American Politics during the Obama Presidency [Archive] - Page 11

Jackson

01-15-11, 14:09

Captain,

Your pious attitude regarding US Immigration policy is most amusing when compared to India's position regarding the illegal immigration into India from Bangladesh over the years.

Here's a partial quote from wikipedia:

In Assam, agitation against immigrants started as early as 1979, led by All Assam Students Union. Their demand was to put a stop on the influx of immigrants and deportation of those who have already settled. It gradually took violent form and ethnic violence started between Assamese and Bengalis, mostly Muslim. It eventually led to the infamous Nellie massacre in 1983 due to a controversy over the 1983 election. In 1985 Indian Government signed the Assam accord with the leaders of the agitation to stop the issue. As per the accord India started building a fence along the Assam-Bangladesh border which is now almost complete.

From: Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_in_India

Here's a couple more for you:

http://mishingrenaissance.blogspot.com/2008/08/bangladeshi-illegal-infiltration-north.html

http://www.ukasian.co.uk/blog/103/demographic-invasion-of-assam-by-bangladeshi-muslim-immigrants/

So it would appear that many of your fellow countrymen do not share your stated "open borders" position, repeated as follows:

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.Thanks,

Jackson

Westy

01-15-11, 14:29

Technically, I think was 7-1/2 years of strong economic growth, and 6 months of "fucking up the country".

Of course, many people choose to focus on the last 6 months of the Bush presidency alone because it serves their political agenda, never mind that the Dems played a major roll in the events that caused the housing / mortgage bubble, but that too is ignored by some individuals while chanting their mantra that Bush alone "fuck[ed] up the country".

Thanks,

JacksonHow dare you contaminate these highly emotional issues with FACTS?

And it's even worse to regard them LOGICALLY!

No, no, no, you are supposed to strike out BLINDLY against the Eee-vils of the Other Side!

The Democrats are going to see problems as "the fault of those dirty Republicans." The Republicans are going to see problems as "the fault of those dirty Democrats." Both sides are going to wave their arms and holler at each other, and steadfastly IGNORE any dirty laundry on their own side of the aisle. It's the Amurrican Way.

Rock Harders

01-15-11, 15:22

Jackson-

The simple fact about the Bush Administration is that he (they) were handed a massive federal budget SURPLUS and managed to turn it into an even more massive budget DEFICIT. He (they) engaged the US in two opened ended wars which will NEVER have the desired outcome and which are still ongoing and are still draining the federal coffers. The easy sleazy credit that the Bush Administration put into place after the post-9/11 mini recession was responsible for the so-called growth you are referring to; this was in fact not growth at all, just a giant bubble that burst at the end of his (their) administration. The vast majority of US citizens were worse off at the end of the Bush Administration than they were when it began. The economy, and country as a whole, were indisputably worse off at the end than they were at the beginning of the Bush Administration.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Member #3320

01-15-11, 15:32

Captain,

Please learn the difference between the word "Tourist" and the word "Immigrant".

The members of this forum whom you referred to who moved to Argentina are legal immigrants.

An "illegal immigrant" is an individual who has in fact moved into a country surreptitiously, without the permission of that country, and in complete disregard for it's laws.

Illegal immigrants are criminals.

Get it?

Thank you,

JacksonMr Jackson,

I do understand the difference between a immigrant and a tourist ( its not Rocket science after all). From what I know their are both legal immigrants and tourists participating on this forum. And I guess all are accepted with open arms here. In fact the illegal immigrants from Bolivia and Paraguay are also treated pretty well here. Many of them end up getting legal papers eventually.

I do not (personally) agree that a illegal immigrant is a "criminal" similar to a "criminal" who becomes a criminal in literal meaning of the word. Many times he / she (illegal immigrant) is just desperate to relocate to a place where he / she can make a living by working hard in a country where their may be more opportunities than his own. And by the virtue of the passport he / she holds, he / she may not be allowed to. This is pretty harsh as compared to citizens of first world countries with tier 1 passports who can walk in just about any country in the world and many times just stay put there or use the 3 month exit rule to do visa exits every 3 months and live "legally" there for rest of his life.

In the above described scenario, the only difference between the "criminal immigrant" and the "first world passport holder immigrant" is the difference in the passports they hold by virtue of where they were born!

And hence to break free from this bad luck allocated by virtue of one's birth place, its fair enough the illegal immigrants or the tourists or those on work visas should endeavor that at least children break free from this.

I know you would not agree with this. Its just my viewpoint.

Thanks

Jackson

01-15-11, 19:31

In fact the illegal immigrants from Bolivia and Paraguay are also treated pretty well here. Many of them end up getting legal papers eventually.If that's the immigration law that the Argentines want to enact and enforce, then that's their right.

Many times he / she (illegal immigrant) is just desperate to relocate to a place where he / she can make a living by working hard in a country where their may be more opportunities than his own.First, that's not a justification for violating the laws of another country, and second, perhaps they should be exerting their energies towards improving their own country.

BTW, how are all those illegal Bangladeshiins in Assam working out for the Indian people? Did the border fence the Indians built eventually work?

In the above described scenario, the only difference between the "criminal immigrant" and the "first world passport holder immigrant" is the difference in the passports they hold by virtue of where they were born!No, the difference between those two groups is that one group is adhering to the laws enacted by the citizens of the host country, and the other group is willfully choosing to violate them.

Thanks,

Jackson

El Alamo

01-15-11, 19:38

Esten

01-16-11, 02:09

Any business that perpetualy loses money is forced to close its doors.

Individuals who spend more than they earn become insolvent.

Businesses and individuals usually get their houses in order. Not by spending more but by spending less.

However, this does not apply to the Frankenstein called government.

The issue is not a lack of taxes, the issue is spending money like drunken sailors.

And who are the most vocal proponents of this reckless spending. You guessed it. People not paying taxes and the liberal politicians pandering to them. Their brains are programmed to say dame, dame, dame- give me, give me, give me. Just like an 8 track tape playing the same music over and over again. The top spending cut chosen was "Reduce Social Security for wealthy" at 63%.

The question on taxes which got 9% support was a generic "Pay more in taxes". There was another choice "Both" (cut spending and raise taxes) for combined 18% support for tax increases. Still a low number, but this poll is lacking.

Such a non-specific question on taxation fails to delve into details on whether some forms of taxation may be preferred over others. Last week I posted another poll showing 61% support for raising taxes on the wealthy. Taking both polls together, most Americans think it is appropriate to shift wealth away from the wealthy.

This is the single most important thing we can do in the US - transfer more of the economic burden to the rich. And it is entirely justified because the wealthy have received the vast majority of new wealth in this country for decades.

El Alamo

01-16-11, 05:18

The next time Warren Buffet takes over a company which is nearly bankrupt thanks to out of control spending and noncompetetive products Warren might benefit from Esten's business plan.

Straightaway

1) increase the out of control spending, and

2) raise the prices of the noncompetetive products.

This should put the company out of its misery in quick order.

Jackson

01-16-11, 14:26

And it is entirely justified because the wealthy have received the vast majority of new wealth in this country for decades.Once again, you are incorrect.

In America, it is the Middle Class that has "received the vast majority of new wealth in this country for decades".

That's right, America's middle class has seen their individual wealth, and their total percentage of the country's overall wealth, increase dramatically in the past 100 years.

In other words, in the past century, America's middle class has seen dramatic increases in their standard of living, and since their numbers vastly outnumber the "rich", the combined wealth of America's middle class greatly exceeds the combined wealth of the "rich".

Please check the stats before you start spewing socalist propaganda.

Esten, just like WW said, you're "like a bird that keeps flying into a window", and I'm starting to think it's because you preceive that all the "wealth" is just on the other side of the pane.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

01-16-11, 14:36

This was so sad that it was funny.

It's a 3 minute interview between a liberal caller and a radio talk show host regarding illegal immigration.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Here's a prime example of who voted Obama and the rest of the psychologically disturbed Democrats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiGYIicuAns&NR=1

Canitasguy

01-16-11, 17:29

America' s middle class has seen their individual wealth, and their total percentage of the country's overall wealth, increase dramatically. Jackson's statement is akin to an Argentine saying "we are one of the richest countries in the world." It used to be true and then something changed!

The US Census Bureau official data tracks the nation's aggregate income for various segments of the population and the distribution of wealth. That data documents that Jackson is incorrect – not Esten – about income and wealth trends in the US.

Since the late 1960's, it is the wealthiest Americans who have seen their share of income and wealth increase dramatically, while the poor and the middle class have lost ground.

Here are the numbers, starting with aggregate share of annual incomes:

The percentage of aggregate income that went to the poorest fifth of Americans fell from 4 percent in 1967 to 3. 4 percent in 2008 – a drop of 15 percent.

The percentage that went to the fifth of Americans in the lower middle class fell from 10. 8% in 1967 to 8. 6% in 2008 – a drop of 20. 3 percent.

The percentage that went to the fifth of Americans in middle class fell from 17. 3% in 1967 to 14. 7% in 2008 – a drop of 15 percent.

The percentage that went to the fifth of American in the upper middle class fell from 24. 3% in 1967 to 23. 3% in 2008 – a drop of 4 percent.

While, the wealthiest fifth of American income earners saw their share increase from 43. 6% in 1967 to 50% in 2008 – an increase of 15 percent.

Like the trends in the share of national income, over the past 4 decades, the wealthiest has garnered more of the nation's wealth, at the expense of everybody else.

Here are the numbers on wealth distribution:

Between 1969 and 2007, the share of American wealth owned by the lowest 99% fell 5 percent, while the share of the wealthiest 1% rose 11 percent.

In 1969, the bottom 99% of Americans owned 68. 9% of the nation's wealth, while the top 1% owned 31. 1 percent. In 2007, the bottom 99% of Americans owned 65. 4, while the wealthiest 1% owned 34. 6 percent.

The Great Recession is significantly reinforcing the negative trends for poor and middle class Americans, while the investor class is doing very well – thank you very much. Job losses, falling real estate values, diminished savings and so on have moved millions of Americans out of the middle class into poverty – and not because they are lazy slugs!

OF COURSE FACTS ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR IDEOLOGY!

Rev BS

01-17-11, 01:23

Captain,

Please learn the difference between the word "Tourist" and the word "Immigrant".

A tourist is an individual who is visiting a country on a temporary basis, with the permission of that country, and in accordance with its laws.

Tourists are not immigrants.

An immigrant is an individual who is or has permanently moved into a country, with the permission of that country, and in accordance with its laws.

The members of this forum whom you referred to who moved to Argentina are legal immigrants.

An "illegal immigrant" is an individual who has in fact moved into a country surreptitiously, without the permission of that country, and in complete disregard for its laws.

Illegal immigrants are criminals.

Get it?

Thank you,

JacksonHad you been born a few miles south of the border, you could easily have been the sous chef for a well known NY restaurent, not sitting under the catus in Chihuahua. However, you will still be a illegal immigrant.

Of course, you will deny that you wlll ever break any US immigration laws and that youu will remain in Mexico and try to improve that country's economic conditions. Talk is cheap until your children is going hungry every night.

WorldTravel69

01-17-11, 03:15

Sorry, Jackson how did I miss this one.

'Tourist."

As You Say.

I LOVE THIS WORD.

We are All Tourists.

"The World goes on, We are only here for a short stay. WE ARE TOURISTS."

Jackson Get a Massage from Nailea / Patricia. I Will Pay.
You Need One!!

Mr Jackson,

I do understand the difference between a immigrant and a tourist (its not Rocket science after all). From what I know their are both legal immigrants and tourists participating on this forum. And I guess all are accepted with open arms here. In fact the illegal immigrants from Bolivia and Paraguay are also treated pretty well here. Many of them end up getting legal papers eventually.

I do not (personally) agree that a illegal immigrant is a "criminal" similar to a "criminal" who becomes a criminal in literal meaning of the word. Many times he / she (illegal immigrant) is just desperate to relocate to a place where he / she can make a living by working hard in a country where their may be more opportunities than his own. And by the virtue of the passport he / she holds, he / she may not be allowed to. This is pretty harsh as compared to citizens of first world countries with tier 1 passports who can walk in just about any country in the world and many times just stay put there or use the 3 month exit rule to do visa exits every 3 months and live "legally" there for rest of his life.

In the above described scenario, the only difference between the "criminal immigrant" and the "first world passport holder immigrant" is the difference in the passports they hold by virtue of where they were born!

And hence to break free from this bad luck allocated by virtue of one's birth place, its fair enough the illegal immigrants or the tourists or those on work visas should endeavor that at least children break free from this.

I know you would not agree with this. Its just my viewpoint.

Thanks

El Alamo

01-17-11, 04:40

Personally, I don't know why we have controls at our borders in the first place. In fact, why do we have borders? Aren't we all one human family. Come and go as we please. As John Lennon said 'ímagine there are no countries, no borders too'

It is time we become good citizens of the world. It is time we realize that whoever wants to live in the United States has a right to live in the United States. It is especially important we make a special effort to attract drug dealers, gangsters. convicted felons, terrorists and the mentally challenged - especially the unstable mentally challenged with fully loaded, locked and ready automatic weapons in their luggage.

It is our duty to share our health care, welfare, food stamps, child care, educational system (including free rides to the Ivy League college of their choice) and, just for good measure, voting rights with the world. Isn't that what being an American is all about?

And for crying out loud, let's not be cheap about it. The least we can do is use taxpayer money to insure that our guests (me bad, new citizens of the USA) arrive rested and in comfort. I say free first class airfare (one way of course, we wouldn't want them to leave) and at least a free weeks stay (OK, a free 6 month stay with an additional free 6 month option) at the 5 star hotel of their choice. Unlimited free outcall from top escort services and free junkets to Disney World go without saying.

I have no doubt that the citizens of the United States will gladly throw child labor laws under the bus as well as put in 80 hours work weeks at half the minimum wage, forego all vacations and holidays (don´t even think about taking a weekend off) and donate another 20 hours of unpaid weekly overtime to fund this venture. It is the least we can do and I have personal assurances from more than 99% of unions that they are fully onboard with this plan.

I don't know about the rest of you but I am on the verge of foregoing my retirement and working until the day I die to insure that every citizen of the world has the opportunity to live in the United States.

In fact, I am toying with the idea of eliminating alltogether the concept of vacations, holidays, weekends and retirement in the United States. We should all be overjoyed at the prospect of working everyday for the rest of our lifes in order that every creature in the world has the opportunity to live in the United States.

You may say,
I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day
You'll join us
And the world will live as one

Member #3320

01-17-11, 11:08

We should all be overjoyed at the prospect of working everyday for the rest of our lifes in order that every creature in the world has the opportunity to live in the United States.

Very funny rhetoric indeed. Had a nice laugh after a very very long time. I am not sure that the smart world citizens are looking for such an opportunity when they very well know there are far better pastures, many times in their own backyard.

Jackson

01-17-11, 14:45

Talk is cheap until your children is going hungry every night.That's a tragic situation.

Here's an idea: Don't have children you can't afford to feed.

Jackson

01-17-11, 15:03

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? There are a number of benefits to consider in the concept of migrating from the income tax and to a national sales tax, among them:

1. First, and to me the most important, is that we STOP the class warfare which so bitterly divides our country as it pits one group against another as one side tries to get "the other guys" to pay all of the country's tax burden.

2. We eliminate the annual "confession" in the form of the income tax return, and thus we restore some of our personal freedoms and our right to privacy.

3. The underground economy will no longer avoid paying taxes, and thus we'll have a whole new group of tax contributors.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #3320

01-17-11, 15:52

Don't have children you can't afford to feed.I concur 100% on that. Been shouting this from rooftop, but the world is NOT listening!

Slipknot

01-17-11, 19:01

That's a tragic situation.

Here's an idea: Don't have children you can't afford to feed. And provide clothes, medical attention, education, safe and clean place to live, etc.

Member #4112

01-17-11, 19:33

A Republican governor came up with a novel idea, say NO to increasing the Federal debt ceiling and here is the novel part – prioritize spending. (Well it's not all that novel since it's been around the business world for a long time but it is novel for the Federal Government).

Just think NO defaults on current debt, NO government shut down, NO to all of Timmy G's boogieman stories. You service the current debt, make payroll ect and you suspend spending on project which have not started (read Stimulus et al here) , you stop increasing spending on current programs, you scrap the crap (foreign aid to folks who hate us maybe?) and DON'T SPEND the money in the first place. It will work. I know the liberals are going to have a conniption fit, but getting out of this mess is not going to be without pain and it's time we start.

Get ready for China to give it to Obama up the old Hershey Highway this week on trade and currency imbalance issues. Did you catch the Chinese Big Boys calling the Dollar based economic system outdated and stating the new world financial system should be based on China's currency?

If Obama really wanted to get tough all he has to do is start targeting Chinese goods with tariffs which would bring their prices in line and negate China's manipulation of its currency. It would have a secondary effect of making American goods more competitive at home, increasing domestic production and growing the economy (It JOBS, STUPID) JIMHO

Westy

01-18-11, 00:31

Unfortunately, to a politician the only "job" that means anything is his / her own. The siren song of Being In Charge drowns out anything the "little people" might be saying. This is especially important when you're speaking of a political party-line that prizes emotion over reason,"dreams" over reality, and "hope" over fiscal prudence.

