Commission's draft. Sign it or explain why you won't to the American people.I don't disagree with your logic. However, when you are entering into a contract with another party over something that is extremely valuable, do you let the other guy's attorney draw up the first draft? I don't. I never will.

I would suggest that you look at this plan more closely. There is pain for both sides of the aisle. Without that, it wouldn't be credible. But, all the weeping and gnashing of teeth going on over the particulars is coming from the left.The new House should not compromise on its principles. If you are willing to compromise your principles, what have you got left?

The best proof that this is no head fake comes from the biggest economist idiot on the planet, Paul Krugman of the New York Times. He hates it. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html Therefore, it has to be pretty good.Again, I like how you think. However, when presented with two ponies, one nice clean pony and the other buried somewhere under a gigantic pile of shit, I chose the clean pony.

If Republicans are smart, they will take this draft and run with it. No way Obama can support it. The items you mention are mere parts Of their recommendations (not including means testing) but that doesn't mean anything. He won't be able to use support for tax increases and deduction limitations as a fig leaf. He either gets behind the whole package, which Republicans have the opportunity to craft, or he is made to look the fool that he is. Either way, Republicans win.They should cherry pick it to support their own reforms and throw it in his face at every opportunity. However, they should not engage on the draft or it progeny. They should start fresh and lay waste to...err... Waste.

Esten

11-13-10, 02:46

Presented by Esten, the king of liberal spinmesters.

By my count, the score is now.

Wild Walleye: 468 points.

Esten: 1 pointDear Jackson,

No doubt wearing your moderator hat you felt my claim of "countless false statements" from Walleye was exaggerated.

In a literal sense, as in the number of stars in the sky or grains of sand on the beach, the word countless here is incorrect.

However, in the sense of so many times that one loses count, it is accurate. And I can easily give you an idea of the scale involved.

Please see my post from Oct. 14 for two specific racist statements Walleye "quoted" of Obama and his wife. Those are false statements #1 and #2. Let's take the one for Obama: Walleye claimed that in his own words Obama said "The typical white person is a racist". I challenged him on Oct. 14 to provide credible evidence of that quoted statement but he ignored it. When I referenced it again on Nov. 7, he responded that he cited examples. That is false statement #3, what he cited were various examples of what he thought made Obama racist, but were not examples/evidence of the quotes I challenged him on. Regarding the $200M / day cost for Obama's Asia Trip (false statement #4), Walleye calls the CNN story I posted an opinion piece, which is false statement #5. The CNN link has videotape of Pentagon and White House officials clearly refuting the claimed details and costs of Obama's Asia trip. It is therefore an expose, not an opinion piece. BTW, notice how despite the Pentagon saying the claims are comical, Walleye goes off speculating on the military details in defense of his position. Watch the CNN video and judge for yourself.

So what we have is Walleye defending original false statements by more false statements, denial and deflection. With just the above examples alone, one can see how his false statements multiply quickly. And how over the course of months one could easily lose count.

Let's go back to that quote again.

-his own words: "The typical white person is a racist"I'll be in town soon, and would gladly treat Jackson to an evening at Black including drinks and the chica of his choice. For this to happen though, the above quote must be proven as fact. It doesn't matter who provides the proof, all takers welcome. The only requirement is to provide a link with audio evidence of the above quote from Obama as stated, which is not some manufactured or out-of-context contrivance. Walleye has stood firmly by his statements, so surely the proof is out there for the finding.

El Alamo

11-15-10, 15:06

Fifty years of public service are on the line. I truly believe I'm not being treated fairly," Rangel said."I am entitled to a lawyer during this hearing."

This is pathetic. Rangel has been in public service because he is completely incompetent to operate in the private sector.

He has done nothing while in 'public service' except pad his own pockets.

When are these politicians going to get it into their birdbrain minds that we despise them for being corrupt, incompetent and having the brains of a mushroom.

Wild Walleye

11-15-10, 16:56

Rangel said."I am entitled to a lawyer during this hearing."He is a complete simpleton and a criminal. He knows damn well that he is entitle to a lawyer and he has known that for two and a half years (at least) since this case began.

It was Rangel himself, and only himself, that decided to show up today without an attorney. I'd like to see the receipts for the $2 million he reportedly paid the attorney that left him.

But he should want this to go fast when you get this kind of reception from the prosecutor:

Chisam said "I see no evidence of corruption" by Rangel, but rather, that the congressman was "overzealous" and "sloppy in his personal finances."

If he doesn't get this resolved before the end of the lame duck session, he'll be a dead duck.

Wild Walleye

11-15-10, 17:30

Dear Jackson,

No doubt wearing your moderator hat you felt my claim of "countless false statements" from Walleye was exaggerated.

In a literal Sense, as in the number of stars in the sky or grains of sand on the beach, the word countless here is incorrect.

However, in the sense of so many times that one loses count, it is accurate. And I can easily give you an idea of the scale involved.

Please see my post from Oct. 14 for two specific racist statements Walleye "quoted" of Obama and his wife. Those are false statements #1 and #2. Let's take the one for Obama: Walleye claimed that in his own words Obama said "The typical white person is a racist". I challenged him on Oct. 14 to provide credible evidence of that quoted statement but he ignored it. When I referenced it again on Nov. 7, he responded that he cited examples. That is false statement #3, what he cited were various examples of what he thought made Obama racist, but were not examples / evidence of the quotes I challenged him on. Up until you and your fellow Marxists complete your destruction of the Constitution and impose totalitarian rule, I am entitled to my opinions and the right to voice those opinions. Again, until you and your Peoples' Army succeed in oppressing me, I can have and express those opinions and I do not have to support why I have them. Ain't America great?

But in the interest of proving you wrong, for the # time (I lost count there have been so many, I shall continue. I clearly stated that I believe Obama and his wife are racists. I further supported those opinions by citing quotes from Obama's books and a paraphrase of his "typical white person" on radio interview (610am WIP. In addition to those, there is a myriad of statements made by Obama that I believe support my position including those he made about the "stupid" white cops who arrested Prof. Skippy Gates in Cambridge. Further, they attended Wright's church for how many years? Baptized both of their daughters? A church founded on vilification and hatred of whites and they never heard any of it? Wow. I don't believe them (again, still my right until you take over.

From Dreams of my Father, by Barrack Hussein Obama:

'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites'

'There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs, ' he wrote. 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names'

Commenting about one of his bosses:

'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white. '

Upon learning that some of his grandfather's people worked for whites:

'ugly words flashed across my mind, uncle tom, collaborator, House and—-'

'I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race'

As for Michelle, my opinion is based upon seeing many interviews of her and reading numerous articles.

Regarding the $200M / day cost for Obama's Asia Trip (false statement #4), Walleye calls the CNN story I posted an opinion piece, which is false statement #5. The CNN link has videotape of Pentagon and White House officials clearly refuting the claimed details and costs of Obama's Asia trip. It is therefore an expose, not an opinion piece. BTW, notice how despite the Pentagon saying the claims are comical, Walleye goes off speculating on the military details in defense of his position. Watch the CNN video and judge for yourself.I posted the original link to the source story. The fact that the Pentagon flak described the number as "comical" doesn't mean anything. They called the Vietnam War a 'Police Action. ' Wait a minute, why is Esten putting his full faith and trust in the US military. That seems odd.

So what we have is Walleye defending original false statements by more false statements, denial and deflection. With just the above examples alone, one can see how his false statements multiply quickly. And how over the course of months one could easily lose count.I can see why you'd lose count around three.

I'll be in town soon, and would gladly treat Jackson to an evening at Black including drinks and the chica of his choice. For this to happen though, the above quote must be proven as fact. It doesn't matter who provides the proof, all takers welcome. The only requirement is to provide a link with audio evidence of the above quote from Obama as stated, which is not some manufactured or out-of-context contrivance. Walleye has stood firmly by his statements, so surely the proof is out there for the finding.Click here. Jax, I hope you enjoy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abPQ9kZe3ZA

Rev BS

11-15-10, 22:45

Racism is like a latent virus awaiting for conditions when they will instinctly appear, often, hidden under confusing symptoms.

Yes, it is true that in a politically correct world, you will hear statements like,"I don't have a racist bone in my body" or "I have many black / white friends', in challenging economic times like right now, the racism virus is very active, albeit, sometimes without even the individual being aware of it. A clear example is in Europe, where there has been racist chants against black soccer players in many countries. The Inter star, Eto'o recently had to endured it in Italy. I have to believe that it is because of the heavy influx of black players in the European leagues rather than the 1 or 2 stars that participated in the past.

In the US, we have made great headway in regard to equality, the reaction has created even some overcompensation.

Somebody (not me) said, When Obama became president, the trouble began. Well, you must look through your own prism. For sure, I know I have some prejudices and biases. When we are rich and prosperous, and can afford to be generous, we are often magnanimous. A perfect example would be the illegal immigration issue, a non issue until the manufacturing jobs went overseas. I have often wonder why did the American factories went to China rather than Mexico. We could have kill quite a few birds with 1 stone.

I hesistate to write this, but feel that some self examination is in order in this challenging climate.

Stan Da Man

11-16-10, 12:54

A perfect example would be the illegal immigration issue, a non issue until the manufacturing jobs went overseas. I have often wonder why did the American factories went to China rather than Mexico. We could have kill quite a few birds with 1 stone.

I hesistate to write this, but feel that some self examination is in order in this challenging climate. Talk to the garment manufacturers who began shipping their work to Mexico 20 years ago. There are many companies who have moved manufacturing to Mexico. When you start to understand the problems they have had, then you will understand why other manufacturing went to China.

There are many who want to see racism in every nook and cranny. Even when it's not there, they claim it exists and that people don't even know they are being racist. In my opinion, it is this sentiment that is the most destructive. It breeds far more mistrust than actual racism. The notion that manufacturing went somewhere for any reason other than pure economics is a great example of this. The only color large corporations see is green when thinking about making a big investment such as where to manufacture.

Wild Walleye

11-16-10, 16:29

I know it when I see it.

To be clear, Esten was not calling me a racist, he was chiding me to support my opinion that the Obamas are racists. I don't think that blackshirt was either, I believe he was commenting on the politics of race. A subject I find intriguing and revolting at the same time.

In my opinion, the Obamas are the pots calling the kettles black, if you will. While they and their supporters use the race card every time someone disagrees with them, I do not believe that race and / or racism plays much of a role in the average day of most Americans. That isn't to say that there is no racism in America but, there is a lot less than the Left would have you believe. In fact, if the Left didn't fan the flames in every election cycle, I believe that race would be a non-factor in the day-to-day lives of most all Americans. The liberal left is obsessed with race for many reasons including their own 'white guilt' and other intangible aspects of the liberal mind set. Because the 'black vote' has been a mainstay of their base for nearly 80 years they can't afford to lose the black vote or they will never hold national office. Keep in mind that the voting rights act of '65 and all most all other significant race-based human rights advances in the US came from Republicans in Congress and the White House.

You wouldn't be surprised if I told you the blacks tended to vote for republicans, following the Civil War. Hard to see why a black voter would go Democrat during that period, especially since it was made very clear that blacks were not welcome in the democrat party. In fact, it wasn't until 1924 that blacks could even attend a Democrat convention. Soon thereafter, FDR collected around 70% of the black vote in '32 and again in '36. However, when Truman garnered 77% of the black vote in 1948, the shift became permanent (at least up to present time)

Black voter participation, as a percentage of all voters tends to be approximately proportionate to the percentage of Americans who are black. 11. 6% and 13. 28, respectively for 2000. In 2000, that means that almost 13 million black Americans voted. Without the bounds of race and one would expect that the ideological (liberal, conservative, moderate) breakdown of that subset of voters would be consistent with the breakdown of all voters. For 2000, voters identified themselves as 19% liberal. 38% conservative and 40% moderate. Therefore, if there was no race, one could surmise that the 13 million 'black vote' would translate into a net gain of roughly 2. 7 million republican votes (assuming that the moderates split 50/50) . If you will, consider presidential elections from Clinton v. Bush to BHO v. McLame and the contemporaneous Congressional battles. Now look at those races assuming that there was no racial difference among American voters (everybody is pink polka dotted) and what do you think that the resulting composition of the national political body would be?

Would we have had an internet boom and bust? Probably. Would we have had the Fannie / Freddie / Bernie / Chrissie (Dodd) induced real estate bubble and the global economic meltdown that it instigated? Probably not. That is not to say that there may not have been an asset bubble (real estate bubble in the late 80's, for example) but, there would not have been a subprime crisis. Neither the race of the populace nor the race of any member of the populace is to blame; it is to say that the politics of race as practiced by American politicians (primarily from the Left) is responsible. Race is front and center on the American stage because Race, based on the politics of race, is a multi-billion dollar industry that feeds the parasitic, human-remoras that dine on the flesh tossed aside by their politico benefactors and is the source of approximately 8. 2 million democrat votes in every presidential cycle, regardless of the candidate.

I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Footnote: before you get your panties in a wad, the phrase was coined in 178BC and first translated into English around 1542 and refers to a type of shovel.

Rev BS

11-16-10, 16:32

Talk to the garment manufacturers who began shipping their work to Mexico 20 years ago. There are many companies who have moved manufacturing to Mexico. When you start to understand the problems they have had, then you will understand why other manufacturing went to China.

There are many who want to see racism in every nook and cranny. Even when it's not there, they claim it exists and that people don't even know they are being racist. In my opinion, it is this sentiment that is the most destructive. It breeds far more mistrust than actual racism. The notion that manufacturing went somewhere for any reason other than pure economics is a great example of this. The only color large corporations see is green when thinking about making a big investment such as where to manufacture. Yes, racism has been and continiues to be used as a tool to further agendas, and most Americans have been scarred by the blatant use of the racism card in the politcal arena.

Yes, I was being a little misleading about the factories in Mexico / China. My point is that in harsh economic times, racism will rear its ugly head. A good example will be the riosts in Indonesia following the financial crisis and subsequent devaluation in 1997 when mobs took to the streets looking to kill / maim / rape the ethnic Chinese minority (often referred to as the Jews of Asia.

You will never find a soul who will admit to being a racist. Here, I am talking more about sutle rather than blatant racism. Sometimes, it can be just prejudice. That is why so many people get caught making some off-hand remarks without even realizing what they said. And they don't necessary have to be bad people. Just ask Jimmy the Greek. We can always claim to be color blind until your / mine daughter decides she is going to marry? Then, all hell break loose.

Wild Walleye

11-16-10, 18:31

Just ask any Survivor. The economic repercussions of the great depression were innumerable and in many ways undefinable for the average person. Hitler seized on this by focusing discontent on a specific enemy, the Jew.

As far as manufacturing goes, in free markets, it is largely a function of marginal productivity.

Yes, racism has been and continiues to be used as a tool to further agendas, and most Americans have been scarred by the blatant use of the racism card in the politcal arena.

Yes, I was being a little misleading about the factories in Mexico / China. My point is that in harsh economic times, racism will rear its ugly head. A good example will be the riosts in Indonesia following the financial crisis and subsequent devaluation in 1997 when mobs took to the streets looking to kill / maim / rape the ethnic Chinese minority (often referred to as the Jews of Asia.

You will never find a soul who will admit to being a racist. Here, I am talking more about sutle rather than blatant racism. Sometimes, it can be just prejudice. That is why so many people get caught making some off-hand remarks without even realizing what they said. And they don't necessary have to be bad people. Just ask Jimmy the Greek. We can always claim to be color blind until your / mine daughter decides she is going to marry? Then, all hell break loose.

Wild Walleye

11-17-10, 12:04

The whole Rangel hearing was a coordinated theatrical production. If you ask me, Lofgren and the rest of the Dems were all in on it. The fix was in from the start. The worst thing for the Dems would be having Charlie trying to defend himself and seeing his gaffes over and over on cable news. Therefore, I believe that they came up with the "I don't got no lawyer" scenario whereby they all get what they want. If Charlie doesn't testify, the committee promises to only consider censure or reprimand. Charlie can keep whining to the press that it was a travesty of justice and that he was denied due process (I think two and a half years is probably adequate notice to line up an attorney. Lofgren and the Dems on the committee can preen about throwing the book at Charlie (convicted on 11 out of 13 counts) and the Dems as a whole are spared the spectacle of Charlie lying some more on video. The fact that he will only get reprimand or censure is offensive. If joe-q-public did what he did, there would be jail time in the sentence.

Next up, Maxi-pad. She should do the same no-show. Great job draining the swamp Nancy. Looks like the voters will have to keep on doing it for you. 2012 might make 2010 look like a good year for the Dems. Two years is a lifetime in politics so it's too early to say, but if the Dems keep going the way that they are, bye bye Senate, bye bye WH.

El Alamo

11-18-10, 20:27

El Alamo

11-18-10, 20:59

House Dems Reject GOP Proposal to Defund NPR.

House Democrats on Thursday rejected a GOP proposal to cut federal funding to National Public Radio, which has been under fire ever since it sacked Juan Williams last month.

NPR praised the outcome, saying "good judgment prevailed as Congress rejected a move to assert government control over the content of news."

"I think this can be resolved", says Nancy Pelosi. "since NPR is about as non political as Rush Limbaugh we should give equal public funding to Rush."

Esten

11-19-10, 02:46

Looks like Jackson's all-paid evening at Black is not to be. Though I don't think anyone is surprised.

Walleye posted the link to the radio interview with Obama, which I previously knew as the source of the quote in question. As one can listen for themselves, the actual quote is not to be found in the interview.

I further supported those opinions by citing quotes from Obama's books and a paraphrase of his "typical white person" on radio interview (610am WIP. Now it's a paraphrase. As in, not something Obama actually said. It's really IMO more of a distortion than a paraphrase.

But remember, Walleye had presented this as an actual quote of Obama in his own words.

Now it's proven to be untrue.

Wild Walleye

11-19-10, 02:47

Jay Rockerfeller wants to shut down MSNBC and Fox news. What a great idea. We get rid of the one news outlet that has a conservative point of view (Fox News) and we get rid of one of the of hundreds of news outlets that are hard core lefties / loonies (MSNBC. What would we be left with? Hundreds of news outlets that are hardcore lefties / loonies.

I think we have found Nestor Kirshner's twin in Jay Rockerfeller. Is about as dumb as a bag of rocks. This dipshit has never done anything on his own, he has merely traded on his family name for his entire life. What is even sadder is that this parasite has been living off of the American tax payer for 25+ years when he can afford to pay for his own gluttony and flatulence.

This is a typical bargaining ploy that almost never works. But, as Wayne Gretzky's dad used to say "100% of the shots you don't take, don't go in" You try to show how objective you are by offering to do that which you ask of your opponent. Get rid of Fox and we'll match you with a similar, liberal broadcast network."Oops, there aren't any similar liberal broadcast networks so, let us select a substitute. How about this flaming piece of shit over here in exchange for your bag of diamonds?"

El Alamo

11-22-10, 12:01

Obama is finally admitting that recovery from this recession / depression will be slow and that this recession / depression will be with us for an extended period of time.

I think my dog Rocky could have told Obama that 2 years ago. Wasting trillions (what number come after a trillion) of dollars on make believe, beaurcratic, mumble jumble jobs which do not have the ability to add even a paper clip to the economy is the height of stupidity.

Maybe Obama can export his economic miracle to Zimbabwe. It goes like this. Hire tens of millions of people to sit at desks, doing nothing except collecting paychecks that make their currency everyday more worthless. Then periodically state that, thanks to his uncanny understanding of economics, the recovery is just around the corner.

Keep this up for several decades because that is how long this recession will last if we don't put a leash on Obama.

And as far as Zimbabwe goes. Even they had more sense than to listen to Obama.

House Music

12-01-10, 16:10

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1011/lady_gaga_tells_senators_end_dadt.html

I hope it gets repealed.

Stinger

12-01-10, 18:54

I and many many people who served in the US military and are serving now do not want the policy to be repealed. It will have a significant effect on troop morale and thus impact readiness in a negative way. BTW, who cares what Lady Gaga thinks?

Stinger

Stan Da Man

12-01-10, 20:21

BTW, who cares what Lady Gaga thinks?

StingerI second that. It is beyond me why any celebrity is arrogant enough to believe that their opinion on politics matters more than any other average Joe's opinion. If they want to campaign on an issue, let them run for office. Yet, they are this arrogant. And, sadly, stupid people pay attention to them.

Nuevo Espanol

12-01-10, 21:41

Lady Gaga wants repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Funny thing is, PFC Bradley Manning (the gay source for the wikileaks document dump) used a music CDRW of Lady Gaga to store the stolen documents. He sang along to her song "Telephone" while he downloaded the files.

Synchronicity!

Too much news, not enough Paraguayan Pussy! I have to buy a ticket.

Wild Walleye

12-02-10, 02:04

Neither Lady Gaga nor Julian Assange has an expertise in the subjects upon which they opine. Again, if we had any balls, there would have been hell to pay on the leak and publication of these issues. Unfortunately, the president happens to share a philosophical agenda with Julian Assange. America needs to be brought down a few rungs. Both hate the American military and our intelligence capabilities.

Stan Da Man

12-02-10, 21:51

The vote on the Deficit Reduction Commission's proposal is tomorrow. It stands no chance of getting the 14 votes necessary to force a Congressional vote. Five panel members already have come out against it. But, it will get over 50% support, which is significant.

As I predicted, the gnashing of teeth has come from the left, and Republicans are the ones who are endorsing the plan. The two House Republicans who aren't, Paul Ryan and Dave Camp, are refusing to vote for it for completely foolish reasons. Ryan's sole objection is that it doesn't do enough to pare back health care costs and, in particular, it doesn't gut Obamacare. That's his only objection. He likes the rest of it, or at least he's said that the Obamacare issue is the only thing that's preventing him from voting for it. Fair enough. But, the solution is not to withhold support. Vote for it, and at the same time make clear that it doesn't go far enough, so you're going to be introducing legislation to gut Obamacare. There's still plenty of support for that, and it won't wane just because this plan passes.

Ryan and Camp are letting a golden opportunity slip through their fingers. They both say that they are going to use this plan as the starting point for their own deficit reduction measures. But, regardless of how optimistic anyone may be about the impact that the "new" House and Tea Partiers will have, there will never be as good an opportunity as this to cut the deficit.

The proposal pushes all the right buttons:

- Social security and medicare are cut, and the retirement age is increased in the distant future.

- Federal wages are frozen and the federal workforce gets trimmed by 200, 000.

-The money-pit post office gets scaled back.

- Individual retirement plans are scaled back, simplified, and some of the silly caps are raised.

- Corporate taxes are rolled back and brought in line with the rest of the world.

- Individual rates are lowered, and the individual tax base is broadened, in exchange for sacrificing a variety of sacred cow deductions.

It's a good proposal. They ought to vote for it. Are there other things that could be added to it? Sure. So what. Republicans have two years in control of the House and plenty of time on their hands to come up with additional cuts and proposals. Unfortunately, rather than taking the bird in the hand, they're going to try for two in the Bush, and they'll end up with nothing. In two years, we'll hear Obama campaigning on the deficit reduction measures he tried to put in place, and that Republicans killed it. He won't mention that more Democrats will have voted against it, and the press won't call him on it (surprise) and Republicans will have pissed away a great opportunity.

Curbarn

12-05-10, 00:04

Stan Da Man

12-05-10, 15:29

I am a newbie lurker. I have been a mongerer in SE Asia for 15 years living in Thailand, Malaysia and Brunei. Am now visiting BA on a golf trip.

Cmon man this is a website about girls how the fuck did politics get in here. If you're going to have politics, lets talk about gay rights and transvestites. Did I spell that right. Really lets get down to the business of girls. I left the US 22 years ago. I don't have to keep justifying why. Curbarn:

Please spend some time reading the board. There are plenty of other threads where folks, including myself, can and do post about many of the things you're interested in.

If you really want to talk about gay rights and transvestites, you are free to start your own thread. I doubt you'll get too much traction, but I've been wrong before.

The solution if you don't want to read about US politics is: Don't read this thread. It's pretty simple.

Good luck on the golf trip.

Punter 127

12-05-10, 17:35

I am a newbie lurker. I have been a mongerer in SE Asia for 15 years living in Thailand, Malaysia and Brunei. Am now visiting BA on a golf trip.

Cmon man this is a website about girls how the fuck did politics get in here. If you're going to have politics, lets talk about gay rights and transvestites. Did I spell that right. Really lets get down to the business of girls. I left the US 22 years ago. I don't have to keep justifying why. Lets start with YOU Getting down to business, so far you've offered criticism and nothing else to this forum. Oh, but wait you've been mongering in 'SE Asia for 15 years' so lets look at your contributions on the ISG. Gee, a quick search on the ISG of the name 'Curbarn' comes back with 'zero matches', perhaps you have a different name on the ISG, please tell us you've contributed something, or perhaps you should stick to golf.

So 'Cmon man' why should anybody care what you think?

Moveon

12-05-10, 17:41

(read below)

Moveon,

I believe that you are a professional political operative and I'm calling you out.

Therefor, having made this finding, I am invoking the "Ricardo Rule": your next five posts must be detailed descriptions of your encounters with working girls here in Buenos Aires.

Thanks,

Jackson

House Music

12-05-10, 22:28

We need the FDA going strong.

US Prescription Drugs Tested on World's Poor.

http://www.newser.com/story/106705/us-prescription-drugs-tested-on-worlds-poor.html

Prescription drugs that are considered safe kill an estimated 200, 000 Americans a year, and investigative reporters Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele have exposed a massive loophole that could help explain why. Some 6, 485 clinical trials were conducted abroad in 2008—more than 20 times as many as in 1990—and the FDA has been declaring drugs safe based on foreign trials that are almost completely free from regulation or oversight, a detailed investigation published in Vanity Fair finds.

There is no real chain of command in modern American drug testing, the investigation finds, and many of the most problematic drugs on the market today have been tested in countries where the average wage is just a few dollars a day."The people doing the work on the front lines are not independent scientists. They are wage-earning technicians who are paid to gather a certain number of human beings; sometimes sequester and feed them; administer certain chemical inputs; and collect samples of urine and blood at regular intervals," Barlett and Steele write."The work looks like agribusiness, not research. ' And researchers question the relevance of the tests in the first place, highlighting the fact that people living in impoverished nations may metabolize drugs differently, and that outcomes may be skewed due to the presence of diseases like malaria and tuberculosis. Click here to read the entire piece.

Curbarn

12-05-10, 23:05

Curbarn:

Please spend some time reading the board. There are plenty of other threads where folks, including myself, can and do post about many of the things you're interested in.

If you really want to talk about gay rights and transvestites, you are free to start your own thread. I doubt you'll get too much traction, but I've been wrong before.

The solution if you don't want to read about US politics is: Don't read this thread. It's pretty simple.

Good luck on the golf trip. But I need a better caddy. Last night I was driunk. And am sick of defending the government of the country from whence I came. To see thread dedicated to opinion on government mismanagement etc p*the me off. Do I care about gay rights not at all, it was just a BillMaherism. I will try to be more open minded.

As for punter 127 yeah I moved to Brunei in 1987, divorced and moved to Thailand in 1991. Do I post in asia anywhere, gee do you really need a forum for Thailand, everything is right in front of you. But yes I think I posted to Pattaya addicts 3 or 4 years ago. I see you have a lot of time to check up on me, so there it is. I will forward my interpol profile should you need it.

Punter 127

12-06-10, 13:07

As for punter 127 yeah I moved to Brunei in 1987, divorced and moved to Thailand in 1991. Do I post in asia anywhere, gee do you really need a forum for Thailand, everything is right in front of you. But yes I think I posted to Pattaya addicts 3 or 4 years ago. I see you have a lot of time to check up on me, so there it is. I will forward my interpol profile should you need it.Sure I use the Thailand forum, because some of us look a little farther then 'right in front of you', And I want the latest and most up to date information possible. Apparently I'm not the only one considering the Thailand forum is huge with about 40 threads.

I'm always happy to see new members but how about giving something useful back to the forum. If I remember correctly Jackson started this political thread and it's his forum, so who are you to criticize it on your very first post? Very Rude Dude.

Now we need get back on topic so here goes; Obama Sucks, Sara Palin supports tea bagging liberals, and Fox News is best news channel ever. . LOL

Member #4112

12-06-10, 14:04

WW, I agree whole heartedly with you about Lady GaGa and Julian, but it is the same for all the Liberal Hollywood Elites. These are people who make a living pretending to be someone else so it's not much of a step up for them to begin believing their own press and assuming the personas of those they pretend to be in films. Instant experts on the political and social issues of our time, I have no idea why anyone listens to them but they do. Perhaps it's because the liberal media provides such a wonderful platform on which to perform their pretended intellectual knowledge and opinions.

As far as WikiLeaks and Julian go, to what length will Obama go to protect our secrets, I have to agree with you, probably not very far beyond lip service (should be easy with his new fat lip). Back in the day old Julian would have a nasty 'accident' or just disappear courtesy of the CIA. Believe me, none of his panty waist liberal buddies would be willing to risk their necks for the 'cause' if poor Julian hand something really nasty happen and they thought they would be next if they continued with the release.

For all our liberal Argentina Private colleagues, it's not that I'm blood thirsty but just a realist. It's a tough world out there and if you don't play by the 'rules' don't expect your adversary to either

Wild Walleye

12-06-10, 16:07

WW, I agree whole heartedly with you about Lady GaGa and Julian, but it is the same for all the Liberal Hollywood Elites. Laura Ingram hit the nail on the head with her book "Shut up and Sing"

I guess it is only human to put undue credence in what is said by people that one admires, even though the statements regard subjects beyond their respective fields of expertise.

From the environment to farm subsidies to gays in the military, there is no shortage of examples of how celebrities have been cheated out of much of their educations and how we must suffer from their ignorance. Bono and Ted Turner are clearly the foremost authorities on the environment. Madonna is the expert on child rearing and Lady Gaga knows what is best for running the largest, most capable military ever known. What's next? Lindsay Lohan is going to be the national expert on moderation?

Jackson

12-06-10, 20:05

What's next? Lindsay Lohan is going to be the national expert on moderation?Don't laugh too hard. We've already got an inexperienced college professor as the Chief Executive Officer of the largest organization in the world.

Curbarn

12-07-10, 01:28

Sure I use the Thailand forum, because some of us look a little farther then 'right in front of you', And I want the latest and most up to date information possible. Apparently I'm not the only one considering the Thailand forum is huge with about 40 threads.

I'm always happy to see new members but how about giving something useful back to the forum. If I remember correctly Jackson started this political thread and it's his forum, so who are you to criticize it on your very first post? Very Rude Dude.

Now we need get back on topic so here goes; Obama Sucks, Sara Palin supports tea bagging liberals, and Fox News is best news channel ever. . LOLI appologize to you righteous dude. Let me know if there is anything you need to know about Thailand.

Argento

12-07-10, 06:06

Don't laugh too hard. We've already got an inexperienced college professor as the Chief Executive Officer of the largest organization in the world.Do you mean an experienced college professor as the CEO of the largest organization in the world?

No one who becomes President comes with experience in the job. I do think that twelve years of law professorship may not be the best of qualifications to hold the position of President but he sure is an experienced college professor.

Argento

Rock Harders

12-07-10, 06:09

Mongers-

There will be a news conference today detailing the US Treasury's in-progress deal to dump their remaining holdings in Citi and thus take a $12 billion profit on the deal. Citi received $45 billion in TARP money and the US taxpayer will gross $57 billion after unloading its holdings in Citi. This, along with the continued recovery of the Big Two (GM and F) is good news for everybody.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Jackson

12-07-10, 14:32

Do you mean an experienced college professor as the CEO of the largest organization in the world?

No one who becomes President comes with experience in the job. I do think that twelve years of law professorship may not be the best of qualifications to hold the position of President but he sure is an experienced college professor.

ArgentoI stand corrected.

Obama was an experienced college professor, but he was manifestly inexperienced at managing large organizations.

However, I do not think it can be said that "No one who becomes President comes with experience in the job" because in fact every one of the country's 50 state governors and our past vice-presidents have all had experience in very similar positions. In addition, the country has a large number current and former Cabinet Secretaries and other senior government officials who have at least had some experience working in the Office of the President of the United States.

I've said it before, and it's worth repeating: "Only people with education and no experience would believe that education is more important that experience."

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

12-07-10, 14:34

Rock Harders

12-07-10, 14:55

Jackson-

The TARP is still predicted by the CBO to lose at least $25 billion (mostly due to AIG). If Bush's boys at Goldman Sachs hadn't been "doing god's work" by letting Lehman Brothers capitulate (and thus eliminating their second biggest competing IB) than the ensuing panic may not have happened and the TARP may not have been necessary at all.

Suerte.

Rock Harders

Argento

12-07-10, 15:47

However, I do not think it can be said that "No one who becomes President comes with experience in the job" because in fact every one of the country's 50 state governors and our past vice-presidents have all had experience in very similar positions. In addition, the country has a large number current and former Cabinet Secretaries and other senior government officials who have at least had some experience working in the Office of the President of the United States.

I've said it before, and it's worth repeating: "Only people with education and no experience would believe that education is more important that experience. "

Thanks,

JacksonThe position is a political one is it not? As a 19th century English author of cookery books, Mrs Beeton often prefaced a recipe, especially when the ingredient was not readily available, with "First get your (ingredient)." All those supposedly well qualified people that you think would do very well in the position didn't have the political nous to run and get elected. And as for the Republican candidate in the last Presidential election, pray tell what great CEO qualities would he have brought to the position had he been elected? He was neither an ex-governor and nor had he any experience in an executive role, either in private enterprise or in government. He is financially well off because he stuck his cock into a cash register, but his record as a senator is really fairly ordinary. And as Mrs Beaton would have said, "First get your Presidency".

Argento

Wild Walleye

12-07-10, 20:41

The position is a political one is it not?Not. It is political in the sense that one must be proficient at politicking, however, once in the position, it is a chief executive role. Decision making is one of the most important functions. Unfortunately, being a make-believe professor doesn't necessarily lend itself to swift and sound decision making.

And as for the Republican candidate in the last Presidential electionThere was one?

pray tell what great CEO qualities would he have brought to the position had he been elected? He was neither an ex-governor and nor had he any experience in an executive role, either in private enterprise or in government. Pointing out the obvious fact that Obama sucks ass is not the same as endorsing McLame (aka Rino).

He is financially well off because he stuck his cock into a cash register, but his record as a senator is really fairly ordinary.Whoa, slow down a minute. How did you move on to John Kerry so quickly?

And as Mrs Beaton would have said, "First get your Presidency".What?

In order for Obama to be an experienced professor, he would have actually had to teach some classes. Further, in my experience, the worst kind of professors are those that try to teach things that they have never done. What qualifications did he have to be a professor? None. Why did he get the job? You tell me.

With out a doubt, in every situation this president has faced, he has been the least experienced person in the room.

Rock Harders

12-07-10, 22:42

Wild Walleye

12-07-10, 23:25

Mongers-

Former VP Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney has been indicted by a Nigerian court on charges of paying $180 million in bribes to secure oil contracts while CEO of Halliburton. Apparently it is illegal for a US company to pay bribes to foreign officials to either secure or retain business; who knew?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101208/ap_on_bi_ge/af_nigeria_bribery_cheney

Suerte,

Rock HardersThe FCPA was enacted in '77 and makes it illegal for a US citizen or business to engage in corrupt practices (primarily bribery) outside of US sovereign territory. And US jusrisdictions. Some believe that the FCPA places US companies at a disadvantage to foreign companies, not subject to the FCPA, in places like Nigeria and Argentina.

Rock Harders

12-08-10, 00:13

Esten

12-08-10, 01:56

Congrats Moveon for posting your 5 reviews. Hard work but well worth the privilege to post in this distinguished political thread. (haha...)

The Citi news is good news indeed. Although I'm wondering if Treasury could not have made an even greater profit holding longer, sale was priced at 4.35 and the stock is now at 4.62, still below book. We'll see what happens with AIG. Anyhow, both Bush and Obama are to be credited for the necessary but highly successful TARP program.

Not thrilled with this tax compromise with Repubs, but there are other advantages. Since the midterms it has been clear that Obama needs to be seen to move to the middle to work with both sides. Keeping Pelosi as minority leader ensures a continued strong liberal presence in the House to counter the new conservative majority. Obama is now going to be the guy in the middle of the two polarized parties. This will work well for him in 2012. The tax compromise is probably good for Dems in 2012 as well.

The deficit issue is going to be front and center. I was never a big fan of making the current tax rates permanent for those earning under 250K. The unrealized tax revenue of not letting those rates increase requires a huge spending cut offset. What's important is shifting more of the burden on the wealthy. So here's the scenario I hope (not necessarily predict) plays out:

i. Over the next two years Americans realize they don't want all the spending cuts needed to balance the budget.
ii. Unemployment drops below 9% and Americans warm up to the idea of some tax increase in 2012.
iii. The budget gets balanced in Obama's second term with a small tax increase for middle income earners, a larger increase for high income earners, and some but fewer spending cuts than would have been required without any tax increases.

El Alamo

12-08-10, 04:49

This discussion over taxes is clarifying the liberal and conservative points of view. Liberals would rather increase taxes on people willing to work and redistribute that tax money to those unwilling to work or to fund make believe government jobs.

Conservatives prefer to reduce government spending and to reduce taxes so that those willing to work will have more disposable income.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to ascertain that those unwilling to work and those dependent on government jobs lean liberal while those working at real jobs in the private sector lean conservative.

Member #4112

12-08-10, 12:28

Well put El Alamo, perhaps this is whay the Liberals are foming at the mouth to get the "Dream" bill passed making more people beholding to them.

Liberals belive we have a REVENUE problem and should tax more.

Conseratives believe we have a SPENDING problem and should reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

There are several cases coming before the Supreme Court this term that should settle many of the federal over reachs that have occured dealing with the Fed's role in many areas and the defination of interstate commerce.

Wild Walleye

12-08-10, 12:38

WW-

I knew about the law and what it said; the "who knew?" remark was irony that would likely only be understood by Jackson, Exon, and maybe a few others on the board who know me personally. The way around the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is to hire an intermediary to engage in the shady practices that are sometimes necessary in order to compete overseas. I am pretty sure the FCPA only applies to public companies.

Suerte,

Rock HardersI know you're no babe in the woods. I was trying to quickly throw out the salient points on FCPA.

It does not only apply to public companies nor does it just apply to US citizens (in some cases it can apply to non-citizens, including resident aliens). It is a pretty broad net and using intermediaries will not provide adequate insulation from prosecution should the stuff hit the fan. If your nuts are in the vice of federal prosecutors, you'll want to be certain that all those payments to the former president's third cousin, twice removed can be defended somehow.

If it turns out you gave out "no-show" positions or had lots of local consultants, and the sums included are high enough, you run the risk of drawing greater attention to oneself.

In some places where I ply my trade, the FCPA can create a real dilemma. The local culture may be one where corruption is like breathing and the non-US companies there play by the local rules. Here comes Mr. Gringo with the "I can't pay you off to get what I need" tattoo on his forehead. Who's going to get the deal? In order to overcome the home field advantage, you have to spin a pretty good yarn and do some lively tap dancing. If one decides to play by the local rules, potential enforcement action can hang over one's head for a long time and can emerge by itself or via other unforeseen circumstances. Going through a pre-financing audit (public or private offerings) can bring to the surface things better left buried. Disgruntled former employees or pissed off investors can land you in hot water as well.

It will come to you as no surprise that Argentina is a country where on more than one occasion, influence has been for sale and purchased. In addition to worrying about getting in trouble there is the potential for a different administration with a whole new set of protected friends could derail whatever it is one thought he had going with the current administration. Also, with the way things work here (lots of consultants) being pretty well known around the world and especially in Washington (despite seaming to be more interested in what kind of wrinkle cream Christina uses) and some big-names getting caught up in relatively recent pay-off schemes in Argentina, there is higher level of suspicion pointed at US companies doing business in Argentina.

Wild Walleye

12-08-10, 13:35

The Citi news is good news indeed. Although I'm wondering if Treasury could not have made an even greater profit holding longer, sale was priced at 4.35 and the stock is now at 4.62, still below book.Prices go up and prices go down. The Treasury isn't a mutual fund manager and shouldn't be in this business for a myriad of excellent reasons from both the taxpayer and the Citi side. Having a large shareholder that every knows wants to sell will create an 'overhang' in the stock (depressing the price in expectation of the greater availability of the stock (increase supply with somewhat constant demand, price falls) when the larger holder eventually sells) that will persist until the holder either sells or otherwise removes the likelihood of massive sales. Also, trying to judge actual value in terms of book value, particularly in this industry (who knows what these assets are worth) is not the best valuation methodology, IMO.

The fact that the govt 'made' a profit on this gamble should in no way be seen as validation of what the government did. Through this logic, we should be pissed that the government didn't bail out Lehman Brothers because we could have picked up another US$10B and offset. 00010% of the impending cost of Obamacare.

Also, as we have seen in the trickle of information about who actually received (directly and via counter parties) TARP and other bailout funds, it will many years before we have an accurate picture of how much benefit anyone institution received.

We'll see what happens with AIG. Anyhow, both Bush and Obama are to be credited for the necessary but highly successful TARP program.It must be lonely being the Man on the Moon.

Not thrilled with this tax compromise with Repubs, but there are other advantages. Since the midterms it has been clear that Obama needs to be seen to move to the middle to work with both sides. Keeping Pelosi as minority leader ensures a continued strong liberal presence in the House to counter the new conservative majority.The tax compromise is a piss poor substitute for what the country needs. The new congress will have a Republican majority, not a conservative majority. It would be interesting to see this tax compromise fail in this congress, seeing as the Dems still have a large majority and would not need any Republican votes to pass it. Therefore, failure to get what the president wants would be at the hands of Dems.

The same Dem congress that isn't shutting down Gitmo.

Obama is now going to be the guy in the middle of the two polarized parties. This will work well for him in 2012.Obama will never be in the middle. He doesn't know where it is, can't and won't find it because he is an ideologue.

The tax compromise is probably good for Dems in 2012 as well.Attacking the productive sector of society didn't seem to work out all that well for the Dems in the recent mid term elections. What makes you think that the same approach will work in two years?

The deficit issue is going to be front and center.I am certain that Obama will continue his laser-like focus on jobs and the deficit just as he promised two years ago and repeatedly since then. In fact, his record on increasing both the deficit and unemployment is unimpeachable.

I was never a big fan of making the current tax rates permanent for those earning under 250K. The unrealized tax revenue of not letting those rates increase requires a huge spending cut offset.But those potential future tax revenues were not all going to be there because with the tax increase, more jobs would be lost and few jobs would be created. I am not certain as to the empirical impact of tax hikes on jobs 'saved or imagined. '

What's important is shifting more of the burden on the wealthy.Where do you think that burden lies today?

So here's the scenario I hope (not necessarily predict) plays out:

I. Over the next two years Americans realize they don't want all the spending cuts needed to balance the budget.

Ii. Unemployment drops below 9% and Americans warm up to the idea of some tax increase in 2012.

Iii. The budget gets balanced in Obama's second term with a small tax increase for middle income earners, a larger increase for high income earners, and some but fewer spending cuts than would have been required without any tax increases. Well, at least we have something to talk about.

How about balancing the budget today based on tax receipts today, no questions asked? Do really think that there are no federal expenditures that are unnecessary?

Judging from the mid-terms, I do not expect the American public to do an about-face on their desire for smaller government, lower taxes and just one term for BHO.

Any improvement in unemployment, over the next two years, will be in spite of Obama's policies not a result of them.

I do believe that the economy will improve modestly over the next two years which is good for all of us and bad for all of us. As things improve, the national disappointment with Obama will likely lessen. There is no more important objective for the recovery of the American economy, the restoration of the Constitution and the continuation of America's global leadership than voting Obama out of office in two years.

Wild Walleye

12-08-10, 13:43

El Alamo and Dopple stated the crux of the matter (with out rat-a-tat-tat machine gunning) and in many fewer words than I would use.

Well put El Alamo, perhaps this is whay the Liberals are foming at the mouth to get the "Dream" bill passed making more people beholding to them.Yep. Dream Bill and Amnesty are just attempts to bestow voting rights on Undocumented Democrats.

Liberals belive we have a REVENUE problem and should tax more.

Conseratives believe we have a SPENDING problem and should reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Cut all government spending by 10-20% , lower tax rates and the '10s will make the '90s look like the '70s.

Wild Walleye

12-08-10, 15:16

Of Washington's business as usual.

Well it didn't take long for Harry Reid to say FU to the nation. After narrowly surviving his reelection bid two months ago, Reid is abusing the American taxpayers to repay the special interests that tipped the electoral scale in his favor.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46095.html

Reid is trying to insert language legalizing online poker into the tax cut legislation. Regardless of the merit of either piece of legislation this is part and parcel the type of behavior that moved America to boot so many of these scumbags from congress.

With Dems bleating all over the airwaves about extending unemployment benefits and waging class warfare against the productive portion of society, one would think legalizing online poker (a job-killer for Nevada) would be a nonstarter. Who benefits most from this? US Casino owners (massive poker profits with virtually no overhead expenses). Who loses the most? US casino workers (if I can play poker from home without buying drinks and rooms from the casino, why go?). I guess maybe they should have thought twice about following their unions' advice to turn out to support Reid in the election.

Now that Reid is comfortably ensconced in a new 6-year term with very little time left in a Democrat controlled congress, it is back to business as usual. I suspect that the majority in the senate will change with the next election cycle and this loser will be limited as to the further harm he can do to the country.

El Alamo

12-08-10, 18:45

Whenever I hear about another birdbrain spending program advocated by the looney lefties I harken back to what Gerorge Washington aka Exon said many years ago.

`It doesn't take any brains to spend money´

El Alamo

12-09-10, 17:32

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am pretty well disgusted how Obama caved in to the wealthiest 2% of taxpayers. Forget the fact that these 2% of taxpayers already fund 80% of our bloated government expenditures. Why not up to 90% or, just for good measure, fund 100% of our wasteful spending.