I've been reading David Kahn's The Codebreakers, and I found an interesting quote that was talking about a much different political crisis over fifty years ago. It seems to me it applies today, and every day:

"No human being has ever had difficulty in finding an excuse to overlook an unpleasant fact."

A Republican governor came up with a novel idea, say NO to increasing the Federal debt ceiling and here is the novel part – prioritize spending. (Well it's not all that novel since it's been around the business world for a long time but it is novel for the Federal Government).

Just think NO defaults on current debt, NO government shut down, NO to all of Timmy G's boogieman stories. You service the current debt, make payroll ect and you suspend spending on project which have not started (read Stimulus et al here) , you stop increasing spending on current programs, you scrap the crap (foreign aid to folks who hate us maybe?) and DON'T SPEND the money in the first place. It will work. I know the liberals are going to have a conniption fit, but getting out of this mess is not going to be without pain and it's time we start.

Get ready for China to give it to Obama up the old Hershey Highway this week on trade and currency imbalance issues. Did you catch the Chinese Big Boys calling the Dollar based economic system outdated and stating the new world financial system should be based on China's currency?

If Obama really wanted to get tough all he has to do is start targeting Chinese goods with tariffs which would bring their prices in line and negate China's manipulation of its currency. It would have a secondary effect of making American goods more competitive at home, increasing domestic production and growing the economy (It JOBS, STUPID) JIMHO

Esten

01-18-11, 01:23

Once again, you are incorrect.

In America, it is the Middle Class that has "received the vast majority of new wealth in this country for decades".

That's right, America's middle class has seen their individual wealth, and their total percentage of the country's overall wealth, increase dramatically in the past 100 years.

In other words, in the past century, America's middle class has seen dramatic increases in their standard of living, and since their numbers vastly outnumber the "rich", the combined wealth of America's middle class greatly exceeds the combined wealth of the "rich". Jackson,

This is not the argument. We all agree, the middle class grew and prospered over the past century and it is a great achievement of capitalism. However, most of this progress occured up until the 1970's, over which period upper income tax rates were at historic highs.

The argument is about what has happened over the past 3-4 decades.

Over this period, we had major tax cuts under two Republican presidents. And the data shows that over this period, the progress of the middle class has been anemic, while the rich have prospered tremendously. There are many economic stats and analyses that demonstrate this, I'll followup later whether this holds true on just a per-capita basis or also a total wealth basis. But review the following:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908

This data shows:
- Income gaps between the very rich and everyone else more than tripled in the last three decades.
- Between 1979 - 2007, after-tax income grew +25% for the middle fifth, +95% for the highest fifth, and +281% for the top 1%.
- Between 1979 - 2007, the share of after-tax income for the bottom four-fifths decreased from 58% to 48%, while the share for the top 1% increased from 7% to 17%.
- Between 1976 - 2007, economic gains between rich and all else were wildly lopsided compared with the more even growth experienced between 1946 - 1976.

Liberals recognize that the world has changed. Their opinions about the growth and negative consequences of economic inequality are based not on 'wealth envy' but on data, statistics and facts.

"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all Republics. "

Rev BS

01-18-11, 04:57

And provide clothes, medical attention, education, safe and clean place to live, etc.

I repeat, talk is cheap. We all know that the love of a father and mother has no limits to what they will sacrifice. In dysfunctional America, that is becoming extinct.

Member #4112

01-18-11, 14:36

El Alamo

01-18-11, 14:53

Shrinking the governemnt starts with US the taxpayer who funds it all. The people who will yell the loudest are the ones who are on the receiving end of all the benefits. Not the Taxpayer who pays the bill.

The polls are pretty clear, people want less spending and smaller government. Esten can only cobble together less than 18% by perverting a poll and then calling the poll flawed. Flawed because it does not come up with what you wanted to see no matter how you try to bend the numbers? Well said. Anyone paying taxes should wonder whether the recipient of those taxes are good stewards of their money. The answer is obvious. The government spends our money like drunken sailors. Only worse.

The issue is not income. If the government can not live on what it extorts from us it only emphasizes what fiscal morons they are. The issue is spending. The taxpayer probably receives less than 5 cents of value for every dollar extorted by the government.

I will say it here. Don't raise the debt ceiling. It will only encourage government to continue its wasteful spending. We used to call it tough love. Well, with the government there is no love involved. Now we we call it 'get the fuc* out of our wallets'.

P.S. The scare tactic against not raising the debt ceiling is that wasteful government spending is essential to the economy. What bull sh**.

Not raising the debt ceiling will not effect businesses. Businesses are fiscally conservative and have to be to survive. Businesses are probably as fiscally solvent now as they have ever been

Not raising the debt ceiling will not affect individuals. Individuals already know they cannot spend money they don´t have.

The only entity that will be affected by not raising the debt ceiling is that corpulent, obese, fat ridden 2000 pound slob known as the government.

´The business of America is business´ Calvin Coolidge. Let´s get lean and mean again and quit bowing to those #@$%$#*@&# Chinese.

Stan Da Man

01-19-11, 00:00

It's far too early to count chickens. Nonetheless, if one were to approximate chickens, this is a pretty good indication that Republicans will need to gain just 2-3 more seats in 2012 to take back the Senate. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/18/analysis_what_conrads_retirement_means_for_2012_108573.html

Dorgan's retirement means there are 22 other Dems who will be running in 2012, and only 10 Republican seats (including Hutchinson's). Translation: It will be very hard for Dems to make any gains, and much easier for Republicans to pick off, say. 10% of the remainder.

Esten

01-19-11, 01:41

Shrinking the governemnt starts with US the taxpayer who funds it all. The people who will yell the loudest are the ones who are on the receiving end of all the benefits. Not the Taxpayer who pays the bill.More conservative drivel. Benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare have plenty of support from taxpayers. Do you know why? Because taxpayers paid into those programs and expect them to be in place if and when they need them.

The polls are pretty clear, people want less spending and smaller government. Esten can only cobble together less than 18% by perverting a poll and then calling the poll flawed. Flawed because it does not come up with what you wanted to see no matter how you try to bend the numbers?No, adding 9% and 9% is not less than 18%, it's 18%. And it is not perversion, just simple addition of two separate groups which both favored raising taxes as part of their preferred approach to lowering deficits. Your arguments in the past were filled with errors, and I see nothing has changed.

That 18% becomes 33% when the poll question is if they are willing to pay more taxes, rather than what is their preferred approach.

Just so you know, nobody is disputing that most people want less spending. I am in that group as well.

But another key point is that most people want the rich to contribute more to balancing budgets. We saw that in the earlier poll showing 61% support for raising taxes on the rich (consistent with prior polls). And we saw that in El Alamo's poll showing 63% support for reducing Social Security for the rich.

The polls are clear on how Americans feel when asked about the rich. I have no need to distort them, they speak for themselves.

WorldTravel69

01-19-11, 06:23

El Alamo

01-19-11, 08:01

The simple fact about the Bush Administration is that he (they) were handed a massive federal budget SURPLUS and managed to turn it into an even more massive budget DEFICIT. He (they) engaged the US in two opened ended wars which will NEVER have the desired outcome and which are still ongoing and are still draining the federal coffers. The easy sleazy credit that the Bush Administration put into place after the post-9/11 mini recession was responsible for the so-called growth you are referring to; this was in fact not growth at all, just a giant bubble that burst at the end of his (their) administration. The vast majority of US citizens were worse off at the end of the Bush Administration than they were when it began. The economy, and country as a whole, were indisputably worse off at the end than they were at the beginning of the Bush Administration.

Suerte,

Rock HardersI have to admit that I am I complete agreement with Rock Harders. I don't think Bush could have fucked up anymore than he did. Especially with those 2 wars. I wish Obama would step up to the plate and pull the plug on that disaster called Afghanistan.

The interesting issue is why some people with conservative views vote for Democratic while others with a liberal leaning vote Republican. Probably the same reason some people are Yankee fans and others are Red Sox fans. We have three pasttimes that occupy the masses - sports, religion and politics. Take your pick.

And at the end of day it really doesn't matter who we elect because we never receive what we expect. Clinton turned out to be the most fiscally prudent president since Eisenhower. Bush spent money like a drunken sailor thanks to his compulsion (gracias a Cheney) to send troops to every corner of the globe.

Jackson

01-19-11, 14:16

It started at 1. 3 billion or less and did not end at trillions? Something like O'Bama's inherited 1. 3 trillion debt.

Or are You, Senile or Do You Have Alzheimer's? Just like Fox has a Racist Republican Policy, which is a Racist

Package,

The "Health Care Package for All" Is not the "O'Bama Health Care Package" as Fox Calls It.

What does it cost you to visit to an Argentine Doctor?

I went 3 or 4 times, and I paid US$35-40.

The USA has to pay 3-4 times more than Europe.

So many other posts in the last few days:It started at 1. 3 billion or less and did not end at trillions? Something like O'Bama's inherited 1. 3 trillion debt.

Or are You, Senile or Do You Have Alzheimer's? Just like Fox has a Racist Republican Policy, which is a Racist

Package,

The "Health Care Package for All" Is not the "O'Bama Health Care Package" as Fox Calls It.

What does it cost you to visit to an Argentine Doctor?

I went 3 or 4 times, and I paid US$35-40.

The USA has to pay 3-4 times more than Europe.

So many other posts in the last few days:

The simple fact about the Bush Administration is that he (they) were handed a massive federal budget SURPLUS and managed to turn it into an even more massive budget DEFICIT. He (they) engaged the US in two opened ended wars which will NEVER have the desired outcome and which are still ongoing and are still draining the federal coffers. The easy sleazy credit that the Bush Administration put into place after the post-9/11 mini recession was responsible for the so-called growth you are referring to; this was in fact not growth at all, just a giant bubble that burst at the end of his (their) administration. The vast majority of US citizens were worse off at the end of the Bush Administration than they were when it began. The economy, and country as a whole, were indisputably worse off at the end than they were at the beginning of the Bush Administration.

Rock HardersHello! Our country was ATTACKED on 9-11-01, remember? We were dragged into a war with an international organization that had vowed to attack us again, remember? Our economy was instantly paralyzed, remember?

Duh!

Thanks,

Jackson

Canitasguy

01-19-11, 18:13

Hello! Our country was ATTACKED on 9-11-01, remember? Our economy was instantly paralyzed, remember?

Duh!

Thanks,

JacksonIf you went back and researched the actual statistics on the impact of the 9/11 attacks on the US economy in late 2001 and into 2002, you would note they were minimal and of very short duration, even in New York City, with the exception of the area around ground zero.

The Bush decision to attack Iraq and create the money sucking, mostly useless Homeland Security behemoth is how he began the destruction of the sound fiscal inheritance that Clinton had bequeathed him. He completed the destruction with his tax cuts for the super-rich and a trillion dollar give away to big pharma disguised as a drug program for seniors.

You are a fucking idiot plain and simple who mouths foolish dogma and wouldn't know a fact, if one appeared in your bed one night. (This last comment is in keeping with the tradition of ad hominem attacks perfected by the right wing over recent years!)

Member #4112

01-19-11, 21:19

Stan Da Man

01-20-11, 15:24

For those interested, this is a pretty good early rundown of what's in store in the Senate in 2012:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/20/assessing_the_2012_senate_battlefield_108599.html

Regardless of what else happens, Democrats are extremely vulnerable there.

It is way too early to predict the outcomes of these elections. The link above just gives an early glimpse of which way some of the battlefields tilt. The jockeying will start in about 10 months as the primaries begin to gather steam, and the elections themselves are just a year after that.

As most already know, the effort to "repeal" ObamaCare outright is largely symbolic until after the next election. They may be able to kill individual pieces of it; they can delay and deny funding some of it; they might even get a vote on the individual mandate, which would be a huge win, but which would be met with a veto regardless. But, there's no shot at repealing all of it until after 2012. It may get struck down legally, but it won't be legislatively repealed before the next election.

The important thing, though, is to hold Democrats' feet to the fire so that they're held to account in 2012. The interesting thing will be to watch the squirming of those Democrats who are listed as "Vulnerable" or "Potentially Vulnerable" on that link. Their machinations and doublespeak will increase exponentially in relation to the proximity of the election, just as it did this last go-round.

Esten

01-21-11, 02:29

Esten, I have NEVER said Medicare or Social Security should be cut for the exact reason you stated, people paid in for the benefit. What I have said needed to be axed was MEDICAID and WELFARE, government vote garnering programs invented by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Esten, you and your liberal friends please keep your rose colored glasses on and remain in denial until after November 2012 and the conservatives sweep your folks in Washington from office. Even Democrats admit it was about cutting spending and shrinking government – at least the ones that are left. Get a grip big guyDoppel, I did not see where you weighed in before on Medicare and Social Security, but am glad to see we agree on this.

There is another poll out today with some fairly detailed questions about how to cut the deficit. Of interest, when asked about specific potential benefit changes to these two programs, the top choice among all groups (including Republicans) were for options where the rich take more of the burden. More evidence of this theme.

Top change to Medicare benefits: Raising the premiums high-income Medicare recipients have to pay.
Top change to Social Security benefits: Reducing benefits for Americans with higher incomes.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/20/us/poll-graphic.html

Again, liberals / Democrats agree spending cuts are important and are not against them. We will just differ on where the cuts should be made. You support cuts to Medicaid and Welfare, so let me ask you a question. I know one of the conservative arguments is that some people abuse these programs and don't take enough personal responsibility. But I'm sure you also recognize there are many honest, ethical people at the bottom of the economic ladder who are willing to work to get out of that situation but can't get a job that pays enough (especially in this economy where 5 people are competing for every job). So, you are perfectly fine with taking away benefits from people at the bottom of the ladder, and thereby likely increasing poverty, disease and death in this country, when there is an alternative i.e. a small tax increase on people who can afford it? You would rather protect tax cuts for the rich, than protect Americans who have fallen on hard times?

Member #4112

01-21-11, 08:20

You see Esten that is the difference between the Left & the Right, the answer to everything is more government and more taxes for the Left.

Let me see if I get this right, you want high income earners to pay more but take less from social security and medicare? How is that "fair"?

Now if I advocate cutting Medicaid and Welfare I want to push people into poverty and kill them? I love the logic. I know it has never occured to you if you took the benefit away they might actually get up and go do something when the checks stoped coming in?

The United States became the greatest power on earth, respected by our friends and feared by our foes without Welfare and Medicaid. These areas were left to states and private citizens or groups to take care of and we muddled through. Since Johnson's great society and the introduction of Welfare and its step child Medicaid I would argue we have declined as a nation since removing the need to work for what you get.

Let me give you one example of the "good" Welfare has done in the Black community, the very community it was intended to help! Check studies of the Black family unit and out of wedlock birth rate prior to 1965. Now look at those two items today. Yes all that "caring" has really helped nearly destroy one segment of our population and reduce it to dependency on the government. Great Job!

Jackson

01-21-11, 12:54

Let me see if I get this right, you want high income earners to pay more but take less from social security and medicare? How is that "fair"?DG,

You already know the liberal answer to this question: It's "fair" because 51% of the voters have decided that it's okay to take whatever they want from the other 49%.

Let me give you one example of the "good" Welfare has done in the Black community, the very community it was intended to help! Check studies of the Black family unit and out of wedlock birth rate prior to 1965. Now look at those two items today. Yes all that "caring" has really helped nearly destroy one segment of our population and reduce it to dependency on the government. Great Job!You already know the liberal answer to this one too, which is "These statistics would have been much worse if we had NOT enacted these programs.", an unprovable statement just like the liberal's claims about the effect of Obama's 1 trillion economic stimulus program.

Thanks,

Jackson

Stan Da Man

01-21-11, 15:09

The United States became the greatest power on earth, respected by our friends and feared by our foes without Welfare and Medicaid. These areas were left to states and private citizens or groups to take care of and we muddled through. Since Johnson's great society and the introduction of Welfare and its step child Medicaid I would argue we have declined as a nation since removing the need to work for what you get.No truer words ever were spoken.

1. Not so long ago, giving and support for the out-of-work and down-and-out were the responsibility of families, communities, civic and church groups. Those who "got" were appreciative and were expected to live up to their end of the bargain: Do what you can so you won't need support anymore. Usually, folks weren't asking for handouts. They were offering to do some work for something, anything, and folks reciprocated when they could.

2. Liberals took this out of their hands and put government in charge. As a consequence, there wasn't much of a social compact left, no quid pro quo,"I give and you'll do what you can to improve your situation."

3. As a result of #2, the groups in #1 no longer felt responsible for giving and support. Some still help out. But, it's viewed as government's responsibility.

4. As a result of #2, many of those on the dole have lost sight of their obligation to do what they can to improve their situation. What they "get" doesn't directly affect anyone else. It's just government money.