The irony of this is that the most strident advocates of wasteful spending are the perople who are not funding these birdbrain expenditures I. E. The looney lefties. Why. Because they don't pay taxes. The looney lefties order pretty big when someone else is picking up the tab.

We are a nation founded on the concept of no taxation without representation. I say each person should have voting rights based on the amount of taxes they pay. People like Jackson and Exon, who pay a lot of taxes, would have hundreds of thousands of votes each election. Meanwhile, Freddy Freeloader, 3rd generation welfare recipient, would not be allowed to vote. Why. Freddy doesn't pay taxes.

A consequence of this policy would be that we could say good bye to pea brain Pelosi and her pathetic boyfriend Reid. An unexpected benefit might be that we could deport Obama back to Kenya - where he was born - to be a community organizer.

Wild Walleye

12-10-10, 12:30

Jackson

12-10-10, 17:17

If we enslave the most productive 2% and cut 10% out of the federal budget by eviscerating our military, the other 98% can be exempted from paying taxes (55% can be exempted from even working) , thereby ensuring the perpetual socialist utopia that we all know is out there just waiting for us to embrace it.

This discussion segues perfectly into me posing a question that no liberal has ever answered directly:

The top 1% of income earners in the USA pay 40% of all income taxes.

The top 5% of income earners in the USA pay 60% of all income taxes.

The top 10% of income earners in the USA pay 70% of all income taxes.

The bottom 50% of income earners in the USA pay 2.7% of all income taxes.

So here's my question to liberals: What percentage of all income taxes do you believe should be paid by the top 10% of income earners?

In other words, what do you believe is a fair proportion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks,

Jackson

BadMan

12-10-10, 21:36

If the top 10% of income earners earn 90% of all income, my summation is that they should pay 90% of all income tax.

You see what I just did there?

This discussion segues perfectly into me posing a question that no liberal has ever answered directly:

The top 1% Of income earners in the USA pay 40% Of all income taxes.

The top 5% Of income earners in the USA pay 60% Of all income taxes.

The top 10% Of income earners in the USA pay 70% Of all income taxes.

The bottom 50% Of income earners in the USA pay 2. 7% Of all income taxes.

So here's my question to liberals: What percentage of all income taxes do you believe should be paid by the top 10% of income earners?

In other words, what do you believe is a fair proportion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks,

Jackson

Esten

12-11-10, 01:02

If the top 10% of income earners earn 90% of all income, my summation is that they should pay 90% of all income tax.Sounds good on first glance, but the data shows the top 10% earn about 46% (not 90%) of all income, while paying 70% of all income taxes. The upper income brackets all generally pay a larger % of all taxes than their % share of all income, which is what you would expect with a progressive tax system.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

However this doesn't mean the rich are paying more than their fair share, or even their fair share. Of course it all depends on how one defines fair.

IMO One needs to look at how much tax revenue is needed to meet the short and long term obligations and services / programs that society wants from their government. Then establish a taxation system linked to people's ability to pay. I think we can all agree there is far more room for the rich to pay more in taxes while preserving their quality of life, than there is for the middle class and poor.

I wasn't going to attempt an answer to Jackson's question at first because I thought it too simplistic. But enjoying a challenge I took a stab at it. It proved rather easy actually.

From 2008 IRS data, the top 10% had an average tax rate of 18.71%. It should be around 35%, but isn't because of lower taxes on investment income (remember Warren Buffett's secretary). Under Clinton the top tax rate was 39.6% and the economy did just fine. I would consider it fair for the top 10% tax rate paid to double from it's current number of 18.71%, because top earners without investment income have been paying rates between 35 - 39.6% for nearly two decades. With this doubling you would obtain more tax revenue from the top 10% than is currently obtained from all taxpayers. Even an increase from 18.71% to just 27% (even fairer) would still match all current tax collections.

So to answer Jackson's question:

It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes.

Jackson

12-11-10, 02:15

It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes. Touché!

Well, at least I got a straight answer this time.

Thanks,

Jackson

El Alamo

12-11-10, 07:28

Wow. It is worse than I thought. Margaret Thatcher is beginning to look like Nostradamus. Her prophetic observation was that

`the problem with liberals is that sooner or later they run out of other peoples money to spend'

El Alamo

12-11-10, 08:50

There is a proposal to turn our tax code upside down. As income rises the tax rate on that income decreases.

The goal is to get liberals off their butts and give them an incentive to go to work and earn some money.

BadMan

12-11-10, 11:23

The question was flawed to begin with.

We should not be talking about wages. The very wealthy have a funny way of hiding income. So we should instead be talking about actual wealth.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/courses/so11/stratification/WealthIncome07.gif

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/courses/so11/stratification/Wealth2004.gif

The fact remains that the top 20% do in fact control 85% of the wealth in this country. If you look at total net worth the figures are even more skewed. The top 1% control almost 50% of all wealth in the country and the inequalities and the disparities keep growing.

So to answer Jackson's question, the top 1% should be paying at least 50% of all income tax, and the remaining 19% should be paying the other 35.

That would be fair, equitable and democratic. It would only be socialist if they were made to pay 100%.

Source :

http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?docid=1235

Sounds good on first glance, but the data shows the top 10% earn about 46% (not 90%) of all income, while paying 70% of all income taxes.

Sysco234

12-11-10, 19:19

I've found over time that when something is free people don't really appreciate it. Even worse, they can become very demanding and even downright nasty when free stuff isn't done perfectly and to their expectations. Early on the Habitat for Humanity folks had a problem where the houses they gave to the poor were being stripped of anything of value (including the wiring in the walls) and abandoned. They instituted a policy where the families receiving houses had to work at least 20 hours a week on the homes they received. Even if this meant bringing volunteers water during breaks. Lo and behold, the problem went away as the families understand the amount of work and effort it actually took to build the house they received. My problem with the bottom 50% not paying taxes is they don't feel any of the pain associated with the benefits they receive and therefore all they want is more! If every time some new program or benefit increase occurred there was at least some token tax on wages for the bottom 50% I believe people would pay better attention to what they consider to be really important. This is human nature, something that both parties seem to ignore or exploit quite often.

Tiny12

12-11-10, 19:46

I thought you guys were finally coming around. BadMan promoting the idea of a flat tax -- "If the top 10% of income earners earn 90% of all income, my summation is that they should pay 90% of all income tax." Esten pointing out that the USA system is highly progressive --"the data shows the top 10% earn about 46% of all income, while paying 70% of all income taxes." But then you backtrack and come up with weak arguments why the wealthy should be taxed more.

BadMan, you appear to propose a wealth tax, which would indeed be considered "fair, equitable and democratic", by Marxists and socialists. Esten, you appear to propose much higher tax rates on capital gains and dividends. What I think both of you are missing is that your proposals are primarily taxes on capital. The majority or most of the increased taxes you'd raise would have otherwise gone into private savings and investment. You'd be promoting consumption by the federal government, and discouraging the private investment that this country needs to grow and prosper.

The empirical arguments against your beliefs are strong. Faster growing economies have lower taxes on capital, businesses, savings and investment.

Tiny12

12-11-10, 19:57

Great post Sysco

BadMan

12-11-10, 20:46

This is highly debatable and you know it.

The empirical arguments against your beliefs are strong. Faster growing economies have lower taxes on capital, businesses, savings and investment.

Tiny12

12-11-10, 23:57

This is highly debatable and you know it.If you're looking at this issue based on your idea of a tax on wealth, I admit it's hard to debate, mainly because there aren't any countries that use a wealth tax as their primary way of generating revenue. That's unless you'd propose to do like Chavez or Castro or Lenin and just take property from the capitalists, in which case you'd lose the debate.

If you look at this based on what Esten implies below, that taxes on the wealthy should be boosted by increasing their tax rates on capital gains and dividends and maintaining high rates on business income, it's a slam dunk for my side. Can you think of a single country with an income tax rate greater than 30% on business income, capital gains and dividends that has had a good GDP growth rate over an extended period? I can't. Here are tax rates for some of the countries that have grown the fastest over extended periods,

China 25% business, 20% capital gains, 10% dividends.

Hong Kong 16.5% business, 0% capital gains, 0% dividends.

Singapore 17% business, 0% capital gains, 0% dividends (except REIT's, unit trusts and unfranked dividends)

Taiwan and South Korea also have reasonably low rates, comparable to China, although the system of calculating the capital gains and dividends varies from asset to asset or involves tax credits.

Argento

12-12-10, 00:01

The easiest tax to administer and the smartest tax system is a Value Added Tax on all goods and all services. Period. No exceptions. Period. No income tax, period. The wealthiest spend the most and therefore will contribute the most. The poor spend the least and will be taxed the least. Income taxation has only about 80% compliance at best and the very wealthy rort it and those in the cash economy simply ignore their responsibilities. Social engineering by way of sliding scale income taxation is always a guarantee of a left / right divide. Solve it simply and equitably and the only people objecting would be the millions of public servants, the battalions of lawyers and the multi millions of accountants that scam the income tax system and ensure that those who are required to pay, don't, and those who consume and are under the tax threshhold, don't. It is the people in the middle who consume the least of the taxation dollar that pay the most. The illegal immigrants, resented because they cannot pay income tax, will contribute their share regardless of their status. Just about the perfect system to solve a myriad of the USA's current social and economic woes. Won't happen because it is too simple and too easy and leaves no room for political shenanigans such as sweetheart deals and the infamous Bookmarks. Need more goods or more services from Uncle Sam? Sure, we can do that. The cost is an extra 1% VAT. Sure would focus a few minds that have never realized where the money ultimately is sourced, including a few members of this site. Less government expenditure, less VAT. Just too simple.

Argento

Rock Harders

12-12-10, 07:39

Argento

12-12-10, 13:33

Mongers-

Argentina sources a significant portion of their revenue from a wealth tax, called "bienes personales" in these parts. Of course evasion is rampant due to a number of factors including offshore holdings and underreporting of domestic real estate values. The other primary revenue generators for the Argentine government are the IVA (also rampant evasion) , export taxes, and excise taxes on imported electronics / cars / capital equipment.

Suerte,

Rock HardersGenerally considered, their IVA or Value added Tax has a compliance of less than 60%. Complicated by the fact that the large national and multi-nationals more or less comply and the small businesses rort it and the sole traders don't even think about it. In what ought to be a simple administration, the Argentine AFIP (tax department) has a series of invoices named A, B, C, and several others that I know exist. All businesses are required to be registered for tax purposes and responsible to issue a tax invoice for all transactions. Doesn't happen does it? In their wisdom, AFIP requires the A invoice receiver to be registered with the business issueing. This is the main invoice type for the claiming of tax imputs. Suppliers are loath to do it and avoid it as much as possible. The B invoice, consumidor final and the one you get in the restaurant or supermarket if issued, shows tax has been paid but you cannot claim the tax paid as an imput tax. The C invoice is issued by small businesses that are not big enough to issue A invoices. All are laborious in administration and a pain in the ass for the purchasers. One tax invoice would suffice and it is the 8th marvel of the world how quickly business people comply when they can claim the imput tax against theit tax liabilities. The ultimate consumer has a tax invoice that verifies their purchase but cannot utilize the tax paid. A fucking mess. Import duties are 50%, luxury tax applies to many goods and is an additional 25% calculated after IVA is paid. I buy at auction here and the cost of goods can be as much as 60% greater when the commission, IVA and Suntuarios impuestos (luxury tax) are ultimately calculated.

Argento

Jackson

12-12-10, 13:43

So to answer Jackson's question:

It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes. So you would advocate a system wherein 90% of us would be telling the other 10% that they alone have to pay all of our collective income tax burden.

I find that entire concept to be manifestly unfair.

"Democracy is not 9 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner."

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

12-12-10, 13:50

If the top 10% of income earners earn 90% of all income, my summation is that they should pay 90% of all income tax.

You see what I just did there? Yes, I agree.

Irrespective of the head count, the group of people who earn 90% of all income should pay 90% of the income tax burden, and the group of people who earn 10% of all income should pay 10% of the income tax burden, etc., etc., etc.

That's called a FLAT TAX, and it's the only fair method for assessing taxes on income.

Thanks,

Jackson

Tiny12

12-12-10, 16:03

So you would advocate a system wherein 90% of us would be telling the other 10% that they alone have to pay all of our collective income tax burden.

I find that entire concept to be manifestly unfair.

"Democracy is not 9 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner."

Thanks,

JacksonHey, but at least you finally got a straight answer to your question. It only took about 3 years from the first time you asked it here.

Esten

12-13-10, 02:54

Before I get started let me clarify something. My response to Jackson was focused on his question of what would be a fair proportion. I do not advocate the top 10% paying all taxes. But not because it would be unfair. Not at all. They are already paying 70% of all taxes and still that only amounts to an 18.71% rate. With a small rate hike, they could with little pain cover the other 30%. That's fair because of the huge proportion of income wealth they already receive. Such a change would help reduce the extreme income inequality we have, but just a bit. The top 10% would still be earning far more than everyone else.

However there is something to be said for having some skin in the game. To Sysco's good point, people value something more when they have a stake in it. When it's not free. And Tiny is correct that investment will go down as investment taxes go up. For these reasons, I don't think the current tax system is that far off from where it should be. But it needs to be more progressive. If we can balance the budget with spending cuts (doubtful), give the middle class a 5% tax cut, offset by a 1% increase for top earners. Or if we need to raise taxes as part of balancing the budget, increase the rate for top earners some multiple (say 3-4) of any increase on the middle class. This is all consistent with what I posted December 8.

I am a big proponent of balanced budgets and reducing extreme wealth inequality. Federal taxation is an important tool in addressing both. I believe in wealth inequality, but extreme inequality is an unnecessary obstacle to a more prosperous society.

We have seen where conservatives stand on these issues. The current tax debate clearly demonstrates that nothing is more important to them than ensuring even more wealth is transferred to the wealthy. Giving the rich tax cuts is even more important than ensuring justice for our 9-11 heroes. How low can you go? I'll show you.

I say each person should have voting rights based on the amount of taxes they pay. People like Jackson and Exon, who pay a lot of taxes, would have hundreds of thousands of votes each election. Meanwhile, Freddy Freeloader, 3rd generation welfare recipient, would not be allowed to vote. Why. Freddy doesn't pay taxes.Unbelievably, some conservatives don't believe in democracy, they believe in plutocracy. The rich don't have enough power and influence, let's give them more. Phuck Freddy. Who cares what a poor man has to say? And it doesn't stop there. The unemployed, underemployed and underpaid who may benefit from government programs are all painted to be freeloaders. Kick them to the curb financially, strip their voting rights and insult them. And then proclaim how great our country is.

You can't make this stuff up.

El Alamo

12-13-10, 05:52

Unbelievably, some conservatives don't believe in democracy, they believe in plutocracy. The rich don't have enough power and influence, let's give them more. Phuck Freddy. Who cares what a poor man has to say? And it doesn't stop there. The unemployed, underemployed and underpaid who may benefit from government programs are all painted to be freeloaders. Kick them to the curb financially, strip their voting rights and insult them. And then proclaim how great our country is.

You can't make this stuff up. Esten,

I understand that you are frightened that you might lose your right to vote under my new, improved voting rights bill.

I will talk to my co sponsors and try to arrange an Esten exception. For Esten and Esten alone, we will allocate one tenth of one vote, even if you don't qualify to vote.

I think this gesture should eliminate any suspicion that we are mean spirited

Argento

12-13-10, 07:48

Unbelievably, some conservatives don't believe in democracy, they believe in plutocracy. The rich don't have enough power and influence, let's give them more. Phuck Freddy. Who cares what a poor man has to say? And it doesn't stop there. The unemployed, underemployed and underpaid who may benefit from government programs are all painted to be freeloaders. Kick them to the curb financially, strip their voting rights and insult them. And then proclaim how great our country is.

You can't make this stuff up.
Esten.

I understand that you may be frightened that you might lose your right to vote under my new, improved voting rights bill.

I will talk to my co sponsors and see if we can arrange an Esten exception. For Esten and Esten alone, we will allocate one tenth of one vote, even if you don't qualify to vote.

I think this gesture should eliminate any suspicion that we are mean spiritedSee the sense in a Value Added Tax yet? Everybody pays the tax. Everybody has skin in the game. And the polemic between left and right wing positions on social engineering by variable taxation rates ceases. I guess it is so simple and so easy you don't want to take it seriously.

Argento

Tiny12

12-13-10, 14:08

See the sense in a Value Added Tax yet? Everybody pays the tax. Everybody has skin in the game. And the polemic between left and right wing positions on social engineering by variable taxation rates ceases. I guess it is so simple and so easy you don't want to take it seriously.

ArgentoIt's a great idea. You could make it progressive by, for example, having a 0% tax rate on food and a much higher rate on Mercedes. You might want to substitute a sales tax for a VAT, so people would know exactly what they're paying in taxes, instead of having them hidden. Also, administration and compliance would be easier with a sales tax, expecially if you could get the states to piggyback the feds. That is, if the states eliminated their income taxes too and used the same method to calculate sales tax as the federal government, it would be a very simple system.

The only problem, as someone else mentioned, is getting the politicians to adopt it, and to replace the income tax with the VAT instead of just adding a VAT. The current income tax system is extremely complex and burdensome to comply with. It's inefficient. The special interests have molded it to suit their ends. But it's a source of power and campaign contributions for politicians. So they're not going to change it in a way that really makes sense, like what you're suggesting.

The biggest plus is that you'd be replacing a tax on investment with a tax on consumption. Americans, both the people and the government, are among the biggest spendthrifts in the world. We consume a lot more than we produce. China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with current account surpluses take up the slack, and are coming to control more of our savings, industry, etc. Anyway, your idea would encourage investment and discourage consumption. Maybe that's not exactly what we need right now given the state of the economy, but in the long run it would be a big plus.

A second plus, you'd likely refund the VAT or sales tax for exporters. Or at least this is what most other countries with VAT's do, and it's one of the reasons why they're kicking our ass in world market -- they have lower income taxes on business than we do, and since the exporters pay no VAT, their after tax costs are lower than ours are.

Jackson

12-13-10, 16:28

That's fair because of the huge proportion of income wealth they already receive.Esten, your choice of words belies our philosophical differences.

Here's how I would have written the same sentence: "That's fair because of the huge proportion of income wealth they already receive have earned for themselves and deserve to keep.

And followed with more liberal drivel.

The unemployed, underemployed and underpaid who may benefit from government programs are all painted to be freeloaders. Kick them to the curb financially, strip their voting rights and insult them. And then proclaim how great our country is.First, they are freeloaders because they are net recipients of the system.

Second, only in Liberalspeak would anyone who chooses to keep what they've earned instead of giving it to a stranger be portrayed as "kicking" that stranger to the curb and "insult[ing]" them.

Thanks,

Jackson

Argento

12-13-10, 22:01

It's a great idea. You could make it progressive by, for example, having a 0% tax rate on food and a much higher rate on Mercedes. You might want to substitute a sales tax for a VAT, so people would know exactly what they're paying in taxes, instead of having them hidden. Also, administration and compliance would be easier with a sales tax, expecially if you could get the states to piggyback the feds. That is, if the states eliminated their income taxes too and used the same method to calculate sales tax as the federal government, it would be a very simple system.

The only problem, as someone else mentioned, is getting the politicians to adopt it, and to replace the income tax with the VAT instead of just adding a VAT. The current income tax system is extremely complex and burdensome to comply with. It's inefficient. The special interests have molded it to suit their ends. But it's a source of power and campaign contributions for politicians. So they're not going to change it in a way that really makes sense, like what you're suggesting.

The biggest plus is that you'd be replacing a tax on investment with a tax on consumption. Americans, both the people and the government, are among the biggest spendthrifts in the world. We consume a lot more than we produce. China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with current account surpluses take up the slack, and are coming to control more of our savings, industry, etc. Anyway, your idea would encourage investment and discourage consumption. Maybe that's not exactly what we need right now given the state of the economy, but in the long run it would be a big plus.

A second plus, you'd likely refund the VAT or sales tax for exporters. Or at least this is what most other countries with VAT's do, and it's one of the reasons why they're kicking our ass in world market. They have lower income taxes on business than we do, and since the exporters pay no VAT, their after tax costs are lower than ours are. Bad move to have variable VAT rates especially zero rates for food and punitive ones for designated "luxury" items. Australia put a zero rate on fresh food and it is a classic case of things slipping between the lines of the legislation. No tax on fresh whole or filletted fish but tax on cooked fish. Meat is a nightmare, Animals and the raising of them are taxed but the meat isn't. Tax everything and if the disadvantaged struggle, fund them directly on a basis per head. Won't be as many of them as there are of better-off people. Naturally all goods exported do not have tax included.

Argento

Esten

12-14-10, 01:56

Conservatives have a mantra that people earn their money and deserve to keep it. While there is truth here, the main purpose of this slogan is to fool voters into protecting systems that benefit the rich. It distracts voters from considering whether some are overpaid or underpaid, and fails to mention that taxes are needed to pay for essential or valued government services and programs. In other words, it's a crock of shit.

The rich have devised and expanded all manner of legal schemes and practices to keep huge amounts of the wealth in this country flowing their way. On the tax front, one way they do this is by lumping themselves in with the poor and middle class and saying 'let people keep the money they earn'. But in truth the rich are really most concerned about themselves. They will lay off millions without hesitation to ensure those at the top keep their inflated salaries and bonuses, which have been awarded to them by the BOD, who are all rewarded by Wall Street when the stock goes up in response to share buybacks, dividend hikes and other actions which invariably transfer more wealth to the rich.

These folks are earning all their wealth? LMAO!! Tell that to the blue collar worker busting his ass to bring home a paycheck that barely covers living expenses. Or the other worker who got laid off because some Wall Street analyst said the company wasn't cutting costs enough.

While the rich have and continue to prosper, trickle-down economics has been a big failure for the poor and middle class.

Esten,

I understand that you are frightened that you might lose your right to vote under my new, improved voting rights bill.

I will talk to my co sponsors and try to arrange an Esten exception. For Esten and Esten alone, we will allocate one tenth of one vote, even if you don't qualify to vote.

I think this gesture should eliminate any suspicion that we are mean spiritedActually I would have many votes under your proposed bill. No exception needed.

But I have a better idea. Why don't you come and work for me. Most of our profits are committed to executive compensation and programs to reward investors, so we have just a small bucket remaining for workers. Unfortunately this means I could only offer you minimum wage. But the good news is that my company and our lobbyists have fought to ensure your taxes won't go up, which means the government won't be taking more of your hard earned money.

Esten

12-14-10, 02:11

Argento - could you sketch out how a VAT would reduce wealth inequality, compared to where we are now in the US. Thanks

El Alamo

12-14-10, 06:57

I am not sure why anyone would emphasize the elimination of wealth inequality. Every broken economic system in the world uses this jargon. Think Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea where poverty/suffering increases for all except their leaders. Do you think Castro, Chavez or Kim Jong are sharing the suffering that their egomaniacal / birdbrain policies have caused.

In the real world the elimination of wealth inequality subjects everyone to abject poverty except the despots who are in power.

We do not want the elimination of wealth inequality, we want the creation of wealth or more correctly, the opportunity to create wealth.

Argento

12-14-10, 10:28

Argento - could you sketch out how a VAT would reduce wealth inequality, compared to where we are now in the US. ThanksJust so you know for sure, I have never believed in wealth equality. Nor have I believed that everyone should be an Olympic class athlete or a Superbowl champion. Some people are good or gifted at certain activities. The difference with wealth earning, is that it's product (money) , unlike a gold medal, can be taken by other people who are envious of the gift. Sporting prowess, artistic talent et al, can't be taken away from envious others but money can. Are we clear? VAT tax takes away all notions of social engineering that you obviously appear to support, irregardless of their failure to achieve even limited success in Northern Europe and at the extreme, in ex-Communist countries. They are now hell bent on a capitalist system, throwing over their failed social engineering, even Cuba. What the VAT system does is to fund the state's expenditure so the financial costs of policy are transparent to all; unemployed, illegals, bleeding hearts and the hopelessly naive. They all pay and my experience is that when people have some skin in the game, the dynamics change drastically.

Argento

Jackson

12-14-10, 14:16

It distracts voters from considering whether some are overpaid or underpaid.Shocking as this will be to you, but what a person earns for their economic contributions (overpaid vs underpaid) is something that is (or should be) decided by the free marketplace, i.e. the citizens in their capacity as consumers, not in their capacity as voters.

But in truth the rich are really most concerned about themselves.That statement is completely meaningless as it may be applied to ANY demographic group, to wit:

But in truth the Democrats are really most concerned about themselves.

But in truth the liberals are really most concerned about themselves.

But in truth the poor are really most concerned about themselves.

If it's not YOU who is really most concerned about YOU, then WHO? (Liberal answer: The government will take care of you.)

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

12-14-10, 18:27

The concept of absolute equality between individuals is an anathema to the reality of human nature. It neither exists in reality nor is it desirable. It is an objective that if ever achieved would spell the end of mankind.

As for the objective of eliminating wealth inequality. There are only two kinds of people that would ever utter such an ridiculous statement: despotic tyrants and the useful idiots that enable and embolden them.

The elimination of wealth inequality cannot occur within a free society.

Any society that tries to implement such a notion cannot be free.

There is not a single example, chronicled within the recorded history of mankind (spanning the last 5-6K years, or so) where this foolish notion has been successfully implemented within a free society. Conversely, history is rife with examples of leftist zealots destroying the freedom of individuals under the guise of such rhetoric.

This notion is perhaps one of the most unamerican things I have ever heard. It was a similar socialist construct of equality that nearly doomed the early American settlers to starvation and death. If you know your history, Thanksgiving was originally the celebration of deliverance from the dire straits caused by man-imposed equality, forcing the settlers to behave in a manner contrary to the preservation of self interest which exacerbated the hard life of the frontier for all and nearly spelled disaster. At the heart of Thanksgiving are thanks to God and for Him empowering the pursuit of personal self interest which resulted in them surviving and ultimately thriving. The current portrayal of the history of events far overstates the role played by the Wapanoag and completely secularizes its history by eliminating the subject of the celebration (giving thanks to God).

If Esten was grand Pooba of Plymouth Plantation back in 1621, the Plymouth colony would have died out and so too would have much of the ardor of European nations to continue to try to settle the New World.

I am sure many leftists would embrace the concept of the white settlers having died out without giving any thought at all to what the implications of that would be to hundreds of millions of lives (including their own).

Esten

12-15-10, 02:49

Shocking as this will be to you, but what a person earns for their economic contributions (overpaid vs underpaid) is something that is (or should be) decided by the free marketplace, i.e. the citizens in their capacity as consumers, not in their capacity as voters.There is a good (though not perfect) argument that consumers influence the price of goods and services. For compensation, I think the argument is weaker. At least in big business where arguably most of the overpaid are. Compensation is influenced by many variables, of which consumer-driven top line performance is only one. By and large, compensation is generally determined by the top earners in a company or BOD. Citizens as consumers have some influence on those decisions, but mainly on pay increases / bonuses and not on whether someone is overpaid or underpaid to begin with.

That statement is completely meaningless as it may be applied to ANY demographic group, to wit:I agree, it is normal and logical that any given group would look out for themselves. You are confirming my argument, which I may not have articulated fully. Conservatives have a story to support their tax philosophy, and it goes something like this: people deserve to keep the money they earn, including the rich, because when the rich invest their money everyone benefits. But this is theoretical, and the reality is that the rich will do whatever they want with their money. There is no guarantee they will invest their money, or invest it in a way which benefits other Americans.

(Liberal answer: The government will take care of you.) Conservative answer: The rich (AKA 'job creators') will take care of you.

Esten

12-15-10, 03:20

Jackson

12-15-10, 05:47

So here's my question to conservatives: What percentage of all wealth do you believe should be held by the top 10%? In other words, what do you believe is a fair proportion?The marketplace should decide what group accumulates what percentage of the wealth, but to answer your first question: The top 10% (and everybody else) should hold whatever wealth they can accumulate by legitimate means.

Esten, the focus should be on increasing the wealth of the bottom 50% (and everybody else) by enabling them to be more productive and otherwise increase their accumulation of wealth by legitimate means.

In other words, let's increase the size of the "Wealth Pie" so that we can all be "rich", whatever that may mean to each individual.

Two additional thoughts about your perspective on wealth:

1. Bill Gates created software that empowered billions of people to be more productive in their business and personal endeavors, and thus increased their own ability to accumulate wealth for themselves, and in the process he accumulated a personal net worth of 50 billion dollars. Now, are you any poorer because Bill Gates is a multi-billionaire? No, which leads to...

2. If you created a product or service that empowered billions of people (or even just a few) to be more productive in their business and personal endeavors, and thus increased their own ability to accumulate wealth for themselves, then you too would by justifiably entitled to whatever wealth you might have accumulated in that process.

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

12-15-10, 13:14

Folks, I did not say anything about eliminating wealth inequality. In fact I have said many times that I support wealth inequality, just not extreme wealth inequality. In my post yesterday I said REDUCE, not ELIMINATE. But that didn't stop three posters, count em three, immediately responding with arguments against eliminating wealth inequality (shaking my head....). Apologies for not prefacing my remarks with "Esten's dressing of 'reduce' is the beginning of the slippery slope"

So once you start reducing, where do you stop? Do you stop? Who will make sure it will stop? Who determines what is fair?

A society that tries to implement wealth redistribution on the scale that you desire cannot be free.

Surely you all believe there is some point at which wealth inequality becomes extreme and unacceptable.Yes and no. In many places, it is extreme. So long as that occurs within a free society where everyone can participate in the free market, so be it. I don't know that concentration of wealth within a free society can be unacceptable, so long as the previous statement is true. Conversely, I believe wealth concentration within societies that are not free, where peoples are oppressed or subjugated as part of the accumulation or preservation of ill-gotten wealth is unacceptable.

Ala Jackson, this discussion segues perfectly into me posing a question for conservatives:

The top 1% wealthy in the USA hold 34% of all wealth.

The top 10% wealthy in the USA hold 72% of all wealth.

The top 50% wealthy in the USA hold 97. 5% of all wealth.

The bottom 50% wealthy in the USA hold 2. 5% of all wealth.

So here's my question to conservatives: What percentage of all wealth do you believe should be held by the top 10% In other words, what do you believe is a fair proportion? I know you asked Jackson, but I'd like to add my response. I think it should probably be around 72% or perhaps higher (if we were to eliminate the current redistribution of wealth that takes place in the US).

None of my opinions is mutually exclusive with the moral and ethical responsibilities that a fair and just society must bear to care for those amongst them who truly cannot care for themselves. To that point, private charity in the US is truly outstanding. We are an incredibly giving, reasonably moral society. What portion of US charitable giving comes form the bottom 50%

Member #4112

12-15-10, 13:18

Rock Harders

12-15-10, 15:44

Mongers-

I don't think anyone with half a brain and / or half an education thinks it is a good thing to have a high Gini Coefficient in any particular nation-state. High Gini Coefficients lead to large socioeconomically immobile underclasses that turn to violent crime and / or rebellion out of pure desperation for survival. Take Brasil or Colombia for example; both states are resource rich, have (relatively) pro-business governments and some of the highest Gini Coefficients on the planet. The minimum (and most commonly earned) wage is a measly $300 USD per month at current (and overvalued) exchange rates. With only the rarest exception, people born poor in either Brasil or Colombia will live in poverty their entire lives. Until the economic inequality is narrowed, these otherwise promising states will be roiled in social conflict indefinitely. Venezuela is another case of what can happen when all the national wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few, the rich govern with little regard for implementing reforms that benefit the lower classes and socioeconomic mobility is non-existent; the rich and upper middle class Venezuelans unfortunately got what was coming to them in form of soon to be dictator for life Hugo Chavez. A situation within a democracy where 1% live like kings and the rest barely can fill their bellies is not sustainable and is certainly not desirable.

Take a look at the current economic situation in the US; the Gini Coefficient is certainly rising, the middle classes are being decimated, and the rich get richer. This is certainly not desirable for the future economic health and domestic safety / stability of the country. Big corporations do everything they can to cut costs by laying off decent (in terms of amount of compensation) salary and wage earning employees while the upper management continues to earn massive salaries and bonuses. There is nothing illegal about what is going on but in my opinion it is creating a situation where the the executives make six or seven figure incomes and the workers are making barely more than minimum wage. It is in the interests of the rich and upper middle classes to keep the middle and working classes gainfully and (reasonably) happily employed in jobs that pay and offer enough benefits that they can live a dignified and reasonable lifestyle. People with dignified jobs that pay enough to live comfortably on do not vote for extremist politicians promising to shake up and "change" the current system.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Rev BS

12-15-10, 17:14

Esten, the Declaration of Independence proudly proclaims 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. '

The point I believe all liberals are missing is while we hold all men are CREATED equal and have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, no where does it proclaim from the starting point of being CREATED EQUAL that all men must REMAIN EQUAL.

The liberal mentality perverts the admirable traits of charity and good will via envy and greed of those who succeed into a means of unjustly appropriating and redistributing the fruits of the successful's labor ie 'Social Justice'. This is all true, but I would like to point out that at birth, you can't really choose who your parents are, or what socio-economic class you are going to be in and a myriad of other variables that need not be included for this discussion. So regardless of your " equality", instead of going to Harvard and becoming Bernie Madoff, you could be a drug dealer in East Los Angeles and be dead at 21.

Both endings are tragic, but being created equal in theory does not mean that at birth, in reality, that everyone is equal. Yes, there people who defied the odds. Competition and fighting for survival is actually better for one's character than depending on Daddy. But once upon a time, many young people with INTEGRITY could work their way through college. What about now? And Goldman Sachs is laughing all the way to their boardroom urinals. With the family structure in disaray and a drug culture that has put Mexico in peril, we better take a good look in the mirror. Dysfunctional America today is not quite the America you and I know so well.

The question is where do we start? As they say, sometimes, you just can't go back to York, Nebraska.

Wild Walleye

12-15-10, 18:13

Some of your post drives home just how valuable and special the US is. Only one of the four countries you mentioned (US, Venezuela, Columbia and Brazil) has a 235 years of uninterrupted democratic rule founded upon the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, imbued upon each and every one of its citizens by God. While there are many instanced where individuals and groups of individuals have been denied one or more of these rights due to the unconstitutional behavior of others, the Constitution has prevailed.

I don't think anyone with half a brain and / or half an education thinks it is a good thing to have a high Gini Coefficient in any particular nation-state.I think I have already opined on Gini and how this is a tool for political manipulation as it does not take into account any factors related to actual opportunity or the composition of GDP.

So long as the free people of said nation-state are imbued with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, those that have less can and often will become among those that have more.

High Gini Coefficients lead to large socioeconomically immobile underclasses that turn to violent crime and / or rebellion out of pure desperation for survival.Gini coefficients do not cause anything. They are merely numbers created by cherry picking specific statistics in order to support a political agenda (that's the purpose for which Gini created it).

Socioeconomic underclasses are immobilized by lack of opportunity created by any number of factors: education, oppression, govt entitlements, etc.

Take Brasil or Colombia for example; both states are resource rich, have (relatively) pro-business governments and some of the highest Gini Coefficients on the planet.Excellent examples. The inequalities in access to education and opportunity in both countries are huge. In Columbia only 65% of the nation enrolls in Secondary basic education (grades 6-9). Both countries have histories rife with "man made" inequalities of the kind forced upon them by other men, not the kind rooted in human nature.

Venezuela is another case of what can happen when all the national wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few, the rich govern with little regard for implementing reforms that benefit the lower classes and socioeconomic mobility is non-existent; the rich and upper middle class Venezuelans unfortunately got what was coming to them in form of soon to be dictator for life Hugo Chavez.Much of the Venezuelan upper middle class was financially wiped out back in the 80s. Chavez loves to play on the politics of Gini. The situation in Venezuela is very sad.

A situation within a democracy where 1% live like kings and the rest barely can fill their bellies is not sustainable and is certainly not desirable.I agree. However, I am not certain that a free and just society that protects its citizens' unalienable rights can get to that point without some sort of catastrophic event (nuclear winter, etc). The nature of the US is that it constantly cycles new individuals into the category of haves.

Your point is excellent in that the unjust history, as it relates to how the wealth continued to be distributed following the original founding of each of the above three countries, was just that, unjust and lead to the long-term subjugation of the poor. This is not uncommon in many former colonies where there were abundant natural resources to be plundered by a small group of powerful individuals via the exploitation of 'dumb' cheap labor. Further, these economies have been historically based upon agrarian activities, raw natural resources and heavy industry. As these economies evolved to include more and more jobs that required an educated workforce, the educational disparities further exacerbated the situation making it even more difficult to overcome the bonds of poverty. The opportunities primarily drew from the progeny of the upper and middle classes and if need be, foreigners.

Take a look at the current economic situation in the US; the Gini Coefficient is certainly rising, the middle classes are being decimated, and the rich get richer. This is certainly not desirable for the future economic health and domestic safety / stability of the country.The socioeconomic stratification is in no way comparable to situations in the above mentioned countries. The US history of access to education, opportunity and wealth is unparalleled. Everyone has the opportunity to chase the American dream. Just because you are free to chase it, doesn't mean you will catch it.

Big corporations do everything they can to cut costs by laying off decent (in terms of amount of compensation) salary and wage earning employees while the upper management continues to earn massive salaries and bonuses. There is nothing illegal about what is going on but in my opinion it is creating a situation where the the executives make six or seven figure incomes and the workers are making barely more than minimum wage.I think that this extreme is probably most notable in companies like McDonald's and the like. I do not foresee a point in time where I will agree with the point of view that unskilled workers should get paid more simply because executives of the company are handsomely remunerated.

It is in the interests of the rich and upper middle classes to keep the middle and working classes gainfully and (reasonably) happily employed in jobs that pay and offer enough benefits that they can live a dignified and reasonable lifestyle.My opinion is that we are as close to a class-less society as there is. There are rich people, poor people and everything in between but other than the ruling class in DC, there really aren't classes in America. These are tools of the politics of division and alienation.

Compensation should reflect the value contributed to the organization by the employee. A fry cook does not contribute in all of the same ways that the CEO does. While they are both corporate ambassadors, the potential contribution of the fry cook is more limited than that of the CEO.

I agree, the populace is generally much happier when there is low unemployment. Unemployment is not a function of corporate decision making, it is a byproduct of macro economic forces that no one company can control. If you want to increase employment, fix the macro economic issues. You might as well give it a try, Obama has proven that he and his party are incapable of fixing them.

People with dignified jobs that pay enough to live comfortably on do not vote for extremist politicians promising to shake up and "change" the current system.Agreed. They also tend to be hardworking individuals willing to shoulder personal responsibility and put in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. According to lots of independent polls, within that portion of American society two thirds identify themselves as conservative.

Schmoj

12-15-10, 21:59

The "sabe lo todo" continues to saber todo.

Rev BS

12-17-10, 13:26

Fierce fighting between opposing legislators in Ukraine ended with 6 of them being hospitalized. Members of President Viktor Yanukovych's ruling party stormed the podium and attacked opposing members supporting ex president Yulia Tymoshenko, who is the subject of corrupt charges investigated by the legislature (actually, she is so foxy she should be allowed to do anything she wants, she puts Christina and Hilary in the lower end of the boliches).

You may laugh at these 3rd world antics, but this exactly what is needed in Washington, some good old fashioned brawling. If nothing else, we should at least get some entertainment value for our tax dollars from a Congress who has only frustrate and fail us. World Wrestling Federation style. 1-5 matches per day, winner take all, no bellyaching about gridlock. There are so many great match-ups, Vegas would go crazy. We can even lower the deficit by selling the broadcasting rights to the tv companies, ratings would blow out the roof, and interest in government would be at an all-time high. Larry King probably would come out of retirement, and interest in Oprah's coming and going would not be liken to the 2nd Coming. Govenment in Action, it would be interesting which party plays dirty or take enhancing drugs.

After all, who invented American Idol and all those Survivor shows? We are a great and civilized country, not Ghengis Khan and his marauding and sacking hordes. And don't tell me, you are not intrigued.

Lysander

12-17-10, 19:00

After all, who invented American Idol and all those Survivor shows? We are a great and civilized country, not Ghengis Khan and his marauding and sacking hordes. And don't tell me, you are not intrigued.A great and civilized country maybe, but not the inventor of American Idol and many other survivor shows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_television_series_based_on_British_television_series

Lysander

Esten

12-20-10, 03:20

Apologies for not prefacing my remarks with "Esten's dressing of 'reduce' is the beginning of the slippery slope"

So once you start reducing, where do you stop? Do you stop? Who will make sure it will stop? Who determines what is fair?

A society that tries to implement wealth redistribution on the scale that you desire cannot be free. The argument here is 'don't try to address a problem because you might create another problem'. Wow. Sounds like a good excuse for never tackling problems. Lame!

You don't have re-distribution without distribution. It is the wealthy and their lobbyists that have to a great extent determined how wealth is distributed in the first place. And we have the data that shows just how much they have profited from their engineering of the free market. It will be the citizenry who find this lopsided wealth distribution unacceptable that will determine the scope of the corrective action, through their votes.

Yes and no. In many places, it is extreme. So long as that occurs within a free society where everyone can participate in the free market, so be it. I don't know that concentration of wealth within a free society can be unacceptable, so long as the previous statement is true. So even if 1% of the population had 99% of the wealth, and the other 99% had 1%, it would be acceptable as long as people are 'free'. Right.

None of my opinions is mutually exclusive with the moral and ethical responsibilities that a fair and just society must bear to care for those amongst them who truly cannot care for themselves. To that point, private charity in the US is truly outstanding. We are an incredibly giving, reasonably moral society. What portion of US charitable giving comes form the bottom 50%There are tens of millions of unemployed and underpaid people who are struggling to care for themselves and their families. It is a mere theoretical argument that most of these people could go out and earn a good living. Some of course but most no. While I agree private charity is strong in the US, instead of making the poor dependent on charity, we should correct the system so there are fewer poor people in the first place.

And people with half a brain don't expect the bottom 50% to contribute significantly to charity. They are the ones in need of it. Better yet, as I said let's create a society where more of the bottom 50% earn a better living and are then less dependent on charity.

Esten, the Declaration of Independence proudly proclaims 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. '

The point I believe all liberals are missing is while we hold all men are CREATED equal and have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, no where does it proclaim from the starting point of being CREATED EQUAL that all men must REMAIN EQUAL.

The liberal mentality perverts the admirable traits of charity and good will via envy and greed of those who succeed into a means of unjustly appropriating and redistributing the fruits of the successful's labor ie 'Social Justice'. Of course. Nobody is claiming that all men should remain equal. The issue is whether wealth distribution has become too unequal, and what should be done about it. We the people have the Constitutionally protected rights to express our opinion about this issue and to advocate changes through our democratic process.

Your last sentence is more conservative drivel and bullshit. It has nothing to do with envy and greed. Liberals believe the 'free market' system isn't working as well as it could or should for the middle class and poor. Many liberals make a good living and would be glad to go along with changes / reforms that might cause us to earn somewhat less, or pay somewhat more in taxes, if it meant that more people had jobs and fewer people lived in poverty. Saying we are envious or greedy is laughable and a sign of either your ignorance or your willful distortion.

The marketplace should decide what group accumulates what percentage of the wealth, but to answer your first question: The top 10% (and everybody else) should hold whatever wealth they can accumulate by legitimate means.

Esten, the focus should be on increasing the wealth of the bottom 50% (and everybody else) by enabling them to be more productive and otherwise increase their accumulation of wealth by legitimate means.

In other words, let's increase the size of the "Wealth Pie" so that we can all be "rich", whatever that may mean to each individual. The marketplace has proven ineffective in enabling the poor and middle class to prosper along with the rich. That is because to a large extent it has been engineered by the rich for the rich. I agree we should enable the poor and middle class to earn a better living and accumulate wealth through their own effort. But this argument to 'increase the pie' is a false hope we have debated before. The pie is only so big and grows only so fast. A far better and faster approach to this goal we both agree on is to simply take corrective action to ensure wealth is distributed in a fairer manner than it is now. Not by supporting people on welfare but by creating more jobs with less uneven income distribution within the current pie.

Member #4112

12-20-10, 13:35

Esten, my "conservative bullshit" as opposed to your "liberal bullshit" of it's not "fair" some people are rich and some are poor so the government must punish those evil rich by taking their money and giving it to the poor?

America is the land of OPPORTUNITY my friend, not the land of GUARNTEED SUCCESS. Nowhere else on earth are people provided with the freedom to succeed or fail on their own? If you work with people you should be more than aware the majority are happy to work for someone else, get a pay check and excel no further than a beer and a dog at the ball game, which is fine. But a precious few actually excel and take the risks of owning their own companies or finding those niches no one else has found or inventing something useful.

Wasn't welfare enough of an experiment in shifting money to the poor for you liberals? My God man, Johnson's Great Society FAILED AND CONTINUES TO FAIL! If giving money and housing to the poor so they could concentrate on rising above their current status had worked why we are in the 3rd or 4th generation of welfare families?

Peoples desire to succeed is not equal and their willingness to settle for what they have is HUMAN NATURE and no amount of Liberal bullshit programs of taking from those who are successful and giving to those who fail will change that.

El Alamo

12-20-10, 17:15

I think perhaps we are missing the boat.

I think Ronald Reagon once said that if you are not a liberal when you are 20, you have no heart. If you are still a liberal when you are 30, you have no brains.

Maybe Jackson's parental control of this website has failed and Esten represents an 8 year old who has managed to slip through the cracks.

Jackson

12-20-10, 17:28

Peoples desire to succeed is not equal and their willingness to settle for what they have is HUMAN NATURE and no amount of Liberal bullshit programs of taking from those who are successful and giving to those who fail will change that.I've said it before and it's worth repeating:

Liberal policies will always fail because they are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior.