I hear this ALL the time on the radio when they're interviewing out-of-work folks. Classic examples are former employees of banks who used to make $100, 000 a year, but they're turning down jobs paying $60, 000 because they're waiting for something better to come along. Managers who used to make $60, 000 are turning down $17 hour jobs because they don't pay enough. They'd rather stay on the dole than do what they can to improve their situation. Most claim they're actively looking for work, but virtually all of them have been out of work for two years and won't lower themselves to do anything they view as menial work or below their former station in life. They view themselves as victims of the economy, which is the government's fault.

It is a problem, and it's an unintended albeit direct consequence of programs like medicaid, rent subsidies, food stamps and unemployment benefits. No one starts out life aspiring to be on these programs. But, once there, many find a comfortable existence. They don't thrive; they just survive. And, they come to view their job as figuring out how to work the system rather than figuring out how to get out of the system. When you get generations who have gone through life this way, then you've got a real problem. That's where we are now.

Stan Da Man

01-21-11, 15:26

There are many articles discussing the problems with ObamaCare. For anyone who's interested, this one's about the best succinct summary that I've seen regarding the phony "deficit reduction" argument being offered by Democrats: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257625/why-everything-starts-repeal-charles-krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer usually hits the nail on the head. The guy rarely misses.

Wild Walleye

01-22-11, 03:47

1. Obamacare increases the cost of healthcare for everyone.

2. Obamacare will stifle innovation in the healthcare field (including pharma)

3. The lying muther fuckers (I, e, democrats in the senate) that foisted this POS on us have to make a decision. That decision is 1) vote for it again (and guarantee defeat in 2012) or vote against it (draw the ire of the organized left.

4. Nationalized healthcare is the clarion call to lovers of those inalienable rights, imbued upon us, via the declaration of independence, to resist government usurpation of constitutionally guaranteed rights.

WorldTravel69

01-22-11, 05:37

IT IS Not O'bama CARE.

That sounds very Racist.

All parties agreed to It. It is A Health CARE FOR ALL, Package.

It would cost more to appeal it.

Use Guys need to Travel and Need some Heath CARE when you are there.

Like I said It was cheaper for me to see a Doctor in Buenos Aires than in the USA.

Oh, Cuba was Cheaper When I was there.

I BET MOST OF YOU HAVE NEVER LEFT THE USA.

Most of you most likely did not go to school after the 12th grade.

SCHOOL and learning is a LIFE TIME Session. YOU WILL NEVER STOP Learning and going to SCHOOL.

And if did not go and travel you will not know shit about the World Heath CARE of other Countries.

Only You That HAVE BEEN TO MORE THAN 70 COUNTRIES NEED ANSWER, As I Have Been.

Travel more Then express Your opinions.

I hear this same shit everyday on Radio free USA.

They have never left their HOUSE.

Jackson mentioned about 9-11.

The Terrorists were:

Most were Saudis.

No Afghans,

No Pakistanis,

NO Iraqis.

No WMDs.

WTF.

All of are boys lost for What?

OIL!

Same as Vietnam. A Waste.

This is a Sex Site, Not POLITICIAL SITE.

JACKSON shut down all the Political Threads!

1. Obamacare increases the cost of healthcare for everyone.

2. Obamacare will stifle innovation in the healthcare field (including pharma)

3. The lying muther fuckers (I, e, democrats in the senate) that foisted this POS on us have to make a decision. That decision is 1) vote for it again (and guarantee defeat in 2012) or vote against it (draw the ire of the organized left.

4. Nationalized healthcare is the clarion call to lovers of those inalienable rights, imbued upon us, via the declaration of independence, to resist government usurpation of constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Member #4112

01-22-11, 09:25

WT69 let's get this stright, it is not "our" healthcare plan, it was ramed throught by liberal Democrats and is in the process of being killed. It will be repealed in 2012 after the elections. It is ObamaCare, even the Dems and left wing media call it that and to say calling it that is racist is pure liberal hogwash and the last bastion of the liberal when they can not win the argement. ObamaCare still remains one of the most disapproved of pieces of legislation to be passed in years. What Congress has done, Congress can undo so get a grip.

I also see you calling on Jackson to kill the political thread, if you can't stand the heat don't go in the kitchen. Simply go to the other threads. No one forces you to click on this thread, read it or contribute to it. If you don't like it don't participate. Again the last bastion of the liberal, if you don't like it censor it or shut it down. For the liberal there is only one opinion and that is their's. Liberals and old Joe Stalin have a lot in common. Only one line and that is the Party's line comrad.

Jackson

01-22-11, 11:51

Like I said It was cheaper for me to see a Doctor in Buenos Aires than in the USA.WT,

Do you really believe that Obamacare is going to rectify this disparity?

Thanks,

Jackson

Tiny12

01-23-11, 02:31

IT IS Not O'bama CARE.

That sounds very Racist.

Anybody who didn't vote for Obama is a racist.

Esten

01-23-11, 02:37

IT IS Not O'bama CARE.Hey WT69 - You are correct.

The name of the new health care law is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Republicans have a slang name for it as part of their smear, distort and repeal campaign. In the face of such a good piece of legislation, they need to muster all the ammo they can, which explains why their repeal bill calls it the "Job-Killing Health Care Law Act". Another proven GOP distortion.

Though not perfect, it is a very good piece of legislation. The reason it is so good? Because Republicans weren't involved in writing it! There is a reason Americans trust Dems more than Repubs when it comes to health care.

Krauthammer's attack on PPACA frames it as a deficit reduction bill. But actually, it's a health care reform bill. It just has the added benefit of reducing the deficit. That's because it includes two new tax hikes on the wealthy, something we need more of in this country.

Despite all their colorful language and distortions, Republicans have failed to muster significant support for repeal. Americans are growing increasingly tired of it, as evidenced by the latest AP Poll showing support for full repeal down to only 26%. Now that their symbolic vote is out of the way, let's hope Republicans realize they do not have a mandate for repeal, and instead work with Obama and Dems to focus on jobs and the economy.

Esten

01-23-11, 04:08

You already know the liberal answer to this question: It's "fair" because 51% of the voters have decided that it's okay to take whatever they want from the other 49%.No, democracy is not always fair to all groups. But it's the fairest way we have on making decisions on what government programs we fund and how they are funded. I asked you before what your proposal was for how decisions should be made, but you didn't answer.

The sweeping statement you made is not what liberals believe. What they believe is that it is fair for the rich to pay more and receive fewer benefits. Here is the reason:

It's fair because it's an approach where people contribute and receive according to their financial means.

The interesting thing is that most rich people agree with this. And to an extent, so do Republicans.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1438

Q. Do you think raising income taxes on households making more than "X" should or should not be a main part of any government approach to the deficit?

X = $250,000 X = $1,000,000
Republican 42% 56%
Democrat 82% 89%
Independent 55% 69%
Income >250k 64% 67%

Why the broad support? Maybe it's just common sense?

This "you have no right to take my money" argument is just an ideological defense for selfishness.

WorldTravel69

01-23-11, 04:20

Who Cares?

Tiny12

01-23-11, 05:30

This "you have no right to take my money" argument is just an ideological defense for selfishness.You're right, there's a lot of selfishness in this world. Jews, Tutsi's, all the rich bastards right down through history. The majority should rule. Take their property, then hack them to death with machetes. But only if you can first show via an opinion poll that the majority approve.

WT69, Why don't you just stop reading this thread instead of complaining about it.

Rock Harders

01-23-11, 06:58

Mongers-

The "obamacare" health care reform bill is a complete disgrace and the manner in which it was hammered through the legislative process is even more disgraceful. There are two reforms that the US healthcare system direly needed; the making illegal the practice of health insurance companies refusing coverage to individuals based on preexisting conditions and the formation of a truly "public option", meaning a taxpayer funded public healthcare system to operate alongside the current private healthcare system (just like EVERY civilized and semi-civilized country in the world EXCEPT the US has). Essentially, the "obamacare" bill will spend untold billions of dollars to reorganize the current system and NOT solve the main problem at hand. Yes, refusing health insurance based on preexisting conditions will soon be made illegal but that could have been done by executive order or stand alone legislation. I expect that the Supreme Court will find parts of the Obamacare bill unconstitutional and at some point the Congress will vote to repeal the bill; whether the bill will in fact be repealed depends on if Obama is reelected in 2012.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Jackson

01-23-11, 13:09

This "you have no right to take my money"Let me see if I understand your logic.

If you said this to a lone guman you would be considered morally correct, but if you say it to a crowd you're instead advocating an "ideological defense for selfishness"?

So, the determining factor is the size of the crowd that has decided to steal appropriate your money?

Thanks,

Jackson

Toymann

01-23-11, 15:00

Though not perfect, it is a very good piece of legislation. The reason it is so good? Because Republicans weren't involved in writing it! There is a reason Americans trust Dems more than Repubs when it comes to health care.You obviously didn't pay much attention to the mid-term elections. More to follow in 2012. You're suggested approach of denial certainly works short term. I might suggest that dems currently have NO idea WHAT the american people want dude.

As far as WT69 goes! Give me a f*cking break. I will not include all the wild crazy comments I read today from you. You sound like "sadly" the typical wild ass liberal that gives most dems a bad name these days. Since YOU are so well traveled (LOL) , YOU need to explain to us redneck, uneducated, bible thumping idiots how things need to be done as WE JUST DON'T GET IT! IALOTFLMAO! Better YET, just slam you're picture of america down our throats and dismiss us as stupid, uneducated, etc. Shame on you WT69, you have just had too many early breakfast meeting with your girlfriend Pelosi. Suggest you stick to 100 peso privado girls dude. You're politics are totally caustic, and certainly NOT in touch with America in 2011. Tick. Tick. Tick all. 2012 isn't that far off in the distance. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

WorldTravel69

01-23-11, 16:58

I just don't understand why Educated people, would want to deny health care to anyone.

My Blue Cross health insurance company is raising their rates, again. Which will make it unfordable to many.

Jackson

01-23-11, 17:13

I just don't understand why Educated people, would want to deny health care to anyone.

My Blue Cross insurance company is raising their rates, again. WT,

I don't want to "deny health care to anyone." But I also don't want to be forced to pay for someone else's health care.

However, I accept that modern societies will always provide health care subsidies to their most impoverished members, which we're currently doing with Medicare and Medicaid.

The solution here is to enact policies that lower the cost of health care so that it is more affordable to the 15% of people in this country that do not currently have traditional coverage. Unfortunately, Obamacare does NOT and will NOT lower the cost of health care, but then that was never it's intent anyway.

Thanks,

Jackson

Canitasguy

01-23-11, 18:16

[QUOTE=Toymann; 415174]You obviously didn't pay much attention to the mid-term elections. [/QUOTE. ]

OK pay attention to the mid-terms, but don't get too invested in whatever era you think was just set in motion by the voters. Witness the following:

1992. Clinton wins the presidency. A new era of progressive command is proclaimed.

1994. R's take control of Congress. A new era of conservative command is proclaimed.

1996. Clinton re-elected handily. So much for the conservative era.

2000. Gore wins the popular vote, Bush appointed POTUS by Supreme Court after Florida recount is halted. A new era of compassionate (I. E. Moderate) conservativism is proclaimed.

2004. Gingrich's Rs retake control of Congress. An era of hard-nosed conservative command is proclaimed.

2006. Ds retake control of Congress. Hard-nosed conservative era ends abruptly.

2008. Obama wins and Ds control both houses. New era of progressive command is proclaimed.

2010. Rs retake control of the House, but Ds keep the Senate. Era of progressive command ends abruptly. Tea party era begins.

CONCLUSION:

History shows that US voters are as reliable and consistent as the chicas of BA (and almost as self-absorbed and self-destructive)!

And keep in mind, Obama is better positioned for re-election than either Clinton or Reagan were at the middle of their terms in office. In addition, polls show support for the Tea Party eroding, as their virulent rhetoric loses appeal among moderates and independents. Although in Senate races, the Rs are structurally better positioned with fewer incumbents on the ballots, historically the party whose presidential candidate wins benefits in Senate races. Take note StanDaMann!

Esten

01-23-11, 18:50

Let me see if I understand your logic.

If you said this to a lone guman you would be considered morally correct, but if you say it to a crowd you're instead advocating an "ideological defense for selfishness"?

So, the determining factor is the size of the crowd that has decided to steal appropriate your money? It is not about some random crowd. We have a government to run with services people need and want. We all chip in according to our means. Sometimes people want things others don't, and sometimes not all spending benefits all people. It sounds like you want special treatment so you can avoid paying for things that only benefit others.

Maybe we should just throw Democracy out the window and try another system. What's your suggestion?

Cowboy2

01-23-11, 19:59

I just don't understand why Educated people, would want to deny health care to anyone.

My Blue Cross health insurance company is raising their rates, again. Which will make it unfordable to many. They are raising your rates because they are getting their profits before Obama care takes effect.

Stan Da Man

01-24-11, 14:38

It is not about some random crowd. We have a government to run with services people need and want. We all chip in according to our means. Sometimes people want things others don't, and sometimes not all spending benefits all people. It sounds like you want special treatment so you can avoid paying for things that only benefit others.

Maybe we should just throw Democracy out the window and try another system. What's your suggestion? I think that, deep down, this is what you want. You keep talking about taxes in terms of rich people's ability to pay, and benefits being allocated to people based on their needs or limited means. Your last few posts repeat these phrases. That ideology is sometimes called "communism" and sometimes called "socialism."

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase summarizes the principles that, in a communist society, every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability, _to_each_according_to_his_need.

This has been your abiding theme here. Whether you realize it or not, whether you're prepared to admit it or not, this is the foundation for your rhetoric. You are, at base, a socialist.

I don't say that in a pejorative, McCarthy sort of way. It used to be a common world view. There are plenty smart people who have (wrongly) held these views. Whether you're willing to concede it or not, that is exactly the perspective you've been expressing here. You may prefer to call it a Democrat perspective, or a liberal perspective, and you undoubtedly consider it a "smart" perspective. But if one is going to call a spade a spade, it is a socialist / Marxist perspective. The thoughts and ideas you are articulating, based on this perspective, have been thoroughly discredited over the past 100 years. You're free to keep trying, though, and you have plenty of company in this administration.

Unfortunately, we all have to suffer as this administration's little experiment fails. Fortunately, the majority of the public now sees that the emperor has no clothes.

Member #4112

01-24-11, 15:22

Well said Stan, but what Esten never seems to grasp is what "people want and need" is not the same as what people can afford. Esten always sees the government as the single entity to provide all to the masses and class warfare is the way to go for taxes.

See my earlier post about the decline of the USA since Lyndon Johnson's administration began the systemic destruction of people's dignity and the continued assault on all those institutions which in the past made America great. As a nation we have already slid from Great to mediocrity and we are still heading down hill.

I remember Jimmy Carter telling us that American's best days were behind her – Obama's administration can not end soon enough for me. Yes he is up in the polls – above 50%. But nothing has happened yet. He may get another boost after the State of the Union, but after that the rubber meets the road and the hard choices have to be made. When this happens he will be back in the upper 30's again until he is either challenged from within his own party or outright defeated in 2012.

Hey I "want and need" an estate, stocked with hotties, fast cars, good food and the list goes on, but what I can afford is a nice home, rude American women, a used car and Micky D's. Oh well if Esten can deliver and someone else pay I'm in!

(Need to clarify here for Esten and WT69 – the last paragraph is a joke)

Esten

01-25-11, 01:48

Here are some things I believe in:

1. A strong private sector that rewards risk-taking, hard work and innovation.
2. A private sector that avoids extreme concentration of wealth in a small group.
3. A strong government that does what the private sector cannot do well.
4. A government that limits private sector abuse through responsible regulation.
5. Redistribution to address extreme imbalances in distribution.
6. Progressive taxation.
7. Balanced budgets.

I favor a mixed economy biased towards capitalism. I do not believe in 'laissez-faire' capitalism.

Well said Stan, but what Esten never seems to grasp is what "people want and need" is not the same as what people can afford. Esten always sees the government as the single entity to provide all to the masses and class warfare is the way to go for taxes.As I've said before, I support a combination of spending cuts and higher taxes on higher incomes to balance our budget. The rich elite started class warfare decades ago, and are now using this phrase to protect their interests. How sad you've fallen for it.

You said before "It starts with us." Sounds good on the surface. But where is the "us" part? All you've proposed so far is spending cuts on Welfare and Medicaid.

Did you mean "It starts with the poor."? Who in your mind are all lazy?

See my earlier post about the decline of the USA since Lyndon Johnson's administration began the systemic destruction of people's dignity and the continued assault on all those institutions which in the past made America great. As a nation we have already slid from Great to mediocrity and we are still heading down hill.We prospered in the 1900's when we had higher taxation on higher incomes. Forget about the nostalgia about how much we were respected and feared. Focus on the progress of the middle class and poor. The metrics associated with these groups began stagnating or declining not with Johnson, but with the rise of the corporate special interest system since Reagan. This also coincided with the explosion in US debt beginning ca. 1982.

This has been your abiding theme here. Whether you realize it or not, whether you're prepared to admit it or not, this is the foundation for your rhetoric. You are, at base, a socialist.As you know we have a progressive taxation system, and according to multiple recent polls most Americans believe in addressing taxation and spending cuts in ways that put more of the burden on the rich. Heck, even 59% of Republicans support reducing Social Security benefits for those with higher incomes.

Therefore according to your singular socialist criteria, belief in people contributing and receiving according to their means, the United States is a socialist country and most Americans are socialists.

Good one!

Wild Walleye

01-25-11, 06:07

I will never be able to repay you for your work in making my dalliances easier and more rewarding. Please don't view my response as hostile or as an attack (your handle isn't Esten. LOL). If and when we cross paths in Bs As (regardless of your political leanings) , I am buying.

However, I would like to politely and respectfully respond to your post in the spirit of debate, not hostility.

IT IS Not O'bama CARE.

That sounds very Racist. The name of the guy responsible for this mess has the family name of Obama. When Hillary Clinton tried the same thing, it was called 'Hillarycare' There is nothing racist about it (other than the fact that anyone who opposes anything Obama is a defacto racist).

All parties agreed to It. It is A Health CARE FOR ALL, Package.Quite the contrary, the majority of the citizenry and the republican minority in the congress adamantly opposed it.

It would cost more to appeal it.In correct. It will save hundreds of billions and perhaps a trillion if it is scrapped.

Use Guys need to Travel and Need some Heath CARE when you are there.I pay for evacuation insurance if I am ill or injured while traveling abroad so that I can get back to the best health care in the world.

Like I said It was cheaper for me to see a Doctor in Buenos Aires than in the USA.That is not indicative of a better health care system.

Oh, Cuba was Cheaper When I was there.Why did Castro ban the Michael Moore movie which so glowingly lauded the Cuban healthcare system?

I BET MOST OF YOU HAVE NEVER LEFT THE USA.I can't speak for any of these other racist hillbillies, but I have been out of the US lots. I have been to Alaska, Hawaii and Texas, so put that in your pipe and smoke it (LOL)

Most of you most likely did not go to school after the 12th grade.I've got me some school'and in the class room and in the school of hard knocks.

SCHOOL and learning is a LIFE TIME Session. YOU WILL NEVER STOP Learning and going to SCHOOL.Unless you are unwilling to learn and ignore facts that contradict your preconceived notions.

And if did not go and travel you will not know shit about the World Heath CARE of other Countries.Because health care in other nations is of lower quality than that available in the US is no reason to bring the quality of care available to all Americans down.

Only You That HAVE BEEN TO MORE THAN 70 COUNTRIES NEED ANSWER, As I Have Been.I love you. But, traveling to 70+ countries is irrelevant to the US health care debate, except as means through which you can gauge the differential in quality of care from one country to another. I have traveled a bit. In addition to the international destinations named above, I have put my feet on several continents (still waiting for your reviews of privados in Antarctica, before I make my plans to go there and check the last one off my list)

Travel more Then express Your opinions.This will come as a surprise to you but, I have some opinions and I occasionally share them with others. My travel plans and my propensity to share my opinions are not necessarily correlated.

I hear this same shit everyday on Radio free USA.How the fuck do you have time to listen to the radio? I figure you must spend 20+ hours a day researching brothels (for which I will be eternally grateful).

They have never left their HOUSE.If it is a good house of ill repute, there may not be a good reason to leave it.

Jackson mentioned about 9-11.

The Terrorists were:

Most were Saudis.

No Afghans,

No Pakistanis,

NO Iraqis. No Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Branch Davidians nor Jehovah's Witnesses.

No WMDs.While not found in the quantity expected prior to the war, there were some found. Due to the lack of visibility into the activities of the prior regime, it was nearly impossible to verify or dispel the claims made by the regime that they were actively developing NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) weapon systems for the express purpose of destabilizing the gulf region and striking out at the Great Satan.

WTF.That's what I say.

All of are boys lost for What?I do not believe for a moment that Washington runs wars with the best interests of our heroes in mind. However, I am reminded of something Churchill is reported to have said: "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

OIL!You take away our oil, you do us harm. If we were able to tap the more-than-abundant oil reserves, located beneath US soil, perhaps we would not feel the need to engage in such military actions. I guess you can't have it both ways.

Same as Vietnam.Other than the facts that they were fought on foreign soil, resulted in far, far too many US casualties, and domestic politics played a roll in increasing the body count, there are no similarities.

A Waste.In the case of Vietnam, I agree in that misguided politicians in Washington wasted our greatest national resources. In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, I disagree that all Us casualties in these conflicts have been wasted.

This is a Sex Site, Not POLITICIAL SITE.

I believe that this is better characterized as a lifestyle site. For me and perhaps some others, engaging in political debate is part of my lifestyle. Interestingly, this thread has more posts than any other.

JACKSON shut down all the Political Threads!From usaseguide to internationalsexguide to argentinaprivate, there are more than a few locales covered. Everyone of them has local political implications. Further, travelers and expats a like might enjoy keeping up with current political themes and goings on.

WT, again, I am truly appreciative for all that you have done for our mutual benefit. I welcome, appreciate and respect your opinions and do not for a second mind that they do not conform to mind. In fact, if we all thought alike, the world would be pretty boring and all the chicas at privados would be exactly the same. I am not interested in converting you to my point of view rather, I am just interested in presenting my views.

Rock Harders

01-25-11, 08:37

Member #4112

01-25-11, 13:38

Permit me to be so bold as to provide a short history lesson on the American Healthcare System and the Federal Government.

Once upon a time we had a three tier health delivery system which worked well and was affordable for those who wished to purchase insurance or pay for it on an individual use basis.

The Primary Tier was comprised of the individual physicians and small community clinics. They treated the everyday aches and pains and mishaps of our populace. This tier represented the most cost efficient setting for this type of treatment. The vast majority of care was delivered at this level.

The Secondary Tier was the local hospitals. When the patient required care beyond the scope of the local physicians and clinics they were taken to these facilities. This represented a less cost efficient setting than the first tier due to the need for a more complex scope of services but still cost efficient for the type of care delivered.

The Tertiary Tier was comprised of the large teaching hospitals. These facilities took care of the most complicated cases and were in part funded by either their state or by the University associated with their teaching program. This represented the least cost efficient setting due to the most complex scope of services and support offered to those with the most serious injuries and illnesses.

Now during this time nearly everyone paid the stated cost of their care and of course there was some charity care provided to those in need. But in those days people were embarrassed to accept charity as it was an admission they could not care for themselves or their family. A time when people actually believed they were responsible for themselves and their families.

Enter Medicare / Medicaid. In a few short years with the Federal Government determining what would be paid to provide medical care in both rural and urban settings (with no experience I might add regarding the cost of these services except fr0m the Ivory Tower physicians who had never practiced medicine only taught and theorized).

The Primary Tier was wiped out due to the payment set by the Fed for these services were less than the cost to provide the services. Now there were few if any small clinics and family doctors in the rural areas to provide medical care, they were not willing to starve to do so.

The Secondary Tier began to collapse as the Primary Tier was collapsing, again due to the payment set by the Fed being lower than the cost of the service and with the with the loss of the Primary Tier causing an inflow of patients to a less cost efficient setting for their care. Now there are very few if any Second Tier hospitals left, they have been forced to morph into Tertiary Tier hospitals to offer the complex scope of services required under law.

The Tertiary Tier facilities only became larger with hospitals in the Secondary Tier moving up to the Tertiary Tier. Now we are treating everything at the highest and most cost inefficient level.

Several years after the first Federal price structure was established the Fed suddenly realized they had cannibalized our healthcare system and actually reduced the number of points of service for healthcare in addition to delivering healthcare in the most costly level, I. E. Tertiary Facilities. The Fed tried to change this but the system that had take decades to form naturally to meet the public's needs had been swept away by the Fed and like the Old South was Gone With The Wind, never to be seen again.

So ends the history lesson for today.

Tomorrow the Canada System – how to bring the vast majority of a country's populations healthcare status down to increase the healthcare status of a very small minority.

Jackson

01-25-11, 13:41

...the (formerly) middle and working classes are indefinitely denied affordable healthcare and a dignified living wage.Hey Rock,

85% of Americans had and still have health care that is apparently "affordable" as they are still have it, and 90% of them have jobs that generally pay better than most of the rest of the world.

You're going to need uglier numbers than that to fuel the "inevitable armed insurrection" you're advocating.

Of course, if the liberals continue to run our country into the ground, you just might hit those numbers, but then that's the true liberal agenda anyway, right?

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

01-25-11, 16:08

WT69-

Don't fret, because sooner or later, the WallyWildeyes, Jacksons, and Toyman's of the USA will be guillotined and perhaps tarred and feathered by the inevitable armed insurrection that will occur in the USA if the (formerly) middle and working classes are indefinitely denied affordable healthcare and a dignified living wage. These are the same masses that marched their ways to the polls some 90 days ago and emphatically said the exact opposite: don't give us "free health care" or other artificial, government-created transfers of wealth from the financially-productive portion of society to the financially-consumptive portion of society. Adding hundreds of new taxes, regulation and bureaucracies to administer this socialist medical system cannot, in any contortion you or someone else may dream up, result in lower COST (I. E. The actually cost of delivery of the goods or services as opposed to the out-of-pocket-expense of the recipient of said good or service).

As for a dignified living wage, what do you think is fair? I think everyone (18-65 yrs old) has a right to $50k per year no matter what. If 50% of the country doesn't pay taxes, then the other 50% (presuming that they all make at least $50K) will need to pay into the system enough to pay for it. That seems pretty fair. So at what point, after getting used to being paid $50k per year for producing absolutely nothing, do you think that 50% receiving that benefit will seek to support themselves and reduce the strain on those supporting them?

If you give someone something for free, what is their incentive to earn more so that they can afford to actually pay for it? If I can get it for free without doing anything, I sure as shit am not going to bust my ass just to make enough money so that I can pay a market price for it. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

These fools are so blind in their ways (and never ending drive for larger profits) that they fail to realize that by providing the (formerly) middle and working classes with these basics they are in fact providing for the continuation of the very system that allows such wealth to be accumulated.I disagree. The pursuit of personal self-interest (a right imbued upon us by our creator, enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and formerly guaranteed by the US Constitution) and conservative folkways and morays, developed over centuries, are what enabled the creation of the greatest economic engine and the most just and compassionate society man has ever known. It ain't perfect but it is the best.

The Left, whether misguided or purposeful, is fully vested in destroying what is great about America.

When the majority of the population is humiliated and cannot afford to provide the basics for their family the system in place is bound to come crashing down and extremists often take power.When a majority is enslaved by generations of handouts, they lose the ability to fend for themselves.

Those opposed to any wealth redistribution in the form of government funded healthcare and higher wages should look at what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, etc.Hmmm, now look at what shining beacons they have all become as Utopian workers' paradises leading the world in terms of longevity, quality of care, economics and personal satisfaction. Viva la revolucion!

Desperate citizens will support and vote for irresponsible populists when they are convinced that those holding the wealth at he top don't give a fuck about their welfare.That is one way to explain Obama's electoral win.

Rock Harders

01-25-11, 21:04

Mongers-

More conservative drivel from WW, who decided to respond to my post (without actually reading it) with more of his puritan "city upon a hill" long winded nonsense. If you had actually bothered to read my recent posts in this thread before responding, you would realize that I have been adamantly against the "obamacare" health care reform monstrosity. Your entire "liberals destroyed america" argument is complete bullshit; the USA is teetering on bankruptcy today because of the actions and decisions made by the neo-conservative administration in office from 2001-2009. The most 'conservative' of all, your very own Dick Cheney, famously said "deficits don't matter", and he practiced what he preached, being the second in command of an administration that took a multi billion dollar federal budget SURPLUS and turned it into a TRILLION dollar DEFICIT. The warning about what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Argentina, was just that, a warning, meaning that the wealthy in the USA should care about how the middle and working classes in the USA are treated in order to keep the current system in place and prevent a disastrous situation from happening as has happened in those places.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Jackson

01-26-11, 05:27

Wild Walleye

01-26-11, 05:35

Mongers-

More conservative drivel from WW, who decided to respond to my post (without actually reading it) with more of his puritan "city upon a hill" long winded nonsense. I think my response is spot on. What Puritanical statements have I ever made? I don't recall bringing religion, outside of its role as it relates to the founding of our country, into the discussion. As for nonsense, how do you support your proposal that the American working man should pay out of his own pocket to support the American sitting-on-his-ass-man?

If you had actually bothered to read my recent posts in this thread before responding, you would realize that I have been adamantly against the "obamacare" health care reform monstrosity. Good for you. You must be smarter than you appear.

Your entire "liberals destroyed america" argument is complete bullshit;I'll avoid using terminology like 'illiterate douche bag' (however appropriate it may be). Never have I said that America has been destroyed. If you could both read and comprehend, you'd be able to understand that.

"The Left, whether misguided or purposeful, is fully vested in destroying what is great about America."

The left attacks exceptionalism, individualism, advancement based upon merit, innovation and winning. Where is the fallacy of my argument.

the USA is teetering on bankruptcy today because of the actions and decisions made by the neo-conservative administration in office from 2001-2009.If you think Bush was a Neo-com, you are dumber than I thought. If you think that the Bush White House is responsible for dolling out billions in bad loans to unworthy borrowers, your analysis might need some tweaking.

The most 'conservative' of all, your very own Dick Cheney, famously said "deficits don't matter", and he practiced what he preached, being the second in command of an administration that took a multi billion dollar federal budget SURPLUS and turned it into a TRILLION dollar DEFICIT.Wow, and for all these years, I thought that the House was responsible for spending. By the way, how's your boy Obama been doing on the deficit front?

The warning about what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Argentina, was just that, a warning, meaning that the wealthy in the USA should care about how the middle and working classes in the USA are treated in order to keep the current system in place and prevent a disastrous situation from happening as has happened in those places.That warning makes about as much sense as warning drivers on I-95 of congestion the M3 outside London.

SuerteWhatever

Tiny12

01-26-11, 07:20

Stan Da Man

01-26-11, 15:27

Rock,

The middle and working classes in the USA Are in fact much better off (re: prosperous) than their counterparts in the countries you itemized.

Actually, the middle and working classes in the USA Are in fact much better off (re: prosperous) than their counterparts ANY WHERE ELSE in the WORLD, which pretty much leaves your argument sputtering around the room like a loose balloon.

Thanks,

JacksonI would put it a bit differently:

The middle class actually exists in the United States. I haven't been to Cuba, so I can't say much about the country. But, as for the rest of the places listed, Argentina included, the middle class really doesn't exist. That's true of nearly all South America, with the exception of Brazil and Chile. I'm pretty sure Cuba lacks a middle class, as well, but can't speak from personal experience and don't want to draw WT's ire since I'm so provincial.

I know that "middle class" is a relative term (relative to upper and lower classes) but it is the one facet of Argentina that really stands out when you're there. There are folks who are undeniably rich, and there are folks who are undeniably living paycheck to paycheck. I would characterize the latter as "lower" or "working class" by American standards, regardless of income. There are very few people in between.

This is what "soak the rich" populist / socialist rhetoric really leads to when put into practice. You get a lot of words about standing up for the little guy, and making sure that everyone gets a slice of the pie. But, what really happens is that the middle class vanishes, or is never allowed to come into being, and you end up with two poles: the very rich and the very poor. The very rich then help support the corrupt administration and keep quiet about the wealth they are amassing. You see this in Russia, Venezuela and Argentina today. The very poor are dumb enough to believe that "soak the rich" strategies will change things and that those who bloviate this sort of rhetoric have their best interests at heart. Venezuela and Argentina are great examples of this today.

It's not the rich who suffer when the socialists / populists take over. It's the middle class, and those in the working class who might aspire to be middle class.

Wild Walleye

01-26-11, 16:11

The warning about what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Argentina, was just that, a warning, meaning that the wealthy in the USA should care about how the middle and working classes in the USA are treated in order to keep the current system in place and prevent a disastrous situation from happening as has happened in those places.If you'd like, I'd be happy to share with you some factual history and go through your lists and dispel you misconceptions regarding any similarities, other than coincidences, that you believe exit between any of them and the US. There are coincidences, scary ones but I doubt you see them.

Perhaps the most illuminating example is Venezuela. Let's start with the Saudi Venezuela period (roughly '74-'79 during the first Perez presidential term). Due to the oil crisis, one of Venezuela's plentiful natural resource (oil) shot up in value. Yes, this resulted in individuals related to the oil-patch making lots of money. You would then say that these rich bastards (probably all republicans) fucked the little guys and didn't share the wealth. Then low and behold, those rich fuckers bankrupted the country. So, oil prices soar, there is money flying out of their asses and the rich private sector caused the financial collapse of the nation. Those miserable sons of bitches.