And while I'm at it...

As the late Adrian Rogers said, "You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

12-21-10, 13:55

The argument here is 'don't try to address a problem because you might create another problem'. Wow. Sounds like a good excuse for never tackling problems. Lame!The problem is, that you and your ilk are trying to pretend that there is a problem of wealth distribution in the first place. Look, the simple facts of human nature are if you engage in a certain behavior and get rewarded for it, you will do it over and over again. In a free society with free markets, wealth goes to those who earn it.

You don't have re-distribution without distribution.Actually, you don't get wealth redistribution without a leftist ruling class that decides to use someone else's money to correct what it believes to be a social ill.

It is the wealthy and their lobbyists that have to a great extent determined how wealth is distributed in the first place.Because together with George Bush, they re-engineered deoxyribonucleic acid creating a mutation that is predisposed to seizing wealth from generations addicted to collecting government checks.

And we have the data that shows just how much they have profited from their engineering of the free market.I have data showing that the constitutional I took this morning is an exact scale replica of Saint Peter's Basilica.

It will be the citizenry who find this lopsided wealth distribution unacceptable that will determine the scope of the corrective action, through their votes.Would you mind if I word-smith your statement a little? I think it reads better like this:

"It was the citizenry who found this lopsided wealth re-distribution unacceptable and took corrective action, through their votes last month."

So even if 1% of the population had 99% of the wealth, and the other 99% had 1%, it would be acceptable as long as people are 'free'. Right.If I fart in a vacuum tube, the noxious gas I produce will fill 100% of the void. I also stated that I didn't believe in that in a free market (I. E. A place with opportunity for all) that it is possible for such a concentration to exist. The way wealth gets distributed to a larger percentage of the populace is that the 'have nots' earn more and become 'haves. '

There are tens of millions of unemployed and underpaid people who are struggling to care for themselves and their families. It is a mere theoretical argument that most of these people could go out and earn a good living.Actually, it is not a theoretical argument, it is a fact. Any enterprising individual who is willing to work his ass off and never give up can go out and make something happen for himself that will improve his financial position. The fact of the matter is that maybe one in ten people possess the ability (not the opportunity) to do that. I am one of them. The other 90% are dependent upon someone else creating an opportunity (job) for them (there is nothing wrong with that). For them, it is a little different. They need changes in the economic climate that will have employers adding jobs rather than cutting them. In order for that to happen, there needs to be a strong cost / benefit argument in favor of expansion to convince the 10% to risk capital to create more opportunity for themselves and the other 90. The citizenry took some responsibility for improving the situation last month by throwing many of the people that supports job-killing legislation out of office. I believe that trend will continue and that the economy and the prospects, for those marginalized by Obama's mismanagement of the financial crisis, will improve as we move forward.

Some of course but most no. While I agree private charity is strong in the US, instead of making the poor dependent on charity, we should correct the system so there are fewer poor people in the first place.The Left's solution to preventing people from being dependent upon charity is to make them dependent upon government. It doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

And people with half a brain don't expect the bottom 50% to contribute significantly to charity.That isn't what I said. Americans that are not well to do, contribute significantly to charity, often to their churches, as a percentage of their disposable income. I was speaking to the volume of charity contributed by the wealthy as a percentage of total charity. I did not opine on the percentage of disposable income contributed by individuals from disparate socioeconomic positions, nor was I saying the the wealthy are more charitable than the non-wealthy.

They are the ones in need of it.Which is why their donations to charities are so respectable.

Better yet, as I said let's create a society where more of the bottom 50% earn a better living and are then less dependent on charity.It's called Cuba. They have the greatest healthcare and everyone is under government mandate to be happy, perpetually. What a great place.

The reality is when boneheads in power try to enact such things (leveling the playing field) , they inevitably focus on taking away from the wealthy and redistributing it to the poor. This is due to two general reasons. First, leftists in power realize that by making huge portions of society dependent upon their largess (with the money of others) for survival ensures a large, permanent voting base. All they have to do is keep pretending to be Robin Hood and wage class warfare and there minions will support them at the polls.

How about we reduce the availability of government entitlements? Why don't we encourage individuals to rely upon themselves rather than the government?

Of course. Nobody is claiming that all men should remain equal. The issue is whether wealth distribution has become too unequal, and what should be done about it.Wrong! We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

There is nothing in any of the founding documents that says once a year we should redistribute the wealth.

We the people have the Constitutionally protected rights to express our opinion about this issue and to advocate changes through our democratic process.Who's stopping you? Why the non sequitur about your rights? Are implying that someone is trying to deprive you of those rights?

While we all have the right to say just about anything, we are not constitutionally protected from all of the potential repercussions arising from our constitutionally protected free speech.

Your last sentence is more conservative drivel and bullshit.Coming from an objective, eagle-eyed commentator like yourself, clearly dopplehanger's point must be dead on target. In fact, it is true that the left uses distorted and often feigned 'caring' for one special interest group as justification to steal more money from the economically productive portion of society and give it to them.

It has nothing to do with envy and greed.It has everything to do with envy, greed and lust for power (please refer to any action taken by Reid or Pelosi during their political lives).

Liberals believe the 'free market' system isn't working as well as it could or should for the middle class and poor.Why can't you just say it? LIberals believe in a free market, that isn't free.

Many liberals make a good living and would be glad to go along with changes / reforms that might cause us to earn somewhat less, or pay somewhat more in taxes, if it meant that more people had jobs and fewer people lived in poverty.Fine, let them pay more voluntarily. Don't use their charitable inclinations as an excuse to ex-appropriate the private property of individuals.

Saying we are envious or greedy is laughable and a sign of either your ignorance or your willful distortion.I for one doubt that you personally would qualify as greedy. I don't know you but it is just a guess. Some of the policies that you support are in many was greedy, as so often it all comes back to money. However, politicians that I believe you support (Reid and Pelosi for two) are driven by a greed and lust for personal power that would make Saddam Hussein blush.

The marketplace has proven ineffective in enabling the poor and middle class to prosper along with the rich. That is because to a large extent it has been engineered by the rich for the rich.The middle class was doing great until Obama came into office.

{quote=] I agree we should enable the poor and middle class to earn a better living and accumulate wealth through their own effort. [/quote]But lets make sure we take 55% of what they amass (and already paid taxes on) when they die.

But this argument to 'increase the pie' is a false hope we have debated before.The false premise is that the pie is static and can't grow.

The pie is only so big and grows only so fast.Govt interference is the primary hindrance to pie-growing.

A far better and faster approach to this goal we both agree on is to simply take corrective action to ensure wealth is distributed in a fairer manner than it is now.I agree. Let's declare Marshall law and seize all the banks and spread it around.

Not by supporting people on welfare but by creating more jobs with less uneven income distribution within the current pie.And lets give all of the burger flippers in the country a define benefits pension that will pay them 150% of their best year's pay, for the rest of their lives.

Tiny12

12-21-10, 18:04

But this argument to 'increase the pie' is a false hope we have debated before. The pie is only so big and grows only so fast. A far better and faster approach to this goal we both agree on is to simply take corrective action to ensure wealth is distributed in a fairer manner than it is now. Not by supporting people on welfare but by creating more jobs with less uneven income distribution within the current pie.
Mongers- I don't think anyone with half a brain and / or half an education thinks it is a good thing to have a high Gini Coefficient in any particular nation-state. Esten, As you say, we've debated this before. I strongly disagree with you. I'm not sure whether I disagree with Rock Harders, because I'm not sure what he means by a "high" Gini Coefficient.

Anyway, 20 or 30 or 40 years ago you could compare East Germany to West Germany, or the Soviet Union to the USA. The country with the higher Gini Coefficient produced a much better life for the people at the bottom of the income scale. In more recent times, the countries with the most dynamic, fastest growing economies (e. g., United States, Singapore) that produce the best economic results for the majority of their populations have systems that are less redistributionist. Compare them to places like the majority of western Europe or Japan.

I'll agree with Rock Harders that countries with very high income inequality are not nice places to live. But what's ironic about his examples are that the governments of two, Brazil and Venezuela, have governments with purportedly re-distributionist policies. That's a problem with Latin American politicians and the Democratic party in the USA. Also with many Republicans. They give handouts to their favored special interests and the well-connected elites, while at the same time pretending to do what's in the best interest of those who are less well off. If the Tea Party movement in the USA gains traction, I wouldn't be surprised to see more income equality in the USA.

El Alamo

12-21-10, 18:29

Stan Da Man

12-21-10, 23:05

This has probably been commented on before, but I'm not sure.

The latest census shows that states with business friendly policies are increasing in population and showing economic strength while the states with worn out, counter productive big government policies are losing population and suffering the most economic distress.

What a surprise.

Yet there are some on this board who would want all of us to return to the wornout, big government policies that are a recipe for economic stagnation. Presumably these geniuses think that we should all suffer equally from their bird brain plans for social egualization.

If the plan is to redistribute wealth why not go for the whole monty I. E. Follow the examples of Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea where everyone is equally poverty stricken and miserable. Except for the demogogues in power aka Castro, Chavez and Kim Jong.

If you overlook the elite in power you will have a complete eualilization of wealth. Nobody has wealth, nobody has freedom of assembly, nobody has free elections, nobody has free speech, nobody has freedom of religion and nobody has opportunity.

Perhaps the advocates of a Big Brother society on this board are rolling the dice believing that they, in their greedy little minds, deserve to be in power. This is nothing new. It has been a trend for some time. Stated differently, those states with the highest overall tax burdens, such as California and New York, have the largest relative deficits. These also tend to be states with populist, soak-the-rich politicians, and they are almost invariably Democrat-controlled states. States with the lowest overall tax burdens, like Texas, Arizona, Wyoming and Nevada, have the lowest relative deficits. These also tend to be Republican-controlled states, and they frequently have very low or no personal income tax. There are some exceptions, but the overall numbers are quite one-sided.

Lesson to be learned: The more you let politicians take for whatever reason. "fairness," misguided social projects, green investments, massive government infrastructure spending, and particularly to fund the pensions of their Democrat-union patrons. The more they will fu*k it up. The more you let them take in the name of redistribution or fairness, the worse it will get.

Esten

12-22-10, 00:35

State business policies and tax rates are fine to look at, but the bottom line is the standard of living. A good (perhaps best) indicator of this is the poverty rate. Let's have a look.

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/national.cgi?year=2008

Top 10 states with highest poverty rates (15.7-20.8%) : Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, New Mexico, District of Columbia, Alabama, Texas, South Carolina.

Top 10 states with lowest poverty rates (7.8-10.1%) : New Hampshire, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, Minnesota, Utah, Massachusetts.

There are some exceptions, but the trend is clear. Republican-controlled states tend to have higher poverty rates than Democrat-controlled states.

Lesson to be learned: Republican policies create more poverty.

Esten

12-22-10, 01:08

I've said it before and it's worth repeating:

Liberal policies will always fail because they are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior.

And while I'm at it.

As the late Adrian Rogers said, "You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."Slogans and one-liners. That's all you got? That's what Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich do. C'mon man, you can do better than them!

If liberal policies always fail, can you explain why Democrat-controlled states tend to have lower poverty rates? (see post below)

But what I'm really interested in is your pie story. Yes I am still intrigued. Instead of just implying that growing the pie will benefit everyone, why not back it up with some data? Let's use GDP as a measure of the size of the pie (unless you have a better metric).

Long-term example: Over the past 30 years, US GDP (the pie) has grown consistently and significantly. How did the poor and middle class benefit?

Short-term example: Over the past year, US GDP (the pie) grew significantly. How did the poor and middle class benefit?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Tiny12

12-22-10, 02:46

Slogans and one-liners. That's all you got? That's what Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich do. C'mon man, you can do better than them!

If liberal policies always fail, can you explain why Democrat-controlled states tend to have lower poverty rates? (see post below)

But what I'm really interested in is your pie story. Yes I am still intrigued. Instead of just implying that growing the pie will benefit everyone, why not back it up with some data? Let's use GDP as a measure of the size of the pie (unless you have a better metric).

Long-term example: Over the past 30 years, US GDP (the pie) has grown consistently and significantly. How did the poor and middle class benefit?

Short-term example: Over the past year, US GDP (the pie) grew significantly. How did the poor and middle class benefit?

Inquiring minds want to know. 1. Gingrich, Jackson, and, on occasion, Palin are not fighting the battle with empirical evidence or theories, but rather pointing out what's fundamentally right and wrong. That doesn't require treatises.

2. Five of the low income states on the list, that are currently controlled by Republicans, were formerly controlled by Democrats, for over 70 years. Just as it's taking formerly-socialist countries like China many decades to catch up, so it's also taking formerly Democratic controlled states many years to catch up, despite higher growth rates. Three of the states on your high income list, Wyoming, Utah and Alaska, are as Republican as they get.

3. The poor and the middle class are better off over the last 30 years. The statistics you favor are misleading because they

(a) look at before tax income, not after tax income; that is, they fail to take into account the Bush tax cuts (which cut taxes in percentage terms more for those in lower income brackets. They made the income tax system more progressive, contrary to what the left would have you believe)

(b) look at households instead of invididuals (if income and population remain constant, then more or smaller households will decrease income per household, even thought per capita income remains constant; households have become smaller over the last 30 years)

(c) don't take into account mobility between income groups.

(d) don't take into accounts increases in purchasing power from improvements in product quality (e. g. computers, televisions, cars) and more efficient retailing (e. g. Walmart)

4. Short term, over the last year, who controlled the presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives? I admit, what I just wrote is misleading, but so is your question. What happened over the last year is irrelevant to the big picture. It's too short of a time period to judge anything by.

Esten

12-22-10, 03:34

1. Gingrich, Jackson, and, on occasion, Palin are not fighting the battle with empirical evidence Kind of says it all, really.

Tiny I appreciate the effort to respond with intelligent arguments rather than one-liners, but you (and others) are still falling short. Show us the DATA that shows conservative policies provide greater benefit to the poor and middle class.

Here are some more numbers to contemplate. 3-year averages for US poverty rates under Clinton and Bush. The trends are obvious. It's no coincidence that liberals are far more likely to include data in their arguments than conservatives.

1996-1998 13.2%
1998-2000 11.9%
2000-2002 11.7%
2002-2004 12.4%
2004-2006 12.5%
2005-2007 12.5%
2006-2008 12.7%
2007-2009 13.4%
Source: www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3/table2.htm

Esten

12-22-10, 03:52

I forgot to add, because they rely less on data, it's also no coincidence that conservatives tend to indulge more in feel-good slogans, fear-mongering and deception.

Perhaps some of you saw the recent story about the "Lie of the Year" for 2010.

PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

Check it out it's a good read. Their second-place choice was also from Republicans, the claim that Obama was going to spend $200 million a day on a trip to India.

Wild Walleye

12-22-10, 11:42

Are you ready to buy a ticket?

I don't think I need to debate with you the misuse of data to support one's perspective, since you are quite adept at the practice, already.

I forgot to add, because they rely less on data, it's also no coincidence that conservatives tend to indulge more in feel-good slogans, fear-mongering and deception.This coming from the side that gave us:

"change for the sake of change" and "hope and change" as the only two reasons to support your candidates for the most important job on the planet. I guess that it is sadder still that public bought both, hook, line and sinker.

Perhaps some of you saw the recent story about the "Lie of the Year" for 2010.

PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

Check it out it's a good read. Whatever. I am sure it is an interesting opinion piece.

Their second-place choice was also from Republicans, the claim that Obama was going to spend $200 million a day on a trip to India.Here are some facts:

According to the census, no-income tax states grew the fastest. Liberal bastions such as NY, NJ, CA, PA, and OH lost population and electoral votes.

The population in TX grew 21, since the 2000 census.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2010/12/census-fast-growth-states-no-income-tax

Obama, Reid and Pelosi increase our federal net liabilities this year by $2. 0 trillion.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BK6WC20101221

Can you give us some real details on what the trip to India actually cost? I didn't think so. I'll stick with the previous estimate.

Obamacare is an albatross on this nation, regardless of your opinion. I am looking forward to seeing it destroyed by the 112th congress and repealed fully by our next president.

Member #4112

12-22-10, 13:24

Esten, I find it strange you fail to make the connection regarding business friendly states having growing populations, economic strength (which translates into jobs) but higher poverty levels. Could the higher poverty levels be due to these states don't reward slackers who don't want to find a job even though there are jobs out there to be had?

You also don't seem to make the connection regarding states with lower poverty rates are the ones which are not business friendly, have high tax structures, and are losing population, businesses, representatives in the House as well as Electoral College representatives. Some of the states you speak so glowingly of (California, New York, New Jersey) are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, how could that be in these 'workers' paradise' states? Perhaps this is due to your 'social justice' and 'redistribution of wealth' ideas.

Also Esten, I just love the way you harp on the poverty rates. You seem to forget the Democratic Poverty Pimps created Welfare to give those in poverty a 'leg up' out of poverty to become productive middle class citizens. Esten, that was 45+ years ago, we are still pouring ever increasing funds into this 'entitlement' program and they are not only still in poverty but the number has expanded greatly. So how is that working for you big guy? Sort of like eating possum, the long you chew it the bigger it gets!

How's that 'Hope and Change' working for you?

Tiny12

12-22-10, 15:05

Kind of says it all, really.

Tiny I appreciate the effort to respond with intelligent arguments rather than one-liners, but you (and others) are still falling short. Show us the DATA that shows conservative policies provide greater benefit to the poor and middle class.

Here are some more numbers to contemplate. 3-year averages for US poverty rates under Clinton and Bush. The trends are obvious. It's no coincidence that liberals are far more likely to include data in their arguments than conservatives.

1996-1998 13. 2%

1998-2000 11. 9%

2000-2002 11. 7%

2002-2004 12. 4%

2004-2006 12. 5%

2005-2007 12. 5%

2006-2008 12. 7%

2007-2009 13. 4%

Source:

www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3/table2.htm

Esten, I don't believe in conservative policies. I believe in liberal (in the economic sense) , free market policies. In months past I've presented data to you that correlate median (not average) GDP per capita with economic policy, on a country-by-country basis, and it clearly shows the middle class is better off with liberal (free market) economic policies that aren't strongly redistributionist.

Your table above shows no correlation between the party that controls the presidency and the poverty rate. Clinton and Obama were president during part (2007-2009) or all (1996-1998) of the 3 year periods that exhibited the highest poverty rate. I'd expect other variables would be much more strongly correlated with poverty than who's president, and would also question just exactly what "poverty rate" represents.

Stan Da Man

12-22-10, 17:24

Perhaps some of you saw the recent story about the "Lie of the Year" for 2010.

PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

Check it out it's a good read. Their second-place choice was also from Republicans, the claim that Obama was going to spend $200 million a day on a trip to India. The above is just more ignorant drivel from a partisan website. It's not too hard to find material to completely rebut this hogwash. For example:

Calling Obamacare a government takeover of health care is the "lie of the year," according to the self-proclaimed oracle of all things true and untrue in the political debate. That outrageous proclamation from PolitiFact shows that its editors need a Truth-O-Meter of their own.

Obamacare is a uniquely American government takeover of health care. Its 2, 801 pages of legislation and insidious regulatory structure give the Secretary of Health and Human Services almost unlimited authority to rule over every corner of our health sector.

The legislation that passed in March creates the scaffolding for the government-controlled structure the administration is busily constructing.

Because the law doesn't call for an immediate nationalization of hospitals or include the "public option" that liberals wanted, PolitiFact claims that it isn't a government takeover. Even worse, it says Obamacare "relies largely on the free market" to achieve health reform.

PolitiFact, like so many other political elites, disregards the legitimate fears of millions of Americans who spontaneously rose up against Obamacare in town hall meetings, marches, and voting booths. Here are 10 reasons why they are right that it is a government takeover of health care:

1. For the first time in our nation's history, the government will order citizens to spend our private money on a private product. Health insurance. And will penalize us if we refuse.

2. Any employer with more than 50 employees will be told it must provide government-decreed health insurance to its workers. Or face financial penalties.

3. Government has the authority to destroy the private insurance market by preventing insurers from earning a reasonable return. If companies charge "unreasonable" premiums, as determined by Health Sec. Kathleen Sebelius, she can block them from participating in a huge sector of the market. As she already has threatened to do. Michael Barone calls this "gangster government."

4. The law provides the foundation, and $6 billion, for a stealth public plan. The Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program will help set up non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in all 50 states.

5. As many as 80 to 100 million people will not have the option of keeping the coverage they have now, per President Obama's promise. According to analyst Allisa A. Meade of McKinsey & Company, they will be switched into other policies after the insurance mandates take effect in 2014, whether they like it or not.

6. The federal government will determine what health benefits are essential. Or not.

7. Doctors and hospitals will face an avalanche of new reporting rules to make sure they are providing health care that fits the government's definition of "quality care."

8. The legislation creates the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute that is modeled on rationing boards in other countries with government-run health systems. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the U. K, for example, has a record of denying access to the newest drugs, with government officials often deciding they just aren't worth the cost. That's already happening here with the FDA'S withdrawal of its approval for Avastin last week.

9. States are being treated like contractors to the federal government, ordered to expand Medicaid to levels that could bankrupt them, and to set up new Health Exchange bureaucracies lest the federal government sweep in and do it for them.

10. Obamacare expands Medicaid, the worst health plan in the country, to cover 84 million people by 2019, stretching yet another of our government-run health programs to the bursting point.

Attorney John Hoff, in a paper for the Heritage Foundation, calls Obamacare "a new exercise in old-fashioned central planning." PolitiFact needs to revisit its decision or it will soon find that its own pants are on fire.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2010/12/obamacare-government-takeover

Esten

12-23-10, 03:06

The above is just more ignorant drivel from a partisan website. It's not too hard to find material to completely rebut this hogwash. It's a big fat lie to call PPACA a "takeover". Look up the definition. PPACA has strong regulation (as it should). Other industries have strong regulation as well (eg. aviation) but we don't say they have been taken over.

The phrase "government takeover" was concocted by a Republican strategist to cause alarm and concern.

Can you give us some real details on what the trip to India actually cost? I didn't think so. I'll stick with the previous estimate.I already gave you video evidence of the White House and Pentagon both saying the costs were wildly inflated. But you still choose to believe the source - some website in India that would have no way of knowing the real costs. Too funny !

Esten

12-23-10, 03:50

Doppel- Believe it or not, I don't like slackers any more than you do. I know a few. I don't respect them. The liberal view is not to reward slackers, please stop repeating that nonsense. It is to give people a better shot at success. You mentioned the other day America is the "Land of Opportunity". Well opportunity alone isn't enough. The extent of opportunity is important as well. Is it increasing? Decreasing? What are the odds? The free market private sector is not working to give people a better shot at success, and since the recession it is doing just the opposite. Conservatives think that if we just leave the private sector alone, we will 'grow the pie' and everyone will prosper. Well the data keeps accumulating that this is not true. That is why liberals believe the model for the 21st century is a strong partnership between government and the private sector, not bashing the government and letting the private sector do whatever it wants.