But Venezuela's financial collapse of the 1980s resulted from failed leftist policies and actions in response to the popping of an asset bubble, in this case oil. Prior to oil prices falling out of the sky, the government believed that oil prices would never go down and therefore they could massively increase public spending without a care in the world. Out of control government spending and borrowing, in the face of declining revenues created a situation where the government couldn't meet its obligations. There was no way the government could pay for its massively-increased public spending nor its debt therefore it began devaluing its currency (I. E. Printing money) in order to pay its bills. This destroyed the wealth of its citizens (and everyone else holding Bolivars) , lowered the national standard of living and the middle class evaporated. Failed leftist economic policies further exacerbated the problem, opened the door for increased corruption and entrenched the nation in the beginning of what would be at least 30 years of shit.

So I ask you, how did the private sector force the government to massively increase public spending? Why did those rich bastards make oil prices crash? Why did the private sector break into the federal mint and print more money?

If you ask me, your example looks a lot more like an indictment Obama and the left rather than affluent members of the private sector.

Canitasguy

01-26-11, 17:03

I know that "middle class" is a relative term.Stan. You got that right!

We all can be counted in some statistical category, such as middle class. However, the categories don't tell us much about how people live, how well they live and how they see their futures.

The conservative right uses personal income as the determinant of whether people are poor, middle class or rich. That selective definition distorts the debate. For example, in the US, if a man works two jobs and his wife works too and the kids work after school and the family still struggles to meet day-to-day expenses because everything costs so much, the fact that the family is "middle class" on the income charts is nice, but it doesn't tell the story of its quality of life.

Having a healthy income in a high cost country does not mean a person has a better quality of life than someone with a moderate income in a low cost country. Nor does it take into account differences in social benefits that are provided by government in country after country around the globe, paid for by taxes on citizens, taxes the people approve of, because of the positive impact of those benefits on their quality of life.

One way to measure where people fit in the US societal class structure might be to poll self-described "middle class" people who live elsewhere and to survey their perceptions. People in the developed countries in Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia could be surveyed as to whether they would want to pull up stakes and move to the "new" United States where every indicator shows the middle class is under siege, the safety net is being unravelled, discrimination against immigrants is rampant, random violence is not uncommon and political disagreements among its citizens are decidedly unpleasant. There is little doubt those polling results would be far different than they were a few decades back. Just like the US is far different than it was a few decades back.

The simplistic, foolish AP debates with many members using misleading numbers and dubious logic to buttress an ideological point of view go nowhere. The conservative mongers want to keep what money they have and not let government tax them to help the have nots. While, the liberals think a fair society is the whole point of having a society. They embrace the provision in the US Constitutional that calls on government to "promote the general welfare". Believe the have-nots in society, as well as the well off, fall within the term "general" and are comfortable with a "progressive" tax system that generates the needed revenues. And never the twain shall meet!

In the words of the Founding Fathers government's responsibility was to build a "more perfect union." as well as "promote the general welfare." Obama's policies since he took office are of a piece with those objectives and with the history of US economic progress. From the early days of the country's founding as debates swirled around Alexander Hamilton's call to create a national bank, up to and including Obama's first two years in office, the private sector has been dominant and the federal government has played a supportive role that has evolved as the society's needs have evolved. That evolution has resulted in elected government leaders, with the support of the citizenry, taking on critical programs that strengthened the economy and allowed the people to enjoy a better life, as well as to perform a policing function protecting against private sector actions that threaten the general welfare of the people.

Virtually every modern-era President, regardless of party, including Obama has operated within those parameters. To call Obama radical or a socialist or a communist is simply dishonest. And blatant dishonesty calls into question the motivations of the accusers.

Member #4112

01-26-11, 19:31

WW, don't confuse them with facts, they wish to cherry pick the facts which suit them.

Never heard a word from WT69 or Esten regarding the history of healthcare, guess the fact Federal intervention is what F*ked up the system in the first place is not something they wish to hear.

When we had a three tier system, healthcare costs were so low they were a throw away benefit for the employer. Today I know of no employer who is not trying to reduce the costs by decreasing benefits or by cost shifting to the employee due to the sky rocketing cost of health insurnace. My firm is spending $140k this year on healthcare for my employees and when I started it was less than half that.

Rev BS

01-26-11, 20:51

I would put it a bit differently:

The middle class actually exists in the United States. I haven't been to Cuba, so I can't say much about the country. But, as for the rest of the places listed, Argentina included, the middle class really doesn't exist. That's true of nearly all South America, with the exception of Brazil and Chile. I'm pretty sure Cuba lacks a middle class, as well, but can't speak from personal experience and don't want to draw WT's ire since I'm so provincial.

I know that "middle class" is a relative term (relative to upper and lower classes) but it is the one facet of Argentina that really stands out when you're there. There are folks who are undeniably rich, and there are folks who are undeniably living paycheck to paycheck. I would characterize the latter as "lower" or "working class" by American standards, regardless of income. There are very few people in between.

This is what "soak the rich" populist / socialist rhetoric really leads to when put into practice. You get a lot of words about standing up for the little guy, and making sure that everyone gets a slice of the pie. But, what really happens is that the middle class vanishes, or is never allowed to come into being, and you end up with two poles: the very rich and the very poor. The very rich then help support the corrupt administration and keep quiet about the wealth they are amassing. You see this in Russia, Venezuela and Argentina today. The very poor are dumb enough to believe that "soak the rich" strategies will change things and that those who bloviate this sort of rhetoric have their best interests at heart. Venezuela and Argentina are great examples of this today.

It's not the rich who suffer when the socialists / populists take over. It's the middle class, and those in the working class who might aspire to be middle class. Just a general view and opionion. Unless you you fall into the UPPER middle class category, you will find that most of the middle class are living from check to check. Consumerism is an addicton that american buisness have fostered on the american people that they will never be happy unless they possess a certain lifestyle. Just an example, people bought houses not only to live in and to channel their rent payments into a form of equity. However, most people (even fiscally conservatives) constantly use their equity line to pay for a richer life than they normally would have enjoy. See all those new cars in the employees' parking lot? I used to drive a 1984 Mercedes 300TD, a beautiful German car with air conditioning problems. Nobody wanted it when I try to give it away, how I wish I could have it here in Bangkok. They are given their due respect here. Unlike California mechanics, the mechanics here do not have any problem dealing with any airconditiong problems.

So often, when a household lose 1 job or both jobs, all hell break lose. Even when their incomes are in the 6 figures. Zero savings, credit card debt, obesity are all the hallmarks of American middle class. As claimed here in the forum, people along the poverty line in American still enjoys far more comforts and conveniences than in many developing countries, try telling them that they should be smiling and being positive. Half of them don't even know if Dallas is in the United States, let alone where Cambodia or Bangladash is. Misery is misery when you can't pay the bills, or when you have a beautiful car, but no money for gas or entertainment expenses.

Just a joke, there are 3 things in Cuba you enjoy for free. Sing, dance and fuck.

Esten

01-27-11, 03:07

Never heard a word from WT69 or Esten regarding the history of healthcare, guess the fact Federal intervention is what F*ked up the system in the first place is not something they wish to hear.I'll respond to it (below) if you'll respond to my points from 1/24:
- Did you mean "It starts with the poor" ?
- The progress of the poor and middle class, and explosion in debt, since Reagan.

The Primary Tier was comprised of the individual physicians and small community clinics. They treated the everyday aches and pains and mishaps of our populace. This tier represented the most cost efficient setting for this type of treatment. The vast majority of care was delivered at this level.
Enter Medicare / Medicaid. In a few short years with the Federal Government determining what would be paid to provide medical care in both rural and urban settings (with no experience I might add regarding the cost of these services except fr0m the Ivory Tower physicians who had never practiced medicine only taught and theorized).

The Primary Tier was wiped out due to the payment set by the Fed for these services were less than the cost to provide the services. Now there were few if any small clinics and family doctors in the rural areas to provide medical care, they were not willing to starve to do so. My response to this is.... I have no idea WTF you are talking about.

When I go to the doctor (which is rarely), I don't go to a hospital. I go to a physician in a small office or clinic. As do most people. So how exactly did your Primary Tier get "wiped out"?

Furthermore, you just haven't made the case as to how much of our high health care costs are due to federal intervention vs. insurance company profits and other factors.

Surely you can do better.... or maybe not.

Esten

01-27-11, 03:25

Esten

01-27-11, 04:19

the USA is teetering on bankruptcy today because of the actions and decisions made by the neo-conservative administration in office from 2001-2009. Exactly. The Bush years were a textbook lesson in the failures of conservative ideology.

Awhile ago I said that a fundamental difference between left and right appears to be reason vs. emotion. It could also be said that these left vs. right debates are ones of reason vs. ideology.

And what I have noticed more and more is this: reason is no match for rigid ideology.

Like one who believes strongly in the unique truth of their religion, there is little that can sway someone who is governed by ideology. Even when presented with data and facts, an ideologue will find a way to defend their beliefs, even if it means ignoring or misrepresenting information that counters their beliefs. It is no coincidence that religion is on the right, there is a commonality in the mindset here, a strong influence of how one feels, vs. an objective reasoning of data and facts. This does not mean an idealogue never has valid points or good arguments, but rather that they have a barrier that hinders them from challenging their beliefs.

One answer to this is better education. When American History is taught in high school, they should have required sections on how America changed from Reagen to Bush. The facts will show how conservative positions on tax rates and free markets harmed the country under Reagan and Bush, while the best period was under Clinton.

Rock - I had a couple questions for you on PPACA I hope you will respond to. Is the reason you call the Health Care Law a "disgrace" due to it falling short of what it could have been (and what other countries have)? Or do you consider PPACA a net worsening rather than a net improvement compared to what we had before? And finally, if you support a public option why would you want repeal? Surely you realize we can transition to a public option more easily from PPACA than from starting over with a Republican-supported plan.

WorldTravel69

01-27-11, 05:02

My Poll Is which Party do we believe In?

Sysco234

01-27-11, 10:39

My Poll Is which Party do we believe In?To me both have equally scary factions and act solely to improve their power base. We just had a prime example in California where Jerry Brown has been lauded as being a visionary plan to address the problems in California. Only thing is, the article also pointed out that many of the ideas where the same as Arnold's and when he suggested them they were chastised as being complete crap. In other words, ideas are only good ideas when they come from the party you belong to. Which in my opinion is total horse shit. As far as I'm concerned the only reasonable voting strategy at this point is to vote out all incumbents and hope for complete stagnation of the system.

Sysco234

01-27-11, 11:03

One answer to this is better education. When American History is taught in high school, they should have required sections on how America changed from Reagen to Bush. The facts will show how conservative positions on tax rates and free markets harmed the country under Reagan and Bush, while the best period was under Clinton.

What constitutes the "best period" and how is that measured? Also, I would be curious on your take as to how long the regulatory and fiscal policies of a presidency take to affect the country. Days, weeks, months, years?

Sysco

Tiny12

01-27-11, 11:11

Even when presented with data and facts, an ideologue will find a way to defend their beliefs, even if it means ignoring or misrepresenting information that counters their beliefs.

One answer to this is better education. When American History is taught in high school, they should have required sections on how America changed from Reagen to Bush. The facts will show how conservative positions on tax rates and free markets harmed the country under Reagan and Bush, while the best period was under Clinton.

Esten, Are you doing what you accuse others of doing? I've pointed out data and facts until I'm blue in the face that show your ideology results in less wealth for the majority, not just less for the wealthy.

You could argue that Clinton, tempered by Republicans in Congress, did a better job than Bush. But he did this by taking what you would call "conservative positions" on spending, trade, and welfare reform. The one thing he did wrong was increase taxes.

Your beliefs about politicizing American history textbooks and American education are disturbing.

Member #4112

01-27-11, 11:25

Esten, since you don't know WTF I'm talking about is my point exactly! You just don't do your home work you just bit*h about the 'poor' and the 'middle class'.

Pre 1964/1965 prior to the government's entry into the healthcare arena there was a 3 Tier system in place, what insurance forms there were, were very simple and physicians, clinics, and hospitals manpower was primarily devoted to patient care. Today due to government regulation via Medicare and Medicaid (which is adopted by all healthcare carriers for all their products so they are only following one set of rules) at least 20% of staff is devoted only to insurance billing and collection – driving up the cost of healthcare from the administrative end for this one function alone and this does not even begin to consider all regulatory and compliance filings with their associated adminisrative costs. These costs have nothing to do with patient care but represent one of the primary drivers of cost.

The first tier was by far the largest and it bore no resemblance to the 'doctor's office' or 'clinic' you are referring to today. The second tier were located primarily in medium sized to larger cities with the tertiary tier located only in major population centers and there was usually only one per city. Today Houston is a prime example of how screwed up the Fed has caused the system to become with 4 tertiary care centers within blocks of each other. Yes they have outlying clinics in the suburbs to funnel patients to the medical center.

The problem with the collapse of the three tier system is we are sending patients to the highest cost facilities (because that is pretty much all that is left) for mundane care which was delivered in a more efficient setting at a much lower cost prior to 1965. We are killing a fly with a sledgehammer and it is costing more each year.

If you take the time to go back and compare adjusted costs from before the Feds involvement in healthcare you will find every time the Fed gets involved in 'regulating' healthcare the cost goes up.

Stan Da Man

01-27-11, 15:11

A cogent discussion of some of ObamaCare's problems:

Democrats who are calling the House's decisively passed repeal of Obamacare theater are hallucinating.

Perhaps it was theatrical to include in the name of the repeal act "job killing," though that is what it is.

But I prefer melodrama to dishonesty. Calling Obamacare. Government mandates, subsidies, price controls, taxes and rationed care. The "Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care" act is the height of dishonesty.

The House repeal vote was important because the House is the legislative body closest to the people, and the people voted unequivocally last November to repudiate socialized medicine.

It is the beginning of responsible government to start representing what the American people want, and repeal is what Americans voted for.

Although repudiation of Obamacare was the most tangible message of the 2010 elections, there were other important messages.

Most Americans are sick of the socialist direction in which our great nation has been moving. They are sick of dishonesty and word games emanating from Washington and politicians. And they are sick of special interest groups in Washington sucking the oxygen out of all opportunities for good public policy.

Besides being bad health care policy, Obamacare has all the above characteristics. Duplicitous Washington accounting games that pretend to save money by spending it subsidizing all the nation's health care, taking what was already broken in the way we deliver health care. Most of it already being controlled by government and third-party payers. And giving us more of it rather than less, and accomplishing all this by working with the big health care special interests. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.

But what makes me most heartsick is to watch our great and free nation transformed into a second-rate welfare state.

Again, even before the "Affordable Health Care" act, our health care system was already largely taken over by government. Ninety percent of our health care bills are paid by third parties, and between Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicare, well over half of American health care was already directly controlled by government.

What else do you have to know about what was wrong? Yet, Obamacare's answer was to give us more of all of it.

Rest of article here:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/01/passing-obamacare-was-theater-and-repealing-reality-show

The boldfaced portion illustrates what few have been discussing about the healthcare system, and what Doppleganger has been pointing out.

When our health care system worked, many more folks were on a pay-as-you-go system, and the government was hardly involved at all.

As the government became more involved, the system became more perverted, more expensive, and more fu*ked up.

The Obama solution? Give 100% control to the government. They can fix it, just like they fixed medicare, medicaid, social security, the housing market, the banking system, the post office, and just like they've been fixing the health care system as they slowly assumed more and more control.

Brilliant.

Jackson

01-27-11, 15:14

The left attacks exceptionalism, individualism, advancement based upon merit, innovation and winning. Where is the fallacy of my argument.No fallacy, just a complete lie.

But that's often how conservatives frame their arguments. No, your's is the lie.

Liberals hate people who exhibit "individualism, advancement based upon merit, innovation and winning", and that's why they are always devising schemes to punish those who dare to emulate these traits.

Of course, liberals never admit their bias in this regard, but the point is not to listen to what they say but to watch what they do, and what they do is continuously find way to punish achievers and reward laziness.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

01-27-11, 15:17

And what I have noticed more and more is this: reason is no match for rigid ideology.Esten, you've just summarized your reaction to every argument that anyone has ever given you in this forum.

Jackson

01-27-11, 17:05

Exactly. The Bush years were a textbook lesson in the failures of conservative ideology.Esten,

Technically, it was 7-1/2 years of strong economic growth, and 6 months of "management failures", not "failures of conservative ideology", but failures to stop liberal ideology from meddling with the free market models of credit worthiness.

Of course, many people choose to focus on the last 6 months of the Bush presidency alone because it serves their political agenda, never mind that the Dems played a major roll in the events that caused the housing / mortgage bubble, but that too is ignored by some individuals while chanting their mantra that Bush alone "fucked up the country".

Thanks,

Jackson

Esten

01-28-11, 02:50

Esten, Are you doing what you accuse others of doing? I've pointed out data and facts until I'm blue in the face that show your ideology results in less wealth for the majority, not just less for the wealthy.

You could argue that Clinton, tempered by Republicans in Congress, did a better job than Bush. But he did this by taking what you would call "conservative positions" on spending, trade, and welfare reform. The one thing he did wrong was increase taxes.