Stan Da Man

12-23-10, 15:25

More proof that ObamaCare cost Dems numerous seats this past election. If you read all the way to the end of the linked article, you'll understand why this albatross will cost Dems still more seats in 2012. Excerpts below:

A somewhat more substantive analysis came from the Democratic National Committee, which made the case that exit polls showed only 18 percent of voters citing health care as the key issue before Congress, and only two of the 12 Democratic senators who voted for the health-care bill (Feingold and Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln) lost. Yet this, too, is a facile argument, since at least five of those victorious Democrats—including two from New York State—did not face significant opposition and were never in any political danger. More-honest Democrats, like pollster Fred Yang, had to concede that 'it is not correct to say Tuesday's vote was a referendum on health care, but it did help set the stage for Tuesday. '

The stronger case to be made, however, is that health care did in fact drive the election results. According to GOP pollster Bill McInturff, 'This election was a clear signal that voters do not want President Obama's health-care plan. ' McInturff looked mainly at the battleground elections rather than including the heavily Democratic safe districts and found that in the 100 most closely contested House districts. 51 percent of voters described their votes as a message to the president on health care. In addition, more than half of independent voters told McInturff that they were voting against the health-care law. Independents supported Republicans over Democrats by a margin of 18 percent.

Another analysis, by Jeffrey Anderson, found that in 'comparable districts, anti-Obamacare Democrats won reelection at twice the rate of pro-Obamacare Democrats. ' According to Anderson, this meant that Democratic House members in swing districts who voted for the health-care bill 'cut their chances of gaining reelection approximately in half. '

Link:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/special-january-preview--the-democrats-and-health-care-15602

I find it interesting that someone who claims the phrase "government takeover" was "the biggest lie of 2010" is now reduced to claiming that it is pejorative because other industries are heavily regulated, too. Weak, but par for the course.

Member #4112

12-24-10, 13:11

Problem 1 with the Liberal point of view:

"Opportunity' to succeed is not considered enough (even though it is a lot more than any other country on earth) the scales have to tipped by 'government. ' The absolute worst thing that can happen is to involve the 'government' to level the playing field. The Free Market does this on its own, letting people select the 'winners' and 'losers' by voting with the dollars on the products and services they purchase.

Problem 2 with the Liberal point of view:

The 'government' needs to be a 'partner' with business; would this be similar to what they have in Europe? If so that is one colossal 'success' or perhaps you have not noticed they are having to reign in their social spending since it is fiscally unsupportable engendering riots in the streets over what their spoon fed populace has come to believe is their 'right' regardless of the financial realities.

Esten, there is an old saying in the business world, 'When the United States economy gets a head cold the rest of the world gets pneumonia'. It's still true today even with the developing economies of the Far East. Government is an impediment to business not a 'partner'. While there are some functions the government may need to provide, primarily it needs to get out of the way of the Free Market and let it function properly. Shoring up failing businesses (AIG, GM, Chrysler et al) is not it's function.

I found your response about 'slackers' to be a bit humorous in light of your failing to address that great 'leveling of the playing field', 'leg up' the Democratic / Liberal Poverty Pimps continue to feed for votes AKA Welfare. 45+ years of failure and they keep on keeping on with ever expanding programs and funding for the 3rd or 4th generation of 'slackers'.

Stan Da Man

12-26-10, 20:27

Lest there be any doubt about what a colossal failure ObamaCare will be if it is allowed to come into law without being defunded and / or overturned, I offer this. Be afraid. Be very afraid when the government tries to get its inept mitts on one sixth of the economy:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704457604576011382824069032.html?KEYWORDS=dr+rock

Some excerpts, although I commend the entire article as this database is based only on 5% of the whole:

Physical therapy, which cost Medicare almost $3. 5 billion in 2008, offers a case study in how Medicare polices its payments. Even when Medicare identified providers whose physical-therapy billing raised red flags, it kept paying thousands or even millions of dollars, sometimes for years, The Wall Street Journal found. Among the cases:

• A physical therapist in Brooklyn who billed for so much therapy—more than $2. 5 million in 2008 alone—that it would have been virtually impossible for him to have performed it all within state and Medicare guidelines, fraud experts say. Medicare has continued to pay him, shelling out nearly a million dollars through July of this year.

• A second doctor in Florida who pocketed more than $1. 8 million from Medicare in 2007, much of it from physical therapy on patients with an extremely rare condition. Even after a Medicare antifraud contractor flagged this doctor, the agency paid him at least $6. 7 million over more than two years.

• A Houston doctor whose Medicare billing under her provider number spiked from zero to more than $11. 6 million in less than a year. At the time, this doctor was being investigated for misconduct in a company owned by a Nigerian with an alleged history of fraud.

There are plenty of reasons why Medicare often fails to stop questionable payments up front. To protect law-abiding doctors and hospitals—the vast majority—Medicare is required to pay nearly everybody within 30 days. Medicare says it is reluctant to suspend payments to providers who may have made honest mistakes, out of concern that beneficiaries might go without needed treatment. Law-enforcement agencies and Medicare contractors, overwhelmed by the sheer volume of Medicare fraud cases, can't investigate and prosecute them all. Sometimes, prosecutors and investigators ask Medicare to keep paying so as not to tip off targets of an investigation.

But a central problem is that Medicare hasn't fully exploited its most valuable resource: its claims database, a computerized record of every claim submitted and every dollar paid out.

Then there are those on the left who feel superior because they want the government to redistribute money to help the poor. Turns out these folks are good at giving away other people's money, but not so generous when it comes to their own. Those who answered "no" to the following question gave four times As much money to charities as those who answered yes: "Do you believe the government has a responsibility to reduce income differences between rich and poor?"

Here's link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576036010174911064.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

A quick excerpt: The most recent year that a large, nonpartisan survey asked people about both redistributive beliefs and charitable giving was 1996. That year, the General Social Survey (GSS) found that those who were against higher levels of government redistribution privately gave four times as much money, on average, as people who were in favor of redistribution. This is not all church-related giving; they also gave about 3. 5 times as much to nonreligious causes. Anti-redistributionists gave more even after correcting for differences in income, age, religion and education.

So, the stingy left now wants to turn over one-sixth of the economy to incompetent government bureaucrats, and still claim to be morally superior and, in some cases, marginally intelligent.

El Alamo

12-28-10, 14:47

This birdbrain idea of a strong partnership between government and the private sector is almost word for word what Juan Peron advocated for Argentina.

Under Peron`s frankenstein idea Argentina went from one of the wealthiest countries in the world to a country approaching third world status.

The only economic policies more inept would be those of Fidel "I'm an idiot" Castro or "I'm a clown" Chavez. Compared to these two imbeciles the idea of a strong partnership between government and the private sector almost, not quite, rises above idiot status to approach moron status.

Put another way - dancing with the government is equivalent to dancing with a tar baby.

Punter 127

12-29-10, 02:08

This birdbrain idea of a strong partnership between government and the private sector is almost word for word what Juan Peron advocated for Argentina.

Under Peron`s frankenstein idea Argentina went from one of the wealthiest countries in the world to a country approaching third world status.

The only economic policies more inept would be those of Fidel "I'm an idiot" Castro or "I'm a clown" Chavez. Compared to these two imbeciles the idea of a strong partnership between government and the private sector almost, not quite, rises above idiot status to approach moron status.

Put another way. Dancing with the government is equivalent to dancing with a tar baby. Hear, Hear!

Rev BS

12-29-10, 11:21

This birdbrain idea of a strong partnership between government and the private sector is almost word for word what Juan Peron advocated for Argentina.

Under Peron`s frankenstein idea Argentina went from one of the wealthiest countries in the world to a country approaching third world status.

The only economic policies more inept would be those of Fidel "I'm an idiot" Castro or "I'm a clown" Chavez. Compared to these two imbeciles the idea of a strong partnership between government and the private sector almost, not quite, rises above idiot status to approach moron status.

Put another way. Dancing with the government is equivalent to dancing with a tar baby. In other words, China is sure to fail? Or Singapore?

Rock Harders

01-03-11, 20:41

BadMan

01-03-11, 23:28

No. Just No.

Completely Unconstitutional and inhumane. The same will happen to this piece of shit " initiative " that happened to Arizona's other failed initiatives. Trust.

Balayover

01-03-11, 23:47

No. Just No.

Completely Unconstitutional and inhumane. The same will happen to this piece of shit " initiative " that happened to Arizona's other failed initiatives. Trust. The 11th amendment originally was applied to freed slaves and denied indians (because they owed allegiance to their tribe) and anyone owing full allegiance to another state (I. E. The country you are legally from) citizenship. Read the federalist papers or the writings of the senators that wrote the amendment. They never intended citizenship to be bestowed on anyone because they were born in the country. Jefferson and other founding fathers considered this a carryover from british law that weakened the democratic process.

Westy

01-04-11, 21:33

Balayover, you don't get what Bad Man's saying.

He means that it is "completely Unconstitutional and inhumane" for Arizona to enforce Federal immigration law on undocumented Democrats.

Punter 127

01-05-11, 04:23

Balayover, you don't get what Bad Man's saying.

He means that it is "completely Unconstitutional and inhumane" for Arizona to enforce Federal immigration law On undocumented Democrats. I'd like for him to tell us just what makes it unconstitutional, what Supreme Court ruling is he basing his opinion on? Does he practice constitutional law? The being 'inhumane' part is just left wing BS.

I believe Balayover's remarks are based on history and not just opinion.

The best way to deal with the problem is to seal our borders, we can and should do it. We spend who knows how much to protect the borders of other countries but we ignore our own.

RH We tried amnesty in the past, it didn't work then and I see no reason to think it would work now. What would be the benefit other than more 'documented Democrats'?

Stan Da Man

01-05-11, 14:58

I'd like for him to tell us just what makes it unconstitutional, what Supreme Court ruling is he basing his opinion on? Does he practice constitutional law? The being 'inhumane' part is just left wing BS.

I believe Balayover's remarks are based on history and not just opinion.

The best way to deal with the problem is to seal our borders, we can and should do it. We spend who knows how much to protect the borders of other countries but we ignore our own.

RH We tried amnesty in the past, it didn't work then and I see no reason to think it would work now. What would be the benefit other than more 'documented Democrats'?If he meant that it's unconstitutional for a state to try to enforce federal law, then that would be correct. But, it's not unconstitutional for a state to enforce it's own laws unless: (a) its own laws conflict With a federal law, including the Constitution; or (b) the federal government has "occupied the field" such that no state laws in an area are permitted.

I agree that the "inhumane" stuff is left-wing drivel. But, it's unlikely a state could pass a law that eliminates citizenship for anyone born on USA soil, especially since the citizenship being denied would be that of the United States, not that of a particular state. More likely, some federal court will have to opine whether this is truly the law under the Constitution. If not, then the issue would be ripe for Congress. To my knowledge, the issue hasn't been directly addressed by the Supreme Court under federal law, but I may be wrong about that.

Jackson

01-05-11, 16:46

If the US government were to give amnesty and automatic permanent residency to any illegal immigrants currently in the national territory provided they present proper identity documents and can pass a criminal background check in their home country as well as the USA I would not have a problem with that. But the line has to be drawn somewhere.That was the Democrat's pitch in the same debate 20 years ago during the Clinton administration: Amnesty for 3 million undocumented Democrats currently in the country, in conjunction with a pledge to secure our borders. Unfortunately, the Dems later abandoned their promise to authorize the necessary funds to actually secure the border, and thus the Clinton amnesty only served to encourage the subsequent invasion of an additional 12 million undocumented Democrats, which is where we find ourselves today.

BTW, the Clinton administration's amnesty for 3 million undocumented Democrats is what tilted California into becoming a permanent blue state, and of course exacerbated the state's current slide into bankruptcy.

Anyway, this time, I'm not buying it. Secure the borders FIRST!

I will add, in light of Harry Reid's failed attempt to pass the "Dream Act", that in my opinion, any foreign national who volunteers to join our military and successfully serves a 2 year deployment in a combat zone has earned and should be granted a USA citizenship.

(Actually, the Dream Act didn't really fail, because Reid's last minute promise to Arizona's Nevada's hispanic voters to bring it up for a vote is what secured his re-election.)

Thanks,

Jackson

Rock Harders

01-05-11, 20:44

Jackson-

I don't think Harry Reid gives a rat's ass about what Arizona's Latino voters think since he is only voted for / against by the registered voters of Nevada. Your boy John "hard on for Sarah Palin" McCain was the senator elected this past November from the state of Arizona. Moving on, I would love to hear you or anyone else's plan to round up and deport 11 million illegal aliens. In addition, where would the funding come from to conduct such an expensive and logistically challenging operation? I do not believe that amnesty for qualified illegals is the right thing to do on any humanitarian or sympathetic grounds; granting residency is the only pragmatic approach. Charging qualifying illegal aliens a $3000 USD fee to acquire a green card would more than fund the regularization program and I bet that a very high percentage of qualified illegal aliens would participate in the program. Also, the additional tax revenue in the form of income and payroll taxes collected from the previously non-paying illegal workers would make at least some dent in state and federal budget deficits.

After a regularization program is conducted, then the stringent enforcement of immigration law can actually begin from a practical standpoint, as mentioned in my previous post. If new arriving illegals simply are unable to find work and access government services they will be less likely to come. But the 11 million illegals currently living and working in the US need to be regularized first.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Moveon

01-05-11, 22:17

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the frat room chat on illegal immigration (damm, who'll do my tile work?) but this post is for all of us who nearly forgot.
See pic.

Balayover

01-05-11, 22:38

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the frat room chat on illegal immigration (damm, who'll do my tile work?) but this post is for all of us who nearly forgot.

See pic. How many individual votes the president gets is irrelevant. We have a representative democracy. The founding fathers realized a democracy based on individual votes would not last.

Jackson

01-05-11, 23:34

I don't think Harry Reid gives a rat's ass about what Arizona's Latino voters think since he is only voted for / against by the registered voters of Nevada.Obviously, I mis-wrote.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

01-05-11, 23:35

Damm, who'll do my tile work?The answer: Legal immigrants who are in the USA on a Guest Worker program.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

01-06-11, 05:45

Moving on, I would love to hear you or anyone else's plan to round up and deport 11 million illegal aliens. In addition, where would the funding come from to conduct such an expensive and logistically challenging operation? I do not believe that amnesty for qualified illegals is the right thing to do on any humanitarian or sympathetic grounds; granting residency is the only pragmatic approach. Charging qualifying illegal aliens a $3000 USD fee to acquire a green card would more than fund the regularization program and I bet that a very high percentage of qualified illegal aliens would participate in the program. Also, the additional tax revenue in the form of income and payroll taxes collected from the previously non-paying illegal workers would make at least some dent in state and federal budget deficits.

After a regularization program is conducted, then the stringent enforcement of immigration law can actually begin from a practical standpoint, as mentioned in my previous post. If new arriving illegals simply are unable to find work and access government services they will be less likely to come. But the 11 million illegals currently living and working in the US need to be regularized first.

Suerte,

Rock HardersRock,

You're right, I agree. But this time, I'd like to see the border secured FIRST. If we grant another amnesty now without securing the border, 20 years from now we'll be discussing what to do about the 22 million additional undocumented Democrats in the country.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

01-06-11, 12:11

It's the 14th Amendment which deals with birth citizenship not the 11th. Here is the actual amendment as written in 1868 – as one of the 'Reconstruction Amendments' enacted after the Civil War. Section 1 is the part in question regarding 'birth citizenship'

'Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. '

That notwithstanding, we should follow the precedent set by every other country in the world, being born within their borders to non-citizen parents does not confer citizenship upon the child, rather the child is a citizen of the country of its parents. In our case the child would be a citizen of Mexico, et. Al.

The amnesty route has been tried at least twice in my lifetime, once by Reagan and once by Clinton, and both have had the effect of only exacerbating the problem of illegal immigrants / aliens. Time to secure the borders and remove the illegal immigrants who are here and no I don't mean all at once, it will have to be a gradual removal by the current means used today. To increase the rapidity of their departure cut off jobs, healthcare, education, and all social support from City, State, and Federal entities.

If you cut it off they will leave.

Rock Harders

01-06-11, 12:16

Stan Da Man

01-06-11, 14:49

Jackson-

If you deem it necessary to "secure" the border first, just exactly where will the funds come from to recruit, train, equip and pay all the new border patrol agents that would be necessary to seal the border. The federal government and most state governments are broke. There's a pretty basic solution. It wouldn't necessarily be cheap, but it would be viable: We're going to have hundreds of thousands of troops returning home over the next couple of years into the worst job market in decades. You wouldn't need to allocate all of them to the task of helping to secure the borders, but you certainly could allocate some. Unlike the misguided stimulus money they've already spent or allocated, funds "earmarked" for this could actually accomplish something IF the Feds could stick to a cohesive, coherent program of Immigration control and enforcement.

Personally, I'm not much of an immigration hawk, and I don't ascribe that many problems to illegal immigrants. The vast, vast majority of the USA's problems are of its own making, excluding lax immigration standards and enforcement, in my opinion. But, if you want to begin addressing that problem, we'll have a ready and willing labor pool over the next few years, and it would cost much less than funds allocated to these same troops abroad.

Finally, in terms of citizenship by birth, the cut and paste of the 14th Amendment makes the issue pretty plain: "All persons born Or naturalized in the United States. . . Are citizens Of the United States. .."

The folks who sponsored this Amendment may not have contemplated tens of thousands of people trying to sneak across the border to deposit a newborn on this soil. But, the Amendment itself it pretty unambiguous and the original intent is pretty clear: If you're born here, you're a citizen. If anyone wants to change that, it will have to be done via a new Amendment, in my opinion.

BadMan

01-06-11, 17:50

LOL.

Nice try though.

The 11th amendment originally was applied to freed slaves and denied indians (because they owed allegiance to their tribe) and anyone owing full allegiance to another state (I. E. The country you are legally from) citizenship. Read the federalist papers or the writings of the senators that wrote the amendment. They never intended citizenship to be bestowed on anyone because they were born in the country. Jefferson and other founding fathers considered this a carryover from british law that weakened the democratic process.
Finally, in terms of citizenship by birth, the cut and paste of the 14th Amendment makes the issue pretty plain: "All persons born Or naturalized in the United States. . . Are citizens Of the United States.."

The folks who sponsored this Amendment may not have contemplated tens of thousands of people trying to sneak across the border to deposit a newborn on this soil. But, the Amendment itself it pretty unambiguous and the original intent is pretty clear: If you're born here, you're a citizen. If anyone wants to change that, it will have to be done via a new Amendment, in my opinion.

Member #4112

01-06-11, 18:30

How to pay for securing the border is pretty simple, cut off all funding for education, healthcare, welfare and any other payment to illegals by City, State or Federal governments. Hell the saving from healthcare alone will probably cover the cost.

Time to be like every other country on earth, being born within a country's borders to non- citizen parents of said country does not confer citizenship upon the child, rather the child is a citizen of the country of its parents, in our case Mexico et al

Balayover

01-06-11, 18:55

There's a pretty basic solution. It wouldn't necessarily be cheap, but it would be viable: We're going to have hundreds of thousands of troops returning home over the next couple of years into the worst job market in decades. You wouldn't need to allocate all of them to the task of helping to secure the borders, but you certainly could allocate some. Unlike the misguided stimulus money they've already spent or allocated, funds "earmarked" for this could actually accomplish something IF the Feds could stick to a cohesive, coherent program of Immigration control and enforcement.

Personally, I'm not much of an immigration hawk, and I don't ascribe that many problems to illegal immigrants. The vast, vast majority of the USA's problems are of its own making, excluding lax immigration standards and enforcement, in my opinion. But, if you want to begin addressing that problem, we'll have a ready and willing labor pool over the next few years, and it would cost much less than funds allocated to these same troops abroad.

Finally, in terms of citizenship by birth, the cut and paste of the 14th Amendment makes the issue pretty plain: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States. . . Are citizens Of the United States.."

The folks who sponsored this Amendment may not have contemplated tens of thousands of people trying to sneak across the border to deposit a newborn on this soil. But, the Amendment itself it pretty unambiguous and the original intent is pretty clear: If you're born here, you're a citizen. If anyone wants to change that, it will have to be done via a new Amendment, in my opinion.Sorry. Read the entire sentence. The perfunctory clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " was put there for a reason. Jurisdiction meant EXCLUSIVE allegiance to the United States. Senator Howard, the author of the 14th Amendment said " will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, etc". The Civil Rights Act of 1866 asserted " all persons born in the USA AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER, are declared to be citizens." Since illegal aliens owe no allegiance to the USA and are subject to a foreign power (i.e. their country)they would not be citizens. (Heritage Guide to the Constitution)

Stan Da Man

01-06-11, 22:24

The perfunctory clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " was put there for a reason. Jurisdiction meant EXCLUSIVE allegiance to the united states. Find me the dictionary where jurisdiction is defined that way. I'm sorry, but that's just not so. In its most basic sense, jurisdiction means subject to the law and rules of a particular government. As an example, Julian Assange is outside the USA's jurisdiction. If he did what he did while on US soil, however, he would be within our jurisdiction, regardless of whether he's an Australian citizen, just as Sweden asserts he is subject to their jurisdiction for conduct that occurred while on their soil. When here, jurisdiction would certainly apply to the newly born, as well as to their parents while on USA soil, unless they're diplomats and enjoy diplomatic immunity.

Finally, the idea that the original drafters of the 14th Amendment may have expressed their private intention differently makes a little difference, but not much. The rules of statutory construction are well-established: When something's clear on its face, you look no further than the text. Even when it's not clear on its face, a preparer's private or public remarks about meaning are unlikely to carry much weight since those who voted to ratify an Amendment likely did not know what these separate thoughts were. Instead, they voted on the actual language in the Amendment, not on the separate remarks.

Balayover

01-06-11, 22:49

Find me the dictionary where jurisdiction is defined that way. I'm sorry, but that's just not so. In its most basic sense, jurisdiction means subject to the law and rules of a particular government. As an example, Julian Assange is outside the USA's jurisdiction. If he did what he did while on US soil, however, he would be within our jurisdiction, regardless of whether he's an Australian citizen, just as Sweden asserts he is subject to their jurisdiction for conduct that occurred while on their soil. When here, jurisdiction would certainly apply to the newly born, as well as to their parents while on USA soil, unless they're diplomats and enjoy diplomatic immunity.

Finally, the idea that the original drafters of the 14th Amendment may have expressed their private intention differently makes a little difference, but not much. The rules of statutory construction are well-established: When something's clear on its face, you look no further than the text. Even when it's not clear on its face, a preparer's private or public remarks about meaning are unlikely to carry much weight since those who voted to ratify an Amendment likely did not know what these separate thoughts were. Instead, they voted on the actual language in the Amendment, not on the separate remarks.Read Elk vs Wilkins 1884. the amendment was used to ensure freed slaves would be citizens of their states and federal citizens. This is a direct quote from the Civil Rights Act. explain what the wording of the law means when it says "not subject to any foreign power."

Guestrex

01-07-11, 05:33

I would have to agree with Rock's assessment with regards to the best way to curb the illegal immigration problem in the USA.