Your beliefs about politicizing American history textbooks and American education are disturbing. If you are blue in the face from just posting a few times, I cannot imagine what color mine is! I have no problem responding to intelligent points like yours, I do not avoid them but also I do not have time to respond to everything.

You (and Jackson) are correct that wealth as measured by US median per capita income is among the highest in the world. I have no argument about that and would agree it is a testament to the benefits of capitalism.

Another point you make (I think) is that lower taxation results in greater wealth. This is not a point I am really debating either way, though I'm not sure I agree with it. GDP growth per capita was higher under Clinton than Bush despite Bush's tax cuts. But again I don't care much for getting into this argument.

What I say is this: GDP growth alone is an incomplete picture (known by Jackson as 'growing the pie'). You also need to look at where new wealth goes, by measures of real income, wealth inequality etc. Steady per capita GDP growth may get news headlines as a good thing, but it really doesn't mean much if it is almost all going to the rich, while middle class prosperity stagnates.

See these two links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908

So Tiny, I would challenge you to look at the effect of tax rates on measures of middle class prosperity. Look up charts going back 70 years for income tax rates vs measures of real income, wealth inequality, share of the pie, etc. You will find that while we have a generally steady history of per capita GDP and income growth over this period, the middle class (or bottom 80-90%) did not fare as well during periods where the wealthy paid lower taxes.

This stuff should absolutely be included in high school education. It is not a matter of politicizing, it is important stuff. People should get an academic presentation of the effects of taxation and spending policies (especially over the past few decades) , not just rely on what they hear in the media.

Canitasguy

01-28-11, 13:25

For all the postings about Obama heading toward a one-and-done presidency, his 50% approval rating at the halfway mark of his term is better than Bill Clinton's 47, and much higher than Reagan's 37, according to Gallup.

Bring on 2012!

After O'man is re-elected, think how happy all you AP gas bags will be with four more years to moan, cry, point fingers and dish out your delusional ideological rants!

Stan Da Man

01-28-11, 21:44

"The Department of Health and Human Services estimated in July that it would now be insuring 375, 000 people who had been previously shut out of the insurance market. But the administration recently admitted that only about 8, 000 people with preexisting conditions had actually signed up.

That's about 2 percent of the projected enrollment. "

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/27/opinon-obamacare-is-already-falling-apart/

In one way, this is comforting. They actually under-estimated the cost of providing coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.

But, if you take a step back, it's not hard to see why this is utterly discouraging and consistent with everything that those attacking ObamaCare have been saying.

First, the same folks who put together the estimates on participation likely were responsible for some or all of the other estimates, or the baseline data, that went into this morass. This is the sort of data that causes the CBO to report that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit. As has been widely reported, the CBO can only add up the trash it is given. It can't challenge the bad assumptions and data. Garbage in; garbage out.

Second, this lack of participation is consistent with everything I've seen in my business, which is: Some folks just aren't going to pay for insurance no matter how cheap you make it. We make it cheap by covering 90% of the premium, and still 50% decline coverage. Heck, we cover 100% of dental and still There are some who decline coverage. They don't even want free! This has been one of the most misguided notions of ObamaCare. Democrats speak about the "uninsured," which is a small number in relation to the whole, but still big enough to count. The real issue, though, are the number of the uninsured who want To be insured and are willing to make some small gesture, such as paying a small premium, to be insured before they have an illness. Turns out, this number is way, way lower than the folks pushing ObamaCare estimated, even for those with pre-existing conditions.

Third, what does this tell you about the number of people who will willingly pay the penalty for not going into the public option, and the number who will decline the public option until they get sick? Bingo. It's going to be a disaster. Even folks who already are sick or at least have a pre-existing condition aren't signing up. ObamaCare is absolutely, completely and utterly dependent on requiring the healthy to buy insurance or pay a penalty. Ultimately, the individual mandate will fail for one or both of two basic reasons: (a) it's unconstitutional; and / or (b) it's completely unworkable as a significant portion of the population will refuse to participate, and the penalty, which they won't willingly pay, will not be sufficient to cover the cost of the non-participants when they get sick. The result will be, if we're stuck with this misguided entitlement, more debt and a faster dug grave.

Mark my words: ObamaCare will go down as the most misguided piece of legislation ever passed. It will be the movie equivalent of Ishtar, Howard the Duck and Waterworld all rolled into one.

Sysco234

01-28-11, 23:47

I'll start by saying I'm not a supporter of Obama-care at all. That said, I don't think anyone has given it enough time to determine if it will work. This is another of my pet-peeves about our society in general. We have the attention span and tolerance of a 2 year old. Sometimes it takes times for things to work. Can't tell you how many product meetings I've been in where the first 2 quarters of sales numbers were "off forecast" and everyone was screaming at each other. 2 years later, the same products were the number one sellers for the companies. It takes time for things to be understood and catch on. The same numbers 2 years from now I'd be all over this. This early on it's too soon to really tell.

Flame on.

Sysco

Member #4112

01-29-11, 00:14

I believe I have unmasked 'Esten'.

Below is a quote from a Democratic Congressman regarding the reason the Democrats took such a beating in November.

It could not have possibly been ObamaCare, out of control spending, a failed 'stimulus' package, the failure to create or 'save' jobs, or a Congress and President who had run amuck for nearly two years

Nope this Democrat has reduced it to a single issue.

'Virginia Democratic Rep. Jim Moran is blaming his party's losses last November in large part on voters who "don't want to be governed by an African-American."

The comments were made following President Obama's State of the Union speech Tuesday during an interview with Arab network Alhurra. Asked about the results of the midterm elections, the Virginia congressman compared the political environment to that which preceded the Civil War and suggested race was a determining factor. . '

I really hope they keep believing this is the reason they lost in November 2010 until November 2012 when they can have their misconceptions confirmed again with a sweep of the House, Senate, and the White House!

Esten you sly dog how have managed to go this long in the shadows.

Esten

01-29-11, 00:38

Good one Doppel, however I must give the funniest post of the day award to Stan, for this line:

Mark my words: ObamaCare will go down as the most misguided piece of legislation ever passed. It will be the movie equivalent of Ishtar, Howard the Duck and Waterworld all rolled into one.Except he forgot Gigli...

Jackson

01-29-11, 13:41

Mark my words: ObamaCare will go down as the most misguided piece of legislation ever passed. It will be the movie equivalent of Ishtar, Howard the Duck and Waterworld all rolled into one.Hey, I liked Waterworld.

Canitasguy

01-29-11, 18:56

We have the attention span and tolerance of a 2 year old. Sometimes it takes times for things to work. Can't tell you how many product meetings I've been in where the first 2 quarters of sales numbers were "off forecast" and everyone was screaming at each other. 2 years later, the same products were the number one sellers for the companies. It takes time for things to be understood and catch on.

Flame on.

SyscoHey, the know-it-all righties on this thread may not have the attention span of 2 year olds, but my guess is the time they spend actually thinking before they pop off another anti-Obama and anti-liberal rants is about the same as they last popping off with their putas. With similar levels of skill and results in terms of satisfaction!

Tiny12

01-30-11, 03:30

So Tiny, I would challenge you to look at the effect of tax rates on measures of middle class prosperity. Look up charts going back 70 years for income tax rates vs measures of real income, wealth inequality, share of the pie, etc. You will find that while we have a generally steady history of per capita GDP and income growth over this period, the middle class (or bottom 80-90%) did not fare as well during periods where the wealthy paid lower taxes.

This stuff should absolutely be included in high school education. It is not a matter of politicizing, it is important stuff. People should get an academic presentation of the effects of taxation and spending policies (especially over the past few decades) , not just rely on what they hear in the media. Esten, O. K, I've looked. Median household income (GDP per capita prior to 1967, when there's no data for the median) increased faster than trend after Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes. You may argue about the last Reagan tax cut, although I believe higher oil prices and other factors caused the recession in 1990/1991. It would be absurd to argue that lower taxes caused that. Median household income BEFORE INCOME TAX did not increase after the Bush tax cuts. As I've mentioned before, the standard of living for the middle class and median household income after income tax did increase, and you need to take the trend to smaller households into account. As you know, there are other factors besides tax rates that effect the economy and income distribution. That's what happened during Bush's terms in office. Also part of the reason why things went well during Clinton's terms. Again, Clinton and the Republicans did a lot that was right.

You don't have enough data in my opinion looking solely at the USA. That's why I think it's important to drag in other countries, and the data clearly show lower tax rates benefit all. Also, there's the business cycle, demographic changes, other economic policy changes, etc., that obscure the effects of tax cuts/tax increases -- another reason why looking at the prosperity of the middle class in countries versus their tax rates is a better indicator than looking at median growth in household income after tax cuts/increases.

What you're proposing to put in text books will not promote the Democrat agenda unless it's slanted, or unless it actually does reflect what people hear from most media sources (most journalists are left of center on and have poor understanding of economic issues). That's a slippery slope. I don't think we want to end up re-writing history like, say, the Japanese and Chinese do today, or the USSR did in the past.

Wild Walleye

01-31-11, 16:10

"We will be tested" Joe Biden (formerly the dumbest member of the senate) commenting on Obama's glaring lack of experience for the presidency.

Iran. Fail.

Russia. Fail.

China. Fail.

S. Korea. Incomplete.

Egypt. So far, voting 'present'

These dimwits have booted this three ways 'til Sunday. This "democratic' revolution helps to expose the hypocrisy and bigotry of the left. Clearly they must hate Mesopotamians since they adamant opposed efforts to bring freedom and independence to 31 million of them.

Stan Da Man

01-31-11, 21:03

"We will be tested" Joe Biden (formerly the dumbest member of the senate) commenting on Obama's glaring lack of experience for the presidency.I had almost forgotten all about that little gem. Cranking up the wayback machine, Biden said that Obama would be tested by a "major international crisis" within the first six months after being elected, and that it would not be immediately apparent that his chosen course of action would be the correct one, but that it was imperative that his supporters stand by him, despite their doubts.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Biden_Obama_will_be_tested.html

Why does that nutbag get a pass? Had that been a Republic VP putting on the tin hat, he would have been haunted by that prediction at every campaign stop. But the left-wing media has a convenient memory when it comes to one of their own.

What was the international crisis? Don't give me the "financial crisis." That wasn't what he was talking about, and it already was under way when Biden put his fortune teller cap on.

So, where was that international crisis, Joe? Anyone care to submit candidates:

- Maybe it was this whole Egypt thing and he just was off by a few years. Nostradamus wasn't always right, either. Remember Hisler? Who the heck was Hisler?

- Maybe he was talking about the Olympics being awarded to Rio rather than Chicago, and the media just failed to appreciate what a major deal this was.

- Maybe it was Obama's failure to turn down that Pulitzer Prize for Best Hopes and Aspirations. Yep, at the time I didn't agree with him, but now I agree with Obama's decision.

- Maybe it was decision not to attend the Paul the Octopus Funeral proceeding. (Paul was Biden's inspiration for this major international crisis, after all.)

With Dan Quayle, they were all over the guy for spelling potatoe wrong. Biden doesn't have any problems with words; he just steals whatever he wants. But the media has forgotten about that little incident, as well.

Canitasguy

01-31-11, 23:24

Stan and WW dis Biden for a making an erroneous prediction about an international conflict! One must assume they long for the days when Cheney created such conflicts. Just because he could!

Why haven't we invaded North Korea? Bombed Iran? Severed relations with Russia and China? Provided arms to the Muslim Brotherhood? Is it cause Obama is just a wuss after all?

Come to think of it, why didn't Bush do any of that? Oh yea, in his last years he stopped paying attention to Cheney! Mores the pity!

But I forget, brainless Obama and Biden bashing is what aging mongers do when their own international affairs are less frequent and satisfying than they once were!

Esten

02-01-11, 02:13

What constitutes the "best period" and how is that measured? Also, I would be curious on your take as to how long the regulatory and fiscal policies of a presidency take to affect the country. Days, weeks, months, years? Good questions.

The metrics I follow include:

1. GDP per capita.
2. Real median income.
3. Unemployment rate.
4. Poverty rate.
5. Federal deficit.
6. Income / Wealth inequality.

Success is measured by the extent to which the first 2 go up and the last 4 go down. There are others but these are the top ones that come to mind.

I would say some policy effects are observable within a year of their implementation (e.g. effect of taxation and spending on the deficit would be an obvious one). While others may take longer but most effects should be observable within 1-3 years. Just my rough swag at things.

Esten

02-01-11, 03:02

Technically, it was 7-1/2 years of strong economic growth, and 6 months of "management failures", not "failures of conservative ideology", but failures to stop liberal ideology from meddling with the free market models of credit worthiness.

Of course, many people choose to focus on the last 6 months of the Bush presidency alone because it serves their political agenda, never mind that the Dems played a major roll in the events that caused the housing / mortgage bubble, but that too is ignored by some individuals while chanting their mantra that Bush alone "fucked up the country". Poor Bush, everything was going swell and then BAM out of the blue this crazy financial crisis happened, the stock market tanked and credit markets froze, requiring a government bailout and causing the deepest recession in our lifetimes. LOL

The entire Bush presidency was not only a prelude to the grand finale, but lackluster from an economic perspective concerning the metrics I listed below. No, it was not just 6 months, but 8 years plus 2 years under Obama for a total of 10 years of effects from failed conservative policies. And no, it was not all Bush's fault, those are words you keep repeating. It was all those (including some Dems) who supported conservative ideology on taxation and deregulation. Check out the report from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission last week.

I will post a short summary on why the Bush years are indeed a textbook lesson in the failures of conservative ideology. But before I do, please, show us the data that demonstrates how average Americans prospered under Bush. I'll make it easy for you... ignore 2008 and just focus on 2001-2007.

Inquiring minds want to know. I am looking forward to hearing your defense, as well as looking forward to demolishing any misconception you have that conservative policies under Bush were a success.

Wild Walleye

02-01-11, 04:04

The entire Bush presidency was not only a prelude to the grand finale, but lackluster from an economic perspective concerning the metrics I listed below. No, it was not just 6 months, but 8 years plus 2 years under Obama for a total of 10 years of effects from failed conservative policies. And no, it was not all Bush's fault, those are words you keep repeating. It was all those (including some Dems) who supported conservative ideology on taxation and deregulation.Would you please provide a credible argument that Bush was / is a conservative?

Wild Walleye

02-01-11, 04:10

Wasn't there some guy who was blathering all sorts of right-wing drivel about the fact that Obamacare was unconstitutional, long before it was even passed? Too bad Elena Kagan will need to recuse herself when this case hits the supremes. Guess BHO should have thought that one through before nominating that incompetent hack.

Punter 127

02-01-11, 09:11

Dems ran on a clear platform to reform health care and expand coverage. They were elected. And now they delivered on their campaign promise.

20 years from now, this will be seen as a major step forward in US history.
A USA district judge on Monday threw out the nation's health care law, declaring it unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause and surely reviving a feud among competing philosophies about the role of government.

Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla, ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void. Who to believe?

Member #4112

02-01-11, 11:41

We all knew the House repeal of ObamaCare would be stuck in the Senate, but not before the Dems have their feet held to the fire on a vote which will come back to haunt them in November 2012.

We also all knew the legal challenges were going to be fast tracked to the Supreme Court, which with its current members will spell the end of ObamaCare due to the over reach of the Fed using the Commerce Clause.

One thing strikes me as odd about the bill in the first place, usually they are written so if one section is found to be unconstitutional the remainder is left in force, not so in this case. No matter which portion of the law is found to be unconstitutional the entire law will be scraped.

Esten

02-02-11, 01:17

Rev BS

02-02-11, 04:14

Who to believe?

For me, I trust the way my cock points to, that way, it is always an easy decision.

Wild Walleye

02-02-11, 19:34

I saw a small blurb about this story on I think it was page 16 of the newspaper today.

Apparently the lawsuit was filed by a Republican in a Florida district which ensured the case would be heard by a Republican appointee (Vinson). What a coincidence!Awesome. I knew that there would be benefits to being a conservative.

Why is it that when a judge upholds the Constitution, the Left has to attack him as personally motivated to pervert the law to his political agenda? Reagan appointed Vinson, so hopefully, he is in fact a Conservative and not just a republican.

Dopple, the question of Severability is that to which you allude. In most contracts you include a specific clause stating severability so that in the event any particular aspect of the contract is found to be unenforceable or outside the law, the rest of the contract remains in effect. When severability is not expressly stated and agreed to, one can argue that the entire contract should be viewed as one and if any part of it is found to be invalid, the whole thing is invalid. In this case, the fact that the judge found part of the law unconstitutional makes the whole act invalid. Therefore, the federal government must stand down all efforts to implement this flaming piece of shit, lest it is violating the law of the land and a valid judgment by a federal judge. To continue to implement this is to violate the finding of the court and any of the complainants may seek injunctive relief from Vinson's court.

I am quite happy to see that Judge Vinson, agrees with me on the unconstitutionality of this law. I find it kind of funny that Obama, an alleged Constitutional Scholar (which he clearly is not nor has he ever been), hung his presidency on something that regular joes knew was unconstitutional from the start.