The most effective way to control illegal immigration is to make the employment market and access to social / government services almost completely impenetrable to illegal aliens, which would provide a major deterrent to prospective illegal immigrants. While the border fence is a nice idea, I believe it is realistically unfeasible over such a large expanse of remote land. The costs are ridiculous and the corruption that has already occurred during the building of its current length is high. It is illogical to take on such a cost at this point in time. Moreover, it has been shown time and time again throughout history that a willing individual can evade border fences.

Securing the illegal labor market has the several benefits including; making illegal immigration much less desirable, lowering domestic unemployment, and raising funds for our immigration services by fining offending employers. Limiting access to governmental services would also have a profound effect, potentially making emigrating to the USA worse than living in one's country of origin, if all services were withheld. Although I believe the chances of that happening is slim, it is definitely something to explore in differing degrees of severity.

Honestly, I've always found it suspicious that most groups fail to include employment enforcement when discussing their illegal immigration positions (with the exception of organized labor {sorry, El Alamo}).

WorldTravel69

01-07-11, 07:38

My Brother is stuck in the Korean War. 120 miles to keep out the enemy.

Mexico and USA is what 1500 miles.

You guys most likely do not likely walk more two miles a day.

Jackson

01-07-11, 12:38

Honestly, I've always found it suspicious that most groups fail to include employment enforcement when discussing their illegal immigration positions (with the exception of organized labor).While I agree with 90% of the deterrence ideas that Rock has suggested, I don't think it's fair to turn the country's business owners into immigration enforcement agents and then punish them if they don't perform the job perfectly, when in fact it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to stop the illegal immigrants from entering the country in the first place.

What's next? Arrest property owners who rent houses to illegal immigrants? Arrest grocery store owners who sell food to illegal immigrants? Arrest bank clerks who help illegal immigrants transfer money? Perhaps we can arrest home owners who happen to hire an illegal immigrant to cut their lawn?

This is a law enforcement issue which should be enforced by government officials, not private citizens.

Thanks,

Jackson

BTW, of course the unions want "employment enforcement" because they see illegal immigrants as taking jobs away from union members and because unions are predisposed to burden business owners with whatever mandates they can envision.

Jackson

01-07-11, 13:17

While the border fence is a nice idea, I believe it is realistically unfeasible over such a large expanse of remote land.

My Brother is stuck in the Korean War. 120 miles to keep out the enemy.

Mexico and USA is what 1500 miles.

You guys most likely do not likely walk more two miles a day.We built a 50,000 mile interstate highway system reaching every part of the country, thus I am confident that we can build a 3,000 mile fence.

Moreover, it has been shown time and time again throughout history that a willing individual can evade border fences.So to extend that logic, nobody should build fences anywhere because "a willing individual can evade" fences, and we shouldn't build border stations because "a willing individual can evade" border stations, and we shouldn't build airport security checkpoints because "a willing individual can evade" airport security checkpoints , and...

The costs are ridiculous and the corruption that has already occurred during the building of its current length is high. It is illogical to take on such a cost at this point in time.The "costs are ridiculous" compared to what? The cost of education, law enforcement, health care and social services for illegal immigrants?

Regarding the alleged "corruption" argument: First, I haven't read any news reports specifically identifying "corruption" in the building of the existing portions of the fence, but for the sake of argument let's assume that there was some measure of "corruption" in the contracting and construction of said fence. Does mean that the Federal Government shouldn't build anything anywhere because of the possibility that there might be some "corruption" in the contracting procedure?

It's not lost on me that liberals always cry "waste and corruption" in their arguments against anything they don't want, but are completely silent on the same issue in regards to their own sacred programs. For example, I've never heard any liberal decry "waste and corruption" as an argument against welfare or any other wealth transfer program, and yet these programs have been repeatedly proven to be rife with fraud and abuse.

Thanks,

Jackson

WorldTravel69

01-07-11, 15:28

When I started printing in San Francisco there were over 200 union shops in the city, now there are 4 or 5 left.

Because the Businessmen sent the printing out of the country or hired cheap non union help. With few benefits.

The reason workers have paid vacations is because of the Unions.

The reason there is (sort of) a 40 hour work week is because of the Unions.

The reason there are paid holidays is because of the Unions.

The reason there are child labor laws is because of the Unions.

I could go on, but read your history!

Oh yes, Reagan fucked the Unions.

BTW, of course the unions want "employment enforcement" because they see illegal immigrants as taking jobs away from union members and because unions are predisposed to burden business owners with whatever mandates they can envision.

Guestrex

01-07-11, 17:18

My Brother is stuck in the Korean War. 120 miles to keep out the enemy.

Mexico and USA is what 1500 miles.

You guys most likely do not likely walk more two miles a day. Last time I checked there aren't too many citizens on either side of the DMZ that want to cross. Not to mention the thousands of landmines that are buried in the area. Regardless, if you take as an example some of the kidnappings of South Koreans by the North, I guess you can use that as circumstantial evidence that the DMZ isn't impenetrable. To use a boundary that most people don't want to cross is misleading.

The USSR had far stricter penalties for crossing the Berlin wall than we would ever conceive of using and people still crossed illegally regularly. If people think it will change their lives for the better, they will risk anything.

Guestrex

01-07-11, 17:41

While I agree with 90% of the deterrence ideas that Rock has suggested, I don't think it's fair to turn the country's business owners into immigration enforcement agents and then punish them if they don't perform the job perfectly, when in fact it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to stop the illegal immigrants from entering the country in the first place.I'm not suggesting that business owners do the jobs of immigration agents. They should however check workers for identification when hiring and fine them if they hire illegal immigrants. This is no different then what I have to deal with every day as a bar owner. If I serve someone without identification, I get a hefty fine. If they use a fake I.D. then, it is my responsibility to spot it. If I feel it was impossible to spot, I take it up during an appeal.

What's next? Arrest property owners who rent houses to illegal immigrants? Arrest grocery store owners who sell food to illegal immigrants? Arrest bank clerks who help illegal immigrants transfer money? Perhaps we can arrest home owners who happen to hire an illegal immigrant to cut their lawn?

This is a law enforcement issue which should be enforced by government officials, not private citizens. Honestly I think that if you go after the jobs, there won't be any reason to go after anyone else. All I'm asking is that we do exactly what conservatives have been saying all along. Enforce the laws already on the books (like The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens). I can never understand why both liberals and conservatives fail to follow through on even their most common talking points and then they wonder why the younger generations are apathetic.

I went to school for a semester in Japan, I liked it so much that I moved back there after graduation. I was unable to sustain myself there because I could not find a job without a working visa. Unlike the USA and Argentina, the Japanese government prosecuted businesses that employed illegals. No one would hire me without the proper documents out of fear of that prosecution.

Stan Da Man

01-07-11, 20:39

I'm not suggesting that business owners do the jobs of immigration agents. They should however check workers for identification when hiring and fine them if they hire illegal immigrants. This is no different then what I have to deal with every day as a bar owner. If I serve someone without identification, I get a hefty fine. If they use a fake I.D. then, it is my responsibility to spot it. If I feel it was impossible to spot, I take it up during an appeal.This is very easy for employers to do with e-Verify now. There's no failsafe way to ensure that you're not hiring someone who's illegal. But, at least with this program, my understanding is that employers get a presumption of compliance if: (a) they've run what appears to be a facially valid I'd through that system; and (b) don't get a negative result. It's quick and easy to use. If someone presents you with a sophisticated counterfeit, you (the employer) aren't responsible. The e-verify system does make mistakes (false positives) but when that happens legit employees are usually able to clear up the error pretty quickly.

If you are a business without internet access, this would be difficult. But, if you've got internet access, it's almost too easy to get an instant result. Use of e-Verify is still voluntary, but it's pretty darn easy.

Gandolf50

01-07-11, 21:32

When I started Printing in San Francisco there were over 200 union shops in the city, now there are 4 or 5 left.

Because the Businessmen sent the printing out of the country or hired cheap non union help. With few benefits.

The reason workers have paid vacations is because of the Unions.

The reason there is (sort of) a 40 hour work week is because of the Unions.

The reason there are paid holidays is because of the Unions.

The reason there are child labor laws is because of the Unions.

I could go on, but read your history!

Oh yes, Reagan fucked the Unions. Unions started out great and did great service to the workers. Even non union workers benifited because the employers had to improve conditions or loose all their employees. But unions gradually fucked themselves by making outrageous demands and forcing many employers to go non union to remain competitive. Look at Spain or Greece and what the unions did to them.

Jackson

01-07-11, 21:35

If someone presents you with a sophisticated counterfeit, you (the employer) aren't responsible.Unless, of course, you're a Republican candidate for Governor of California.

Stan Da Man

01-07-11, 22:35

Unions started out great and did great service to the workers. Even non union workers benifited because the employers had to improve conditions or loose all their employees. But unions gradually fucked themselves by making outrageous demands and forcing many employers to go non union to remain competitive. Look at Spain or Greece and what the unions did to them.You're really talking more about public unions. I'm no big fan of private sector unions, but there are natural economic principles that will kill them off when they become too greedy, as they did in WorldTraveler's case.

I'm also no big fan of FDR, but even he recognized that public unions should NEVER be allowed to exist:

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.

I've asked this twice before here and no one has tried to answer. Why do we allow public unions to exist? Until 50 years ago, they were allowed in the private sector and forbidden in the public sector? Now that they've bankrupted the federal government, as well as most state, county and municipal governments, why do we allow them to continue? At this point, the only people willing to publicly stand up for them are union leaders and neo-marxists like Robert Reich. Democrats will take their campaign contributions and lobby for their votes, but even they are generally too timid to voice much public support.

Last year, someone wrote a book about Goldman Sachs with an apt quote describing how greedy they are. The quote, when paraphrased, actually applies far better to public unions:

A public union is like a 'vampire squid wrapped around the face of [government], relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money'

WorldTravel69

01-08-11, 05:30

So, are you saying that we go back to 70 hour work weeks, No vacations, No Holidays, No Sick Leaves, No Health Care, No Child Labor Laws, Etc.

I have a union pension. $700. A month, is that too much?

I also have a University Of California Pension. $1400. A month, because of the union.

The Retired Regents get $240, 000. Plus per year and want more.

Whose getting Fucked?

Sounds like what the Republicans got what they want.

No Unions, No Restrictions for the rich,
Lower Wages! Make us a Third World Country.

You're really talking more about public unions. I'm no big fan of private sector unions, but there are natural economic principles that will kill them off when they become too greedy, as they did in WorldTraveler's case.

I'm also no big fan of FDR, but even he recognized that public unions should NEVER be allowed to exist:

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.

I've asked this twice before here and no one has tried to answer. Why do we allow public unions to exist? Until 50 years ago, they were allowed in the private sector and forbidden in the public sector? Now that they've bankrupted the federal government, as well as most state, county and municipal governments, why do we allow them to continue? At this point, the only people willing to publicly stand up for them are union leaders and neo-marxists like Robert Reich. Democrats will take their campaign contributions and lobby for their votes, but even they are generally too timid to voice much public support.

Last year, someone wrote a book about Goldman Sachs with an apt quote describing how greedy they are. The quote, when paraphrased, actually applies far better to public unions:

A public union is like a 'vampire squid wrapped around the face of [government], relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money'

Gandolf50

01-08-11, 11:02

I am not anti union. I think unions helped make the US what it is today or better yet, what it was 15 years ago. What happened is some unions got out of hand. As to "public" unions, if I recall public employees won the right to collective barganing with various restrictions. Such as in the cases of railway workers or the now famous ATC where they were not permitted to strike. This was for a reason, you can not let a union or any group threaten the well being of the country. Shutting down all air travel or trains would paralyze the country. If that were allowed it would just like Argentina! I felt no remorse over the ATC strikers. The were offered the option to return to their jobs or goodbye. They broke the law, they are lucky they weren't prosecuted.

Wild Walleye

01-08-11, 13:14

"It's oh so good to be back at the Dexter Lake Club."

I'll avoid opining on the broader issue of unions and just hit on one of the key public employee union elements that is bankrupting government, at all levels (municipal, state and federal). With all due respect to those who have received them in the past or are due them today, from this point forward, there should be an absolute ban (I. E. Make it illegal) preventing any taxpayer-funded enterprise, including all public sector employers (union or not) , from offering defined benefit pensions to any employees from the lowest hourly employee to the highest (including nonunion employees like the mayor, governor, president, etc). As for the private sector, they can do what they want (they aren't using taxpayer money) and almost all of them chose not to offer this type of retirement plan.

The legacy of this type of pension is that the former employer is obligated to continue paying the former employee for life, including many, may years when the former employee is contributing absolutely nothing to the continued success of the company. That does not diminish the value of the contribution that the employee made in the past but it is payment for services never rendered. This forces the employer to ever increase the number of people to whom it is paying weekly wages while not increasing the actual number of people contributing to the bottom line. The argument that they were underpaid while they were working and therefore deserve more is ludicrous. Government employees are paid something around 150% of their private sector counterparts (USA Today 3-8-2010).

We should not take them away from those who already have them, but the practice has to be stopped. The private sector started eliminating these in the 80's. It would be very hard to find more than a few examples where this type of pension is still available in the private sector (excluding unionized positions). Why then are they so prevalent in the public sector? Defined benefit pensions in the public sector are a means through which unions extort taxpayer monies, to which they are not entitled, from weak politicians who are more concerned about doing what is politically expedient as opposed to what is actually right.

Guestrex

01-08-11, 16:49

One of the problems with regards to public sector employees and their pensions is the fact that many of these people (my mother being one of them) are not eligible for social security benefits and are now dependent on those pensions for life post-retirement. In fact, I believe that she paid a portion of her salary into her own pension fund. I don't know the reasons for not allowing these people the ability to pay into S.S. and receive benefits later in life, but perhaps, if they were allowed it would make much smaller pensions feasible.

Here is an article written by former labor secretary Robert Reich. Although it has an obvious liberal slant, there are some interesting points with regards to public employees. http://robertreich.org/post/2615647030

Rock Harders

01-08-11, 17:55

Mongers-

I have a pretty good understanding of public sector pensions at the state level as both my parents are very recently retired employees of a major northeastern state. My father was commissioner of the Department of Labor and my mother a superintendent of a large school district. Both draw six figure annual pensions AND are eligible for maximum social security benefits. Both worked almost forty years for the state and as such draw a pension that is about 40/55 (about 72%) of their BEST annual salary. Currently, this particular state is billions of dollars in the red and is trying to figure out out to close the deficit. The state pension fund is underfunded at this moment because the state did not match the employees own contributions as they are contractually and legally obligated to do; the state supreme court has repeatedly ruled the state's own behavior illegal and ordered them to comply, yet they have failed to do so.

Every time I go home to visit my parents I get in an argument about how I feel that public employee salaries, and especially pensions, are completely ridiculous at a time when the state is broke. This holds especially true with teachers, who are paid comparable salaries to other public employees to only work 180 days per year. My father is fairly reasonable in that he says he got what he got because the state signed a contract agreeing to it and after that contract expires the state can do whatever it has to do. I attempt to explain to my mother that teachers should have to either work more for the same money or take a pay cut because the employer (the state) is broke and needs to cut costs. She routinely refuses to accept my logic and babbles on about greedy capitalist pigs, etc. I try to explain to her that I am thrilled with the fact that my own parents get such nice compensation, from a pragmatic standpoint it is bad for the financial health of the state because it is unsustainable; she wants to hear nothing of it.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Wild Walleye

01-09-11, 01:36

(about 72%) of their BEST annual salary.I wish your parents great happiness and longevity, despite the implications for the affected taxpayers.

They will be paid 72% of their best annual salary for doing absolutely nothing (no offense meant to either of them). That isn't to say that they didn't do anything to earn a pension rather it is to say that there is very little chance that they or anyone else in there situation so 'over contributed' to the entity during their tenure that such largess is merited.

A defined contribution pension with some level or matching is far more appropriate for private and public sector employees because it not only encourages personal savings, it requires it to maximize your benefit package. This helps to allign the retirement responsibility where it should be, on the individual. After all, when you retire, who should be responsible for paying your bills? You? Or the taxpayers?

That said, your father is correct:

he says he got what he got because the state signed a contract agreeing to it and after that contract expires the state can do whatever it has to do. It is not appropriate to take contractually obligated and legally obtained wealth from state retirees anymore than it is to take it from Bill Gates or Barbara Streisand. However, there has to be a line drawn in the sand that says "from this point forward there will be no more defined benefit plans." It is immoral and clearly unsustainable for entities to agree to defined benefit plans when they know that: 1) they will be stealing more from taxpayers to pay expenditures that should not be born by the taxpayer. 2) the payments are being made to 'noncontributing' individuals. 3) the private sector tax payers who are burdened with these payments are unlikely to ever be offered or receive such benefits, and 4) this model is absolutely unsustainable.

I attempt to explain to my mother that teachers should have to either work more for the same money or take a pay cut because the employer (the state) is broke and needs to cut costs. She routinely refuses to accept my logic and babbles on about greedy capitalist pigs, etc.With all due respect to your mother, who I am certain is a wonderful woman, trying to impart knowledge of the real world upon a union teacher is like Sisyphus asking for a water break.

I try to explain to her that I am thrilled with the fact that my own parents get such nice compensation, from a pragmatic standpoint it is bad for the financial health of the state because it is unsustainable; she wants to hear nothing of it.The fact that they are absolutely entitled to receive the benefits to which the two parties agreed at the time of their respective contracts, is not mutually exclusive of the fact that it s wholly unsustainable. However, she may, consciously or subconsciously feel that by accepting the truth of the latter she may somehow delegitimize the former. Nothing could be further from the truth. They fulfilled their end of the bargain, they deserve what they were promised. What we have to change is what people are promised, going forward.

Gandolf50

01-09-11, 06:53

El Alamo

01-09-11, 14:44

BOEHNER: "An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve".

When is the bullshit going to stop. Do these political parasites, with their perks, free travel, medical perks, golden retirements, ever increasing salaries and worthless staffs numbering in the hundreds really think they are serving us. They are serving themselves which may be astonishing given the fact that the vast majority of them have an IQ less than their shoe size.

They would change skin color if that would prolong their lavish lifestyles.

OK, we need a government but we don't need a government that sounds like Marie Antonette ie. "Let them eat cake" while these parasites have real health care, real retirement benefits, luxury vacations taxpayers pay for, travel junkets taxpayers pay for, guaranteed undeserved salaries and, just for good measure, untold amounts of dirty money in the form of bribes.

If our elected officials want to regain the respect of their constituents maybe they should look in the mirror. Maybe they need tatooed on their forehead "I am the servant of my constituents" rather than their current tatoo which reads "my constituents are my servants."

P.S. please note that I am just as disgusted with the elitist Republicans who spend our money like drunken sailors as I am with the elitist Democrats who spend our money like drunken sailors. In my opinion, anyone of these slimeballs, regardless of party, would change their political affiliation if that would prolong their privileged life style.

Esten

01-09-11, 17:25

The discussion about public sector salaries, pensions and unions is all fine and some good points have been made. I do think there is such a thing as waste and over-generous compensation in the public sector and it should be addressed, especially when we are running budget deficits.

But in a discussion on balancing budgets, we need to look at both revenue and spending.

The fact is that the rich have been taking more and more of the wealth in this country for decades now. Some like to talk about 'growing the pie' so we all prosper, but the data shows this is a false argument. It is the top few percent that take most of the pie, and everyone else gets a few crumbs.

So it's unreasonable to present the argument that all budget balancing has to come from spending cuts. Why should the poor and middle class take all the pain? Spread the pain over those who can afford it. As an example, you can get a similar budget benefit from cutting the salaries / pensions of all US teachers by 5% as from raising taxes on all US millionaires by 0.3%. A small tax increase represents almost no pain for millionaires, and such a tax is not 'taking other people's money'. We all (should) contribute into a pot according to our means to fund essential / important services.

Rock- I suspect you are presenting the argument to your mother in a one-sided manner, that the answer lies only in cutting spending. This is the Republican approach. If this is the case her reaction is not entirely unreasonable. I would suggest she might be more amenable if you present a more balanced argument which includes both targeted spending cuts and targeted tax increases. For example, a 1% cut in public sector pensions over 100K and a 1% tax increase on all incomes over 500K. Of course there will be state-specific considerations but you get the idea.

Asking just the poor and middle class to bear the brunt of budget balancing is unacceptable. Not when budget deficits have in large part been caused by tax cuts which mainly benefit the rich, and when wealth inequality continues to soar.

Gandolf50

01-09-11, 17:59

Esten

01-09-11, 18:40

If the gov't wants more income and less expenses why not go to a flat tax or a "national sales tax". Get rid of deductions, streamline or elimanate the IRS as they would no longer be needed. What can be fairer then every one paying the same percentage? And how much would we save the country just by elimanating the IRS?This is one of the most ridiculous and absurd ideas out there (you are not the first to suggest it). Wealth inequality would SKYROCKET under such a proposal. A flat tax is not appropriate when income and wealth distribution is so lop-sided to begin with.

If I have 98 oranges and you have 2, and we implement a flat tax of 1 orange, I'll still have 97 while you have 1. This is an analogy, but do the math with the actual revenues you would still need to raise and you'll see your proposal amounts to nothing more than a massive hit to the poor and middle class, and a massive break to the rich.

Tiny12

01-09-11, 20:10

If I have 98 oranges and you have 2, and we implement a flat tax of 1 orange, I'll still have 97 while you have 1. ???? I give up.

This implies you pay a 1% tax and Gandolf pays 50%. This is a ridiculously twisted analogy that has nothing to do with a flat tax or sales tax.

I do like your field reports from Argentina.

Jackson

01-09-11, 20:17

This is one of the most ridiculous and absurd ideas out there (you are not the first to suggest it). Wealth inequality would SKYROCKET under such a proposal. A flat tax is not appropriate when income and wealth distribution is so lop-sided to begin with.

If I have 98 oranges and you have 2, and we implement a flat tax of 1 orange, I'll still have 97 while you have 1. This is an analogy, but do the math with the actual revenues you would still need to raise and you'll see your proposal amounts to nothing more than a massive hit to the poor and middle class, and a massive break to the rich. Esten, I missed you!

Without further adieu.

First, income and wealth is not "distributed", it's earned, a fundamental concept that is often lost on liberals.

Second, your analogy is all wrong. Of one thing, what you've described is not a flat tax rate. Per your description, it appears to be the same tax amount being paid by both parties regardless of their income. However, I will grant you that the scenario you described, if it existed, would certainly result in "a massive hit to the poor and middle class, and a massive break to the rich".

Anyway, putting aside your assertion that everyone should pay taxes every year on the number of oranges they already earned and already paid taxes on in past years, let's assume that you meant to say "If I EARNED 98 oranges and you earned 1 orange...", and assuming that we actually had a 10% flat tax, then you would pay 9.8 oranges in taxes on your 98 orange income, and I would pay 1/10 (.1) of an orange on my 1 orange income, which means that you would have paid 98 times more in taxes that I did.