Makes Esten's position that Obamacare didn't go far enough even more laughable.

Jackson

02-02-11, 19:56

I saw a small blurb about this story on I think it was page 16 of the newspaper today.

Apparently the lawsuit was filed by a Republican in a Florida district which ensured the case would be heard by a Republican appointee (Vinson). What a coincidence! Yes, and what's particularly aggravating about this is the sure and certain knowledge that no liberal would ever resort to such a strategy themselves.

Wild Walleye

02-02-11, 21:49

Even these scumbags have to agree with my initial reaction to the 1099 requirement. They are whistling pass the graveyard on why it was even in there in at all. Because they want to know every last thing about your private business so that they can ex-appropriate more of your formerly-constitutionally-protected private property.

These f-ckers should burn in hell. Their selfish and misguided efforts are aimed at destroying the greatest civilization known to man.

Rock Harders

02-02-11, 22:50

Makes Esten's position that Obamacare didn't go far enough even more laughable.Mongers-

Actually, my sentiment is exactly this, that the current incarnation of "obamacare" in fact DID NOT go even close to far enough (which is why I am opposed to it) , as all it did was further regulate and complicate the current privately-run and profit-driven healthcare system. The only answer to the health care problem is to create a publicly-run health care system (just as every other civilized nation on earth has) staffed by publicly educated doctors and staff working on a a public sector wage."Health Care Service Academies" if you will, similar to the current Military Service Academies, which provide a free medical school education in exchange for ten (or more) years working for a public sector wage at a public hospital. Private, for profit healthcare care can continue to exist and thrive parallel to a public system. The program can be funded by completely eliminating Medicare and Medicaid and require that those who would previously be treated by those entitlement programs must use the public system instead.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Stan Da Man

02-02-11, 23:24

Dopple, the question of Severability is that to which you allude. In most contracts you include a specific clause stating severability so that in the event any particular aspect of the contract is found to be unenforceable or outside the law, the rest of the contract remains in effect. When severability is not expressly stated and agreed to, one can argue that the entire contract should be viewed as one and if any part of it is found to be invalid, the whole thing is invalid. In this case, the fact that the judge found part of the law unconstitutional makes the whole act invalid. Therefore, the federal government must stand down all efforts to implement this flaming piece of shit, lest it is violating the law of the land and a valid judgment by a federal judge. To continue to implement this is to violate the finding of the court and any of the complainants may seek injunctive relief from Vinson's court.Not really. Lawyers and legislators include severability clauses more as a "reminder" of what courts already are supposed to do. If a court severs a provision from a contract or legislation, a court is supposed to try to enforce the remaining, valid provisions, unless the stricken portion is so essential that the contract's or legislation's purpose would be frustrated without the stricken piece. Regardless of whether a severability clause exists, courts are supposed to do this. The opposite could also be included, a non-severability Clause, stating that if any provision or a particular provision is held invalid, then the entire thing fails.

The absence of a severability clause is significant evidence Here for two reasons. First, one existed in an earlier draft, so its removal likely was not an accident. Second, there are a number of outside the record statements about the necessity of the individual mandate, further supporting the idea that the Act fails without the individual mandate. Had a severability clause existed, these outside the record statements likely would have been entitled to no weight.

But, absence of a severability clause alone does not mean that if any Provision of Obamacare is stricken then the entire morass goes by the wayside. There is much misguided commentary on this right now.

Esten

02-03-11, 00:57

Rock- I agree with you on the merits of a publicly-run health care system, however it is also important to evaluate PPACA on where it puts us. I say it puts us in a better position to move towards a public option or single-payer. It moves the bar. A repeal of PPACA would mean the loss of all the improvements, and back to square one with the fate of reform now more in the hands of Republicans. Repeal doesn't make sense, because Repubs don't want the government involved.

Senate strikes part of Obamacare. Oops, looks like WW is right again We all read about that in "Who Cares" Magazine.

Guess you missed the other headline today "Health-law repeal fails in Senate".

Wild Walleye

02-03-11, 01:14

"obamacare" in fact DID NOT go even close to far enough (which is why I am opposed to it) Rockharders and Esten revile the Constitution.

The only answer to the health care problem is to create a publicly-run health care system (just as every other civilized nation on earth has) staffed by publicly educated doctors and staff working on a a public sector wage."Health Care Service Academies" if you will, similar to the current Military Service Academies, which provide a free medical school education in exchange for ten (or more) years working for a public sector wage at a public hospital. Private, for profit healthcare care can continue to exist and thrive parallel to a public system.How are you going to pay for this utopian situation? In the military academy example, the contribute ten years of their lives at sub-market rates in exchange for the medical school education. How do you propose that these public sector docs pay for their educations?

The program can be funded by completely eliminating Medicare and Medicaid and require that those who would previously be treated by those entitlement programs must use the public system instead.Errr, ahhh, duh. What are medicare and medicaid? Rock, stick to making pizza that isn't terrible (when you're 5, 000 miles from home).

Suerte, Whatever

Wild Walleye

02-03-11, 01:23

Rock- I agree with you on the merits of a publicly-run health care system,Translation: "Rock, I agree that we should suspend the constitution when it inteferes with our agenda. Afterall, it is just some thing a bunch of dead white guys wrote on some paper like 50 years ago.

however it is also important to evaluate PPACA on where it puts us. Considering that the Act was deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge, I'd say it puts you back towards the beginning. Thanks to Vison's ruling, it isn't a law, it's unconstitutional.

I say it puts us in a better position to move towards a public option or single-payer.I'd say having the sports section in hand puts you in a better position for your morning constitutional [err. Unconstitutional in your case]

It moves the bar. A repeal of PPACA would mean the loss of all the improvements, and back to square one with the fate of reform now more in the hands of Republicans.Please state one improvement. Just one. I know you won't (because there aren't any).

Repeal doesn't make sense, because Repubs don't want the government involved.It makes a ton of sense if you love freedom and the constitution.

We all read about that in "Who Cares" Magazine.Didn't see it. Must be another bankrupt liberal rag.

Guess you missed the other headline today "Health-law repeal fails in Senate".Guess you missed the other, other headline. 22 Dem senators up for reelection in 2012.

Wild Walleye

02-03-11, 01:35

Stan, no offense, but I see it slightly differently.

Not really. Lawyers and legislators include severability clauses more as a "reminder" of what courts already are supposed to do. If a court severs a provision from a contract or legislation, a court is supposed to try to enforce the remaining, valid provisions, unless the stricken portion is so essential that the contract's or legislation's purpose would be frustrated without the stricken piece. Regardless of whether a severability clause exists, courts are supposed to do this. The opposite could also be included, a non-severability Clause, stating that if any provision or a particular provision is held invalid, then the entire thing fails.Over the past 20 years, I have entered into hundreds of contracts. Not one has excluded a nonseverabilty clause. There is a reason for that: to make certain that the interpretive body is put on notice that the contract is meant to be interpreted as severable.

The absence of a severability clause is significant evidence Here for two reasons. First, one existed in an earlier draft, so its removal likely was not an accident. Second, there are a number of outside the record statements about the necessity of the individual mandate, further supporting the idea that the Act fails without the individual mandate. Had a severability clause existed, these outside the record statements likely would have been entitled to no weight.Here you raise a good point. If it existed in previous versions, it was removed for specific reasons. Most likely, the removal of the severability clause would be to make sure that the unconstitutional forced payments would not be severed from the ridiculous increased expenditures called for by the law. Chances are, some Clintonista thought that they could parse socialized medicine to circumvent the constitution.

But, absence of a severability clause alone does not mean that if any Provision of Obamacare is stricken then the entire morass goes by the wayside. There is much misguided commentary on this right now.Absence of a return address or improperly named counsel is grounds for argument. If you leave out one of the most commonly cited clauses in contract law, one would logically assume that the parties deliberately excluded the concept and therefore, it should not apply.

Wild Walleye

02-03-11, 01:39

Stan Da Man

02-03-11, 15:44

One more point. If severability was initially included and subsequently removed, it is declarative of the fact that the author and signatories intentionally did not want severability to be included. Therefore, it should be excluded.You don't have to take my word for it. Vinson himself acknowledges my point: "the absence of such a clause, in and of itself, does not raise a presumption against severability. .." P. 67 of Vinson's opinion (quoting Supreme Court decision in New York v. USA). As an example, if Vinson instead had addressed a challenge to the 1099 provision and found that provision unconstitutional, there is little doubt that he would have held this provision to be severable. The point, again, is that lack of a severability clause does not automatically mean that if one provision is held unconstitutional, then all of ObamaCare fails.

Why is this significant? Because many are predicting that this issue will go to the Supreme Court. These same folks predict that Kennedy will be the deciding vote, because he frequently swings between the liberal and conservative wings of the court. Kennedy is known for lacking a particular part of the anatomy: a spine. He tends to split the baby. So, as a baby-splitter, many also are predicting that Kennedy would hold that the individual mandate violates the Constitution but that this portion of ObamaCare is Severable, and therefore the remainder of ObamaCare can stand. In so doing, he would be giving something to each side, consistent with his reputation.

I don't think he would do that here. Kennedy sided with the conservative majority in the Lopez case, which is where the Supreme Court started setting limits again on the Commerce Clause. But, he definitely has a reputation of trying to be friends with both camps. So, he could easily agree with the conservatives on the Commerce Clause and the liberals on the severability issue.

Wild Walleye

02-03-11, 16:22

You don't have to take my word for it. Vinson himself acknowledges my point: "the absence of such a clause, in and of itself, does not raise a presumption against severability. .." P. 67 of Vinson's opinion (quoting Supreme Court decision in New York v. USA). As an example, if Vinson instead had addressed a challenge to the 1099 provision and found that provision unconstitutional, there is little doubt that he would have held this provision to be severable.Excellent point. In a contract between two parties, either party can argue that the absence of such a clause is indicative of the understanding between the parties and that severability is not in the spirit of the original agreement. Obviously, the other side would argue that severability, despite the omission of an explicit mention in the document, is valid.

You example is excellent. I agree that such a finding on the 1099 issue would likely have resulted in the issue being severed. However, in Vinson's finding the unconstitutional mandate is so inextricably interwoven in the fabric of the law and the fact that the law is dependent upon this extra-constitutional "taking" therefore the issues could not be severed.

The point, again, is that lack of a severability clause does not automatically mean that if one provision is held unconstitutional, then all of ObamaCare fails.Agreed. However, the fact that Vinson did not sever, and opined on the nonseverability, means that the law is unconstitutional and by virtue of the ruling there is an ipso facto injunction on its implementation.

Why is this significant? Because many are predicting that this issue will go to the Supreme Court. These same folks predict that Kennedy will be the deciding vote, because he frequently swings between the liberal and conservative wings of the court. Kennedy is known for lacking a particular part of the anatomy: a spine. He tends to split the baby. So, as a baby-splitter, many also are predicting that Kennedy would hold that the individual mandate violates the Constitution but that this portion of ObamaCare is Severable, and therefore the remainder of ObamaCare can stand. In so doing, he would be giving something to each side, consistent with his reputation.Agreed. A federal judge has ruled that the Law is unconstitutional. The supremes will decide. The Kennedy factor is all the more reason for having Kagan recuse herself.

I don't think he would do that here. Kennedy sided with the conservative majority in the Lopez case, which is where the Supreme Court started setting limits again on the Commerce Clause. But, he definitely has a reputation of trying to be friends with both camps. So, he could easily agree with the conservatives on the Commerce Clause and the liberals on the severability issue.Will the Supremes be able to consider the issue of severability? If so, I will be interested in Harry Reid's reasoning behind behind taking severability out of the law.

By the way, the Obama administration has already been found in contempt for dismissing a judge's ruling regarding the offshore drilling moratorium.

By the way, Obama is totally f-ing up this Egypt situation. What started as a protest against rising food prices is now a total mess replete with WH flip flopping. Right or wrong, Eqypt under Mubarak has been one of our, for lack of a better word, allies in the region. I can assure you that the Muslim Brotherhood will be no more benevolent a ruler than Mubarak (think Mullahs in Iran). This is Iran part II. Barrack Hussein "Jimmy Carter" Obama.

Do a little reading on the Muslim Brotherhood and their role in the spread of global terrorism. Anybody remember what was going on in Beriut '80-'83? How about the primary export of the Bekaa Valley? Hint: "_ _ rrorism"

Stan Da Man

02-03-11, 21:58

I agree. And, I don't mean to imply that I think the individual mandate is severable. I agree with you (and Vinson's holding) that it isn't. There was some commentary here, and there's been much in the media, that the lack of a severability clause would automatically result in all of ObamaCare being stricken if any portion of it was held invalid, and that isn't the case. Kennedy would have to do some real mental gymnastics to find that the individual mandate is severable, but you frequently get that sort of thing out of the Supreme Court.

So, the legal fate of Obamacare probably will come down to how Kennedy parses the issues associated with the Commerce Clause. Vinson found that the Commerce Clause cannot be stretched to allow Congress to regulate inactivity, not purchasing Health insurance. Few courts would dispute this, even the ones that upheld ObamaCare. Instead, however, they have twisted the argument. They frame the issue as whether the Commerce Clause gives Congress has the power to regulate "economic decisions". Framed this way, they find that Congress clearly has the power to regulate economic decisions, and that everyone who doesn't purchase insurance has necessarily made an economic decision, even if they never gave the matter a thought in the first place.

Using the test announced by the courts upholding ObamaCare, it isn't much of a stretch to argue that Congress can regulate absolutely anything, so long as there's a whiff of economics in there somewhere along the lines. That's a pretty big stretch. Nevertheless, two Democrat appointees have so held, and there likely will be four disingenuous Supreme Court justices who agree. Personally, I don't think Kagan will recuse herself. She should, but why let a little thing like the appearance of impropriety get in the way.

Member #4112

02-03-11, 22:04

Stan and WW – Severability.

While you both make good points regarding the recent ruling on ObamaCare, I've worked with several attorneys over the years and what it usually comes down to after all the fancy foot work, smoke and mirrors is WHAT DOES THE CONTRACT SAY. In this case the fact there was a severability clause in an earlier version of the bill but it was not in the bill which became law argues for the law stands as a whole or falls as a whole. Due to Kagens involvement in ObamaCare prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court she should recues herself from the hearing making it a slam dunk for the bill going down. I don't expect a Democrat to understand the words honor or decency so I doubt she will.

Esten – Medical Service Academies.

You allude to the United States Military – Naval – Air Force and Coast Guard Academies as examples of how physicians can be trained. These academies combined produce a little more than 4, 000 graduates per year from all 4 academies with 8 year commitments at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars per graduate for what is a undergraduate degree. (I am a little familiar with this since my daughter graduated from USMA West Point)

Physician training usually takes 4 years under grad. 3 years medical school, and 2 to 4 years internship and residency before they are really ready to be out practicing. Now you're trying to tell me you want to produce physicians in 4 years from similar facilities as the service academies? If so I would volunteer you to be the first patient for brain surgery by one of your new 4 year medical wonders.

Obama and Egypt.

Obama's poll numbers are beginning to sink like a stone again due to his policy (does he really have one) toward the current unrest in Egypt. WW is right, if you want Iran II let the Muslin Brotherhood size the reins of power. To make matters worse this fool we have for a president is making polite overtures to them! I told you Obama was going to make Jimmy Carter look good!

Stan Da Man

02-04-11, 00:11

Due to Kagens involvement in ObamaCare prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court she should recues herself from the hearing making it a slam dunk for the bill going down. I don't expect a Democrat to understand the words honor or decency so I doubt she will.I tend to agree. But, here are two more scenarios. First, let's say Kagan did recuse herself. It would probably never happen. But, assume for a moment that she has an involuntary spasm at the precise moment when they ask for a showing of hands if anyone wants to recuse herself. Then, assume that Kennedy sides with the three liberal justices and the four conservative justices vote as we would expect. It's a 4-4 tie. What happens? The decision of the lower courts stand. But, what happens if there are different decisions among multiple circuit courts, and the Supreme Court grants review of all of them? They all stand. We have ObamaCare in some states but not others, depending on what the Courts of Appeal decide on the way up to the Supreme Court. A fine mess, but altogether possible.

Second and more likely, though, the Supreme Court will punt on this issue as long as it can. Some ObamaCare provisions go into effect before 2014, but the most dramatic measures don't kick in until then. The rest is just taxes to punish the rich. So, what likely will occur is that the Supreme Court will do nothing Until 2013, at the earliest. That way, they can wait and see whether Republicans re-take the White House and Senate in the 2012 election and they can just let Republicans obliterate this abomination. The Supremes wouldn't need to get their dainty little hands dirty, which usually is their preferred course of action. They'll act, but probably only if they have to.

Esten

02-04-11, 03:17

In the news today: Federal judge in Mississippi throws out suit challenging constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

And this judge, Keith Starrett, was appointed by Bush. Who to believe? Vinson? Starrett?

Don't get your hopes up too much. Odds are Obama is re-elected and Supreme Court upholds the law. Of course, that probably won't stop Repubs in their endless quest to help the rich and slam the poor.