Thanks,

Jackson

Esten

01-09-11, 22:44

Good grief you guys are quick. I realized my analogy needed clarification. Hoping to come back quick and edit my post I see there are already two responses. So here's my clarification. Gandolf actually had two distinct ideas. These are known as the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax. The orange analogy only applies to the former.

"FAIR" TAX. This is a national sales tax or consumption tax which replaces income tax. If you had to raise all revenue through such a tax on goods and services, this would be the same tax amount paid by all regardless of income and as Jackson acknowledged would in fact be a massive shift in tax burden from rich to the poor and middle class. It's been estimated that such a tax would have to be upwards of 30% to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace. The orange analogy is correct here. Low income earners would take a huge hit. It should be called the "Unfair Tax".

FLAT TAX. A flat income tax. While less radical it would still significantly worsen wealth inequality.

Neither of these tax proposals is acceptable because they both shift the tax burden from the rich to others, which given what has happened in this country since Reagan is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing.

Jackson hope you are enjoying the chicas in BA. We will have to agree to disagree on whether wealth is earned or distributed. I think it is both.

BTW there was a poll out last week that showed most Americans (61%) would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit. The second most popular step was to cut defense spending. I found this poll very interesting because these are the same top two items I would have said myself.

Most Americans say tax rich to balance budget: poll
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7022AK20110103

Jackson

01-10-11, 01:58

"FAIR" TAX. This is a national sales tax or consumption tax which replaces income tax. If you had to raise all revenue through such a tax on goods and services, this would be the same tax amount paid by all regardless of income and as Jackson acknowledged would in fact be a massive shift in tax burden from rich to the poor and middle class. It's been estimated that such a tax would have to be upwards of 30% to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace. The orange analogy is correct here. Low income earners would take a huge hit. It should be called the "Unfair Tax".Esten,

Every proposal I've ever seen for any kind of national sales tax has always included the government sending a monthly rebate check to every citizen in the amount of the estimated sales tax paid on the first portion of their purchases every month. For example, if the national sales tax was 20%, then the government might send a monthly check in the amount of $200 to every person in the country to reimburse them for the national sales tax that they paid on their first $1,000 of purchases in the previous month. This is specifically intended to "curve" the tax burden by reimbursing low income individuals so that they effectively pay no national sales tax.

BTW there was a poll out last week that showed most Americans (61%) would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit.What kind of poll is that? Asking people if they are in favor of someone else paying the country's entire tax burden? Yea, that's certainly an unbiased poll regarding "fair" tax.

"Democracy is not 9 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

Thanks,

Jackson

El Alamo

01-10-11, 17:09

Economists foretell of USA decline, China's ascension.

I am in Florianopolis and the consensus here is that Brazil is a hoax and China has immense issues with demographics I. E. One child per family and and an aging population is a economic disaster waiting to happen.

The prediction here is another golden era for the United States provided the United States does not succumb to increasing government interference, a counter productive tax structure, third world labor laws and the destruction of what made the United States great - rewarding those with inovative ideas and products

P.S. Brasil is considered a hoax because they have a 100% tax on all imports. This is to protect their home grown businesses. What this really does is allow their home grown businesses to continue inefficient, non competitive practices. I doubt that Brasil exports much outside of natural resources. Brasil cannot compete in world markets, especially with their brain dead aka birdbrain labor laws.

El Alamo

01-11-11, 07:59

Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol.

A little research will show that Rush Limbaugh's great, great, great grandfather incited the killing of Julias Ceasar, Rush's great, great grandfather convinced John Wilkes Booth to assasinate Lincoln, Rush's great grandfather started WW1 with the assasination of Franz Ferdinand, Rush's grandfather was responsible for shooting JFK while Rush's father took care of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

I say we eliminate freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. We can be like North Korea which does just fine without those distractions.

Wild Walleye

01-11-11, 15:08

WW you seem to have a excellent grasp of what has happened and how it happened plus you seem to understand what needs to be done. Why don't you get a job with Obama or better yet run for president yourself? Suerte!I promise that if elected, I will end social promotion of liberal children through our schools. I will make extra certain that liberals are educated in the lost art of math and will end the practice of giving defined benefit plans to anyone (liberal, conservative or otherwise) being paid by taxpayers.

I love Esten. He is like the bird that keeps flying into my plate glass window. He fearlessly and blindly jumps into the conversation, avoiding the topic at hand, and delivering yet again, another of his typical "spread the wealth" non sequiturs. In typical knee-jerk liberal fashion, Esten dives headlong into the fray to protect the innocents, who, were it not for the swashbuckling men in tights (like Esten), would be starved of the sustenance that they need to survive (food stamps for smokes, free tattoo removal services and govt cheese) by the heartless right-wingers who want to cut, cut, cut and make old people and children eat dog food, all without having taken the time or extending the effort to grasp the issue. Bravo.

My assessment of defined benefit plans is as apolitical as I can get and I have never proposed cutting any retirement benefit plan already earned by anyone. Showing characteristic deftness and the ability to deal with specific issues as well as the broader tapestry of societal fabric, I made a point of leaving my opinions regarding unions out of my keen assessment of defined benefit retirement plans. In fact, on this subject, pension plans, I never suggested cutting any benefit earned by any individual, no matter how ludicrous the benefit. What I did say was that we as a society to make defined benefit plans unavailable to anyone (who hasn't already contractually earned one) on the taxpayers' dime, going forward.

In Washington, as well as other dysfunctional cesspools of liberal gibberish (like our dear colleague's mind) , eliminating an unnecessary, potential future give-way of taxpayers' money is somehow viewed as a cut.

On the subject of balancing municipal, state and federal budgets, the fact of the matter is that not only can all these budgets be brought into balance through spending cuts alone, that is exactly how they should be fixed. The severity of the cuts to discretionary spending (i.e. elective spending) is directly related to the amount of money committed to non-discretionary spending (payments they must make). All of the payments to retired employees who are no longer contributing to the entity (i.e. they are not exchanging services or other things of value in exchange for the cash that they receive) under retirement benefits are non-discretionary expenses (they must pay them come hell or high water). Therefore, if the government entity is paying lots of retired, former employees to do absolutely nothing, then there is less money available in the budget for discretionary spending.

If there isn't enough discretionary dough around for all your pet projects, stop the practice of paying people for not contributing.

Jackson

01-11-11, 17:25

...stop the practice of paying people for not contributing.But that's one of the core tenets of liberal philosophy!

Westy

01-11-11, 19:18

Esten

01-12-11, 02:07

Quick question. What's the first thing that comes to mind in response to the following:

Where does a lot of the anti-government rhetoric come from in this country?

It's not tough to guess what many people would say. And so there is some plausibility to the sheriff's comments, whether he be singling out Limbaugh or any other number of individuals or groups of his ilk.

I bring this up only in response to El Alamo's recent posts, which parallel too strongly this story in the media to not point out. Just two days ago he went on a rant against politicians in Washington (like many in this thread have before). And then (like the right wing media) attempts to marginalize someone who suggests there could be a connection between hostile anti-government rhetoric and violence against politicians. It may not be true in the case of this nutjob in Tucson, but it is certainly a broader legitimate question worth serious discussion.

Esten

01-12-11, 03:08

Every proposal I've ever seen for any kind of national sales tax has always included the government sending a monthly rebate check to every citizen in the amount of the estimated sales tax paid on the first portion of their purchases every month. For example, if the national sales tax was 20%, then the government might send a monthly check in the amount of $200 to every person in the country to reimburse them for the national sales tax that they paid on their first $1,000 of purchases in the previous month. This is specifically intended to "curve" the tax burden by reimbursing low income individuals so that they effectively pay no national sales tax.Jackson,

Thank you for that highly relevant detail on the rebate check (prebate). I enjoy some research and fact checking, and have begun to study this "Fair Tax" in more detail. I will report back later. It looks like it may not be so bad for the poor, and possibly even beneficial. In fact it looks like it might benefit everyone. Are you a supporter of this "Fair Tax", and how do you explain it appears to potentially benefit everyone, while still raising the same revenue as the taxes it replaces?

What kind of poll is that? Asking people if they are in favor of someone else Paying the country's entire tax burden? Yea, that's certainly an unbiased poll regarding "fair" tax.

"Democracy is not 9 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. "What kind of poll is it - the kind of poll that can and often does influence politics and policy. It is "we the people" deciding what services they want from their government and how it should be paid for. Some may not agree with the decisions that are made, but that is democracy. What's your proposal for how decisions should be made?

El Alamo

01-12-11, 07:12

While liberal politicians may be role models for wasteful spending, we need to spread the blame

In the memorable words of Clinton

"It is not the liberal politicians that worry me. What worries me are the lazy, uneducated masses that vote for them"

Clinton also sagely counseled liberals to be careful what they say. His reasoning was "the left can't compete in the arena of ideas so we must try to limit free speech."

Member #4112

01-12-11, 15:08

Esten, I don't recall a lot of "We The People" take on the outcome of the November elections from you are the Left Wing Media. So let's not get so high and mighty with the phrase. As I recall November Elections and the Tea Party pretty much said enough spending, taxing and debt. Cut Baby Cut!

Let's start with no more assistance for illegal immigrants in any form. Then move on to paring down Welfare and the associated government agencies providing it, then we can move on to Medicaid and let the states work it out not the Fed's unfunded mandates to the states. That would be a good start. Just MHO.

Wild Walleye

01-12-11, 21:02

Quick question. What's the first thing that comes to mind in response to the following:

Where does a lot of the anti-government rhetoric come from in this country? Leftist radicals, for the most part. Then there are some extremist like the Montana Freemen, who espouse something akin to libertarianism on steroids (the bad kind).

Never would I, or any reasonably intelligent individual, think "conservatives."

If you look at history, of the three groups mentioned above: leftists, conservatives and plain old whackos, guess who has most often and recently taken up arms against the US? I guess that is ok though sincve our current President is buddies with Bill Aires (clearly not one of the Buenos Aires.).

It's not tough to guess what many people would say.It isn't tough to say anything. It is a little more challenging to be correct in one's statements. I certainly understand why you are unfamiliar with that sensation.

And so there is some plausibility to the sheriff's comments, whether he be singling out Limbaugh or any other number of individuals or groups of his ilk.There is absolutely no plausible explanation for the sheriff's comments other than pure, liberal exploitation of human tragedy. The shooter's best friend has gone on record that this moron couldn't find talk radio if his dick was an AM receiver.

I bring this up only in response to El Alamo's recent posts, You only bring this up because you are a hopeless, hapless liberal willing to believe the worst about everyone else and unwilling to put any thought or intellect into your posts.

which parallel too strongly this story in the media to not point out.Does it matter to you that the media, thanks to its slavish devotion to the left, got this wrong? Just like they did with Oklahoma and everything else? Why show restraint in not jumping to conclusions about Fort Hood when within two hours of the bullets flying in Tuscon, liberal hacks were blaming talk radio?

Just two days ago he went on a rant against politicians in Washington (like many in this thread have before). And then (like the right wing media) attempts to marginalize someone who suggests there could be a connection between hostile anti-government rhetoric and violence against politicians.Just like a liberal to believe that only right wingers are a threat when history shows that the left is responsible for almost every violent attack from within against the US.

It may not be true in the case of this nutjob in Tucson, but it is certainly a broader legitimate question worth serious discussion.Not unless you are willing to take of the blinders and participate in an open discussion. Otherwise, you should just save your breath.

Esten

01-13-11, 02:00

Good speech by Obama. Remember what I said before about him moving to the center and being increasingly seen as a president above the polarity of the two parties. His approval rating has been touching the 50% mark recently and I would not be surprised to see it go above 50% soon. On a "days in office" basis he is trending better than Clinton and Reagan.

WW- I would never say the left does not also sometimes contribute to divisive or even hateful rhetoric. If you want to argue the left contributes more anti-rich or anti-big business rhetoric than the right, I would not disagree. But you are flat out wrong if you think the right has not been the biggest contributor to anti-government rhetoric in the recent past.

Of interest Gallup just did a poll on whether Americans think political rhetoric played a factor in the AZ shootings. Add "Major Factor" and "Minor Factor", and compare with "Not a Factor". Across All Americans it's an equal split. But when broken down by party affiliation you see clear differences of opinion between Dems and Repubs.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145556/Doubt-Political-Rhetoric-Major-Factor-Ariz-Shootings.aspx

While liberal politicians may be role models for wasteful spending, we need to spread the blame.

In the memorable words of Clinton

"It is not the liberal politicians that worry me. What worries me are the lazy, uneducated masses that vote for them"

Clinton also sagely counseled liberals to be careful what they say. His reasoning was "the left can't compete in the arena of ideas so we must try to limit free speech. "I don't think Clinton said those things, but here is something he did Say about the GOP when they unveiled their 'Pledge to America' (which he aptly called an ideological document) :

"They don't know that the model for success in the 21st century is a vigorous private sector, an effective government, a partnership, not these hysterical tirades against government.".

El Alamo

01-13-11, 09:01

We should throw in the towel and raise the white flag if our country is berift of concern about the frankenstein our government has become.

There is a better correlation between solar activity, the price of rice in China and the divorce rate in Timbuktu than there is between talk radio and the events in Tucson.

However, this doesn't stop the wantabe dictators of the looney left from using this opportunity to limit free speech and freedom of assembly and encourage us to become a nation of sheep.

Why doesn't the looney left come out and say what they really want: A President named Chavez, Castro or Kim Jong II (feel free to replace the names Chavez, Castro or Kim Jong 11 with whatever looney lefty is railing against freedom of speech and freedom of assembly)

P.S. Here´s a hot one. Obama wants more civil discussions. The translation of this mumble jumble is that Obama wants discussions where criticism of the government is prohibited (welcome to the land of Lenin, Stalin, Mao y Pol Pot)

Jackson

01-13-11, 15:07

There is a better correlation between solar activity, the price of rice in China and the divorce rate in Timbuktu than there is a correlation between talk radio and the events in Tucson.You just know that the left wing media was waiting in eager anticipation to learn that the perpetrator of the tragedy in Tucson was a Tea Party member.

Sorry Charlie! The facts in this case indicate that Loughner never listened to talk radio, never watched cable news, and in fact apparently had no political agenda.

Of course, the left wing pundits didn't let these facts get in the way of exploiting this tragedy to serve their own political agenda.

Rahm Emanuel on Nov 21, 2008: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

FYI, statistically, the large majority of politically motivated acts of violence have been perpetrated by individuals of leftist beliefs.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

01-13-11, 18:53

The left wing media is quick to blame Fox News, Rush and Sara for 'hate speech' and inciting acts of violence.

How quickly the left wing media forgets their constant rants for 8 years when Bush was president. The level of vile speech and images depicting violence against Bush and the Republicans is far and away greater than anything Obama / Democrats have experienced in the last 2 plus years. There is no compairson no matter how you spin it.

If we were to take what the left wing media is saying now about the conservatives now and apply it to them during the Bush years it is a wonder Bush escaped alive! Guess it is the double standard again.

Those wonderful peace loving liberals were going to convert you even if they had to beat your brains out with a 2X4 to do it. Jackson is right – the fastest way to get killed is to cross a peace loving liberal!

WorldTravel69

01-13-11, 23:29

They were right.

8 years of fucking up the country.

Now we have to bail you out!

The left wing media is quick to blame Fox News, Rush and Sara for 'hate speech' and inciting acts of violence.

How quickly the left wing media forgets their constant rants for 8 years when Bush was president. The level of vile speech and images depicting violence against Bush and the Republicans is far and away greater than anything Obama / Democrats have experienced in the last 2 plus years. There is no comparison no matter how you spin it.

If we were to take what the left wing media is saying now about the conservatives now and apply it to them during the Bush years it is a wonder Bush escaped alive! Guess it is the double standard again.

Those wonderful peace loving liberals were going to convert you even if they had to beat your brains out with a 2X4 to do it. Jackson is right – the fastest way to get killed is to cross a peace loving liberal!

Stan Da Man

01-14-11, 20:14

They were right.

8 years of fucking up the country.

Now we have to bail you out! Don't do us any more favors, please. In two years, Dems have managed to spend so much that the entire country's debt rating is now in question.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/business/economy/14place.html?_r=1

But, of course, Moody's, S&P, and the bondholders who will refuse to refinance our debt are all partisans, too. Hey, at least all that spending kept unemployment under 8 percent, just like the President's team promised.

Thank goodness for the mid-terms. We'd be far worse than Greece with another two years of that Congress. Unfortunately, it's going to take longer than two years to undo the damage wrought by one-party control, especially since that one party still controls the Senate and the Presidency.

At least the Dems were smart enough not to re-elect Nancy Pelosi. Oh wait, they not only re-elected her, she's still their leader along with Harry Reed, even after the biggest mid-term shellacking in a generation. Those who don't learn from their mistakes. . . .

Member #3320

01-15-11, 09:20

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/14-states-may-target-birthright-citizenship

Mongers-

I just encountered this article on yahoo news concerning the status of children born to illegal immigrants in the United States. My opinion on this matter is that it is about time that some level of government do something to deal with this clearly out of control situation. Children born to LEGAL immigrants, meaning those holding permanent residency papers should automatically be granted birthright citizenship. Children born to ILLEGAL immigrants or visitors temporarily in the United States on either tourist, work or other non-immigrant visas should absolutely not be given birthright citizenship. If I had just happened to be born in Switzerland while my parents just happened to be working there I would NOT have been granted citizenship. In addition, when foreigners enter US medical facilities they should be required to demonstrate their legal presence in the country (entry stamp on passport, green card, copy of student, work, or other visa etc) OR face automatic arrest and deportation AFTER medical services are administered. In addition, in order to attend public schools, proof of LEGAL residency for non-US citizens should be required. These measures would lessen the incentive for potential illegal immigrants to live, work, and have families in the United States illegally. If the US government were to give amnesty and automatic permanent residency to any illegal immigrants currently in the national territory provided they present proper identity documents and can pass a criminal background check in their home country as well as the USA I would not have a problem with that. But the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Suerte,

Rock HardersNormally, I never comment on this thread as I am not a US citizen or a resident. But I was simply SHOCKED to read the above note! Why so much hatred for the immigrants? Isn't this a fact, just that some people are born in a country with a favorable passport which allows him/her to go and live/work any where of his choice. While the poor illegal immigrant with a unfavorable passport is treated like shit and has to look for ways to travel to another country where he/she would like to work and live!

So it all ultimately boils down to citizenship and the passport one holds on to! And henceforth the illegal immigrant or even a tourist uses the "citizenship by birth" option for his/her child in order that the child does not have to face the hardships which his/her parents did, because he/she was born in a country with a Tier 4 passport.

So this point of view above, which you are 100% entitled to, shocks me simply because, this is despite the fact that you guys are currently living in a country that welcomes foreigners with open arms unlike the US.

Same approach is in places like Hong Kong and Singapore; these are two countries where just about every nationality on the planet can enter without a visa. The need of the hour is to have a more relaxed police with visas/work permits/investment visas/ retirement visas etc for the US to open doors for the new immigrants wannabe.

Propping the door wide open for foreigners provides significant economic benefits; people are more likely to visit (and spend their money) in a place where they are treated well, and they’re more likely to do business in a place where they feel comfortable. You guys on this forum are great examples!

The exact opposite end of the spectrum is the United States… and to a growing degree, the UK. Foreigners who arrive to the US are subjected to discourteous, disrespectful measures and made to feel like lowlife criminal terrorists.

For many, it’s an absolutely horrific experience. Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Patrol division takes itself way too seriously, and its uniformed chimpanzees are convinced of their own righteousness… that their actions are actually defending the homeland.

Rather than wasting taxpayer ( you guys) dollars such nonsense, the US government should be rolling out the red carpet for all nationalities with welcome signs saying “Thank you for spending your hard earned savings in our economy… and while you’re at it, please consider mopping up our excess housing inventory!”

I mention housing because it’s such a massive problem; the latest census data shows that there are 19 million vacant homes in the US… and climbing. There are only a handful of ways to clear out this surplus.

First, the country can wait it out until a new generation of Americans ( your kids?) comes of age, moves away from mom, and establishes a new household. Given the country’s anemic growth rate over the last decade, this option will take years. And years.

Second, the excess inventory could be consumed by a sudden surge in Americans’ wealth that sends them on a shopping spree for second and third homes.

Considering that the government has spent a few trillion dollars to create a few hundred thousand temporary and low-paying jobs, however, this seems unlikely.

Third, foreigners could provide the much-needed influx of people and capital that are required to purchase and fill the surplus of homes. Given the way that the government has so distastefully mistreated foreigners over the last several years, however, those cries would likely fall on deaf ears.

Just ten to fifteen years ago, if the US housing market had been in a similar situation, foreigners from all over the world would have been lining up to buy cheap property in the states; there was no greater status symbol than having a home in New York, San Francisco, or Florida.

Today, foreigners understand that the world is a big place, and that there are dozens of other countries that will treat them like human beings, and offer attractive incentives to boot.

Though the immigrants from 3rd world countries are still heading for the US, the smart ones understand that their are other opportunities outside the US.

Meanwhile, the US government will continue to treat visitors like criminals, scare citizens about terrorist threats, and wrap itself up in a blanket of righteousness… all while failing to realize that instead of protecting the homeland, these policies take an active role in the destruction of the economy.

Westy

01-15-11, 12:56

Captain, I don't agree with you entirely, but you bring up some good points that I can't refute. All the same, there are some circumstances and events behind the behavior that you're condemning; I don't offer them as defense of that behavior, but the people behaving that way would use them as "excuses".

Let's address the TSA and Homeland Security. I'll start my "explanation" with a question: When was the last time somebody hijacked airliners and crashed them deliberately into buildings in one of your country's largest cities? Or when somebody tried to blow up an airliner flying into your country?

The Department of Homeland Security was hauled together in response to 9-11-2001, and continues by "virtue" of our nation's government perceiving itself as running around with a big bullseye painted on its backside. Their increasingly-intrusive restrictions are responses to increasingly-subtle attacks: box-cutters, explosives in shoes, liquid explosives in soda bottles, explosives sewn into undergarments. I don't say this to defend or justify their actions or the policies behind them. But any nation has the obligation to defend its people and its territory from attack, or at least has to be perceived as defending its people and territory from attack.

What's the answer of "officialdom," of our elected representatives in Congress?"To The Barricades!" Put a whole lot of security, scanners, sniffers, pat-downs, in front of the gates to the airplane. But don't be caught "profiling", you have to treat Grandma and little Susie the same way you treat the nervous young man with the Muslim name and Middle Eastern passport. Otherwise you're "violating the rights of minorities" and that will get the Government sued in court.

As for the "uniformed chimpanzees," they have got a miserable job at the point-position of this obnoxious and intrusive "homeland security" system. I don't like having my toys groped, at least not by "officialdom"; but how would you like the job of doing these "enhanced pat-downs" on a Federally-mandated proportion of air travelers, every goddam day? I'm actually sorry for the poor sods.

Is the USA going about this the wrong way? Could be. But our elected nobility can go back to the pee-pul and say,"Look at all we're doing to protect you! Those rotten terrorists won't get by us NEXT time!"

As I said, not defense, just an explanation of "excuses."