Rockharders and Esten revile the Constitution.Walleye hates poor people.

After all, this is the same guy who told us hunger is a good motivator. I guess the GOP plan is to 'motivate' the poor enough so they will go out and get all those good paying jobs out there.

Punter 127

02-04-11, 06:20

In the news today: Federal judge in Mississippi throws out suit challenging constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

He didn't totally throw it out.

The Huffington Post reported: "The judge, Keith Starret, who serves on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, ruled that plaintiffs suing over the coming implementation of the individual mandate did not demonstrate sufficient standing for him to take the case. He "granted in part" the administrations motion to dismiss the case, but gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint."

Member #4112

02-04-11, 11:57

Excellent point Stan and as you already know we have different rulings from different Federal District Judges now. The next round will be to wait for the Appeal Courts decisions which I doubt will be unanimous which would set up the scenario you outline.

I see Virginia's Attorney General has requested a 'fast track' to the Supreme Court and the Government's attorneys are fighting it to delay the issue reaching the Court as long as possible. I suspect this tactic is being used by Holder to have as much of ObamaCare implemented prior to the Supreme Court hearing the case as possible in the hope of swaying the Court's decision (Kennedy).

If that's not bad enough, now China's national aviation corp is trying to use a near bankrupt California aviation firm as a partner to bid on the next generation of helicopters for Marine One. Wow, the ChiComs are going to try and get the contract to build the helio for the president, wonderful!

As far as Egypt goes, I wonder how Obama would have liked it if some other foreign leader was telling him to step down during the Tea Party rallies in 2010, sort of the same thing with him suggesting Egypt's president leave? Maybe Obama should stay out of other countries politics or perhaps he is trying to redirect attention away from his failed presidency?

Jackson

02-04-11, 13:28

I guess the GOP plan is to 'motivate' the poor enough so they will go out and get all those good paying jobs out there.Actually, they can start with entry level jobs (like the rest of us did), and then they can work their way up the ladder to the "good paying jobs" after they've demonstrated some work ethic (like the rest of us did).

Wild Walleye

02-04-11, 15:37

In the news today: Federal judge in Mississippi throws out suit challenging constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

And this judge, Keith Starrett, was appointed by Bush. Who to believe? Vinson? Starrett? So what? A federal judge has declared it unconstitutional. Do you think that an unrelated ruling in another state somehow overrules the outcome of the prior adjudication?

Don't get your hopes up too much. Odds are Obama is re-electedWhich odds are those? I believe FDR is the only US pres to be reelected with unemployment greater than 8.

and Supreme Court upholds the law.I guess that is why BHO is fighting the effort to fast track to the supremes.

Of course, that probably won't stop Repubs in their endless quest to help the rich and slam the poor.I am sure that their efforts will remain consistent with past practices.

Walleye hates poor people.Not true. I hate being a poor people. Therefore, I get off my ass and do everything I can to get ahead.

It appears that Esten, Obama and their ilk hate the poor. Everything they do either drives up the cost of living, including prices for food, fuel and health care or reduces employment opportunities. How does that help the poor? It doesn't.

After all, this is the same guy who told us hunger is a good motivator. I guess the GOP plan is to 'motivate' the poor enough so they will go out and get all those good paying jobs out there.That approach has worked since the dawn of mankind.

Your approach is to have the productive members feed the nonproductive (including some who actually need help) thereby eliminating the source of motivation for nonproductive people, who could actually be out there producing. Great plan.

Wild Walleye

02-04-11, 16:35

As far as Egypt goes, I wonder how Obama would have liked it if some other foreign leader was telling him to step down during the Tea Party rallies in 2010, sort of the same thing with him suggesting Egypt's president leave? Maybe Obama should stay out of other countries politics or perhaps he is trying to redirect attention away from his failed presidency?Nothing tells the world that you are in command of the issues like having two of your spokespeople (Hillary and Biden) publicly state that your administration is on both sides of the issue.

Because our douchebag president thinks crowds in the street must be indicative of strong community organizing, we are throwing our support behind the Muslim Brotherhood as opposed to Mubarak. What is worse is that the press and this administration are calling the protesters "pro-democracy" with absolutely no basis for making that assessment. Please show me a democratic government with a large contingency from the Muslim Brotherhood or their ilk.

I think that the back story on this is that BHO thinks that in order for us to be loved by the Muslim World, we have to dump Israel. He has clearly been anti-Israel for a long time. However, I think he sees dumping one of the very few Islamic leaders who maintains peace with Israel as a step in the right direction.

It is incredible to look at the destruction Obama has wreaked upon us in just two short years. He has destroyed our economy, attempted to destroy our healthcare industry, trampled the constitution, increased global fuel and food costs, and has helped to send the Middle East back to a circa-'78 complexion. Wow, how's that hope and change working for you?

Stan Da Man

02-04-11, 17:33

He didn't totally throw it out.He didn't throw it out at all. He gave them 30 days to amend.

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/article/20110203/NEWS01/110203027/Judge-dismisses-Miss-lawsuit-against-Obamacare

And, the dismissal with leave to amend had nothing to do with Constitutionality. This just held that the plaintiffs hadn't demonstrated standing (a procedural issue) because they hadn't shown imminent injury. If the judge had addressed Constitutionality and held that ObamaCare passes muster, he would not have granted leave to amend.

The upshot: This case doesn't even go on the scorecard yet. There simply hasn't been a decision on the merits. And, if standing is a problem, there may never be a decision on the merits.

Jackson

02-04-11, 18:13

It is incredible to look at the destruction Obama has wreaked upon us in just two short years. He has destroyed our economy, attempted to destroy our healthcare industry, trampled the constitution, increased global fuel and food costs, and has helped to send the Middle East back to a circa-'78 complexion. Wow, how's that hope and change working for you?It's George Bush's fault!

Jackson

02-04-11, 18:16

And, the dismissal with leave to amend had nothing to do with Constitutionality. This just held that the plaintiffs hadn't demonstrated standing (a procedural issue) because they hadn't shown imminent injury. If the judge had addressed Constitutionality and held that ObamaCare passes muster, he would not have granted leave to amend.Stan,

Liberals never let the facts stop them from uttering a good sound bite.

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

02-05-11, 00:39

It's George Bush's fault!I need a little couch time in front of the big screen at the AP house so we can wax philosophically about all that ails this world. Cigar Eric will be kind enough not to point out how abrasive I am and we can discuss possible menu items for Thursday dinners. No doubt, in the end, we'll find that it is in fact, all George Bush's fault.

BTW, did you know that George W. Bush is / was a conservative? That's what Esten said, so it's got to be true.

Wild Walleye

02-05-11, 00:47

The community organizer in chief continues to figuratively take to the streets (of Cairo) and rail against the Man (I guess in this case Mubarak). This dimwit is so f-ing stupid that he is calling for transition to take place immediately then later he has his minions back pedal and say "begin the transition process, immediately." That is like throwing a steak in front of a Doberman and asking it to wait before it eats it. Like I have said many times before, whatever room Obama is in, he is the least experienced person in the room. His ineptitude in this situation is pushing a quasi-ally of 80 million people and de facto controller of the Suez canal into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood (kind of like a union for terrorists).

F-ing brilliant. He's the smartest guy in the world.

Esten

02-05-11, 02:45

Who said Bush was a conservative? I didn't.

And why do you guys keep saying "It's all Bush's fault". Do you really believe that?

It is incredible to look at the destruction Obama has wreaked upon us in just two short years. He has destroyed our economy, attempted to destroy our healthcare industry, trampled the constitution, increased global fuel and food costs, and has helped to send the Middle East back to a circa-'78 complexion. Wow, how's that hope and change working for you?Conservative delusion at its best.

Canitasguy

02-05-11, 02:49

Actually, they can start with entry level jobs (like the rest of us did), and then they can work their way up the ladder to the "good paying jobs" after they've demonstrated some work ethic (like the rest of us did).History is being rewritten at breakneck speed these days!

Sarah Palin says the Russians went broke winning the space race and self-destucted as a result.

Michelle Bachmann says the Founding Fathers went all out to end slavery.

Glenn Beck says a long-planned caliphate is descending on the US as Muslims are encircling the borders.

And Jackson says "the rest of us" (who one must assume means every white man in America) worked our way up from entry level jobs. Apparently no one was ever given a head start by a well-off, well-positioned dad, mom, grand dad or whatever.

He adds "the rest of us" picked up the "work ethic" along the way! Which makes one wonder where he worked all his life and who he worked with. In my experience, the "work ethic" hasn't been an attribute of most of the spoiled upper class white college grads I worked with for the past twenty years.

Moveon

02-07-11, 16:22

Stan Da Man

02-07-11, 18:07

Well, well, well, Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry.

We all know that you advocated succeeding from the Union and your desire to invade Mexico. (what was that?)

We also know how you loved to bash California because of the state budget deficit while claiming Texas and your Tea Bag followers really know how to manage a state run government.

Now it was revealed that it was all a dog and pony show, just a room full of smoke and mirrors.

Texas now projects it has a budget deficit similar to the same size of California! ($27billion)

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-texas-budget-20110207,0,4154023.story

So much for the TEA BAG "Texas Miracle."Right. Think again.

* Texas has a $9 billion rainy day fund that they aren't even touching to cover this. California had a rainy day fund when Pete Wilson was in office. I think it got to about 45 cents before California legislators raided it.

* The budget deficit for Texas is based on two years (because they're smart enough to shut the legislators out every other year). The budget deficit for California is $28 billion over the next year and 4 months.

* California's projected deficit over the next two years is a whopping 29 percent of revenues, and Jerry Brown plans to "not raise taxes" by asking voters to agree to continue $12. 5 billion in tax increases to cover part of the shortfall.

* The worst-case interpretation for Texas is a 17 percent deficit, and Texas is closing it's budget deficit without raising taxes.

* The worst part of Texas's job loss appears to be in the past, and unemployment is gradually decreasing. In California it is still increasing.

* Texas's business community and population continue to grow; California's continues to shrivel.

This last issue is the biggest concern: Every year, legislators in California have fewer pockets to pick, while those in Texas have more.

New York and New Jersey have the same problems as California. The differences is, they have governors who are trying to fix the problem. In California, Jerry Brown is just adding fuel to the fire, or fiddling while Rome burns. Pick your metaphor.

Any sane person would take Texas's problems over California's any day of the week. Even Jerry Brown, so that would apply to some insane persons, as well.

Member #4112

02-07-11, 20:15

Moveon, since I live in the Great State of Texas, let me give you a little lesson in economics. Perry is (gasp) cutting spending to close the budget gap and not raising taxes. OMG!

What a novel idea, when you don't have the money you cut spending!

Wonder if this might catch on in Washington?

Ok now all you liberals and progressives can start telling me how we are kicking the poor ect ect ect.

Esten

02-08-11, 02:08

Esten

02-08-11, 02:42

Esten, O. K, I've looked. Median household income (GDP per capita prior to 1967, when there's no data for the median) increased faster than trend after Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes. You may argue about the last Reagan tax cut, although I believe higher oil prices and other factors caused the recession in 1990/1991. It would be absurd to argue that lower taxes caused that. Median household income BEFORE INCOME TAX did not increase after the Bush tax cuts. As I've mentioned before, the standard of living for the middle class and median household income after income tax did increase, and you need to take the trend to smaller households into account. As you know, there are other factors besides tax rates that effect the economy and income distribution. That's what happened during Bush's terms in office. Also part of the reason why things went well during Clinton's terms. Again, Clinton and the Republicans did a lot that was right.

You don't have enough data in my opinion looking solely at the USA. That's why I think it's important to drag in other countries, and the data clearly show lower tax rates benefit all. Also, there's the business cycle, demographic changes, other economic policy changes, etc, that obscure the effects of tax cuts / tax increases. Another reason why looking at the prosperity of the middle class in countries versus their tax rates is a better indicator than looking at median growth in household income after tax cuts / increases. Tiny, sorry for the delay in getting back. Glad to see you took some time to look up the data. Here is my case on taxes.

1) The great economic expansion and growth in middle class prosperity that began with FDR occured under far higher upper income tax rates than we have today.

2) As you noted real income (and poverty) improved faster than trend after Reagan tax cuts. But they also did so faster than trend after Bush / Clinton tax increases (which you omitted). AND unlike Reagan, Clinton balanced the budget.

3) The W Bush tax cuts did NOT provide further improvement in real income and poverty (or GDP growth) vs. What Clinton achieved, despite conservative ideology which states that tax cuts grow the pie and benefit everyone. In fact most metrics under Bush were unfavorable compared to Clinton. 9/11 and the wars cannot be blamed for the performance of these metrics under Bush, except deficits.

All of this tells me tax cuts (especially for the wealthy) are not the great harbinger of prosperity for average Americans that some would have us believe.

Conversely, moves to higher tax rates (as evidenced by FDR and Clinton) can produce positive outcomes.

I think there is plenty of data to evaluate the effects of taxation in the US, and that getting into comparisons with other countries introduces more confounding variables. The question I am interested in is what are the effects of lower vs. Higher taxation within the US.

Member #4112

02-08-11, 13:13

Esten,

To begin with Texas has no state income tax, is business friendly, has experienced an influx of people, is controlled by a Republican governor & legislature and is recovering faster from the recession; California has the exact opposite trends. But then everything has to be measured against how the 'poor' are doing to suit the liberals / progressives. Let me give you a little hint here, you have to have a viable economy and funds to spend before you can 'help the poor', the two go hand in hand.

Liberals / Progressives have done more to insure the 'poor' stay 'poor' therefore insuring their constituency than anyone else. It is the liberal / progressive poverty pimps who have created the new underclass via Welfare and who continue to preach class warfare to that constituency.

Texas will do fine and weather the budget shortfall where very soon you will see California beating on Obama's door asking for a hand out to save their state. I just don't understand how liberals / progressives can not grasp the simple concept of you don't spend the money when you don't have

Wild Walleye

02-08-11, 15:45

Very interesting article, thanks.Translation: I like propagandist materials that support my cockeyed view of the world.

One line got my attention: "People could stake me and Gov. Perry on the ground and torture us, and we still would not raise taxes." Ideology is strong.The Liberal Left (not all democrats) lives in a vacuum, devoid of principles or personal convictions. This is derivative of having no moral core, upon which such beliefs can be established. Therefore they create an artificial group of untethered 'beliefs' (environmentalism, Scientology, etc) in order to make themselves feel better and to give themselves the facade of moral superiority."I drive a hybrid, therefore I care more about the environment than you." "I care about the poor, therefore I am better than you." It also leads them to attack anyone who actually has beliefs or convictions (except if those convictions are the felony kind). While they may be able to fool others, subconsciously, they cannot fool themselves. So lacking a moral compass and jealous of those that have them, they develop a righteous form of short-man's disease. This form of dementia leads them to force their supposedly, morally-superior beliefs down everyone's throat, because they 'know' that they are right. When challenged, they become volatile and dangerous, not because of the strength of their beliefs but because their fear that if proven wrong, the basis of who they are will have been proven to be nonexistent.

Texas and California will both be interesting to watch.Comment, below.

But the approach of combined spending cuts and tax increases is the superior approach.When was the last time any liberal advocated cutting taxes for those people who pay taxes? When was the last time any liberal advocated cutting spending? US State and Federal Governments in general never really cut spending. They merely reduce the amount by which a line item is increased and call it a cut.

What Esten is saying here is that California, under the tutelage of Governor Moonbeam, will have a superior outcome to that achieved by Texas, via increasing taxes and maintaining modest spending growth (in liberal terms that is "slashing the budget to the bone"). As has been stated below, CA's tax and regulatory policies have driven Californians out of the state in droves (WA, OR, NV, NM anyone?). Therefore, Esten's superior approach to closing the budget deficit is to reduce state revenues by hastening a reduction in the tax base via additional tax hikes and of course increase spending.

Interesting to watch? About as interesting as watching Old Yeller over and over again just hoping that one of these times that fucking mutt will live.

There is no sound moral or economic reason for not including revenue increases through somewhat higher taxation on those who can easily afford it.In addition to the comment above, which sheds light on your state of mind, you might try reading (books, not bumper stickers). The economic and moral reasoning are completely intertwined. It is no surprise that you are unaware of either. There is more than a little empirical evidence that shows the economic harm wrought by increasing tax rates and their asymmetrical impact on the poor. Fact: as marginal tax rates increase, monies that would have flowed into the private sector economy are reduced. That means that the share of the economic pie available to all individuals is reduced (corporations don't pay taxes, they pass them all on to individuals). The deleterious effects actively reduce personal wealth, across all socio-economic strata. Those who can 'afford' tax raises survive while those who can't are marginalized and transitioned from productive members of the economy to wards of the government. It is far worse than irony that these marginalized individuals become subsidized by the ranks of the productive, which their government forced them to leave.

Do I need to go into how that relates to morality?

Texas already has a poverty rate over 17, the 6th highest in the country. Is this a non sequitur or are you establishing the baseline to which you wish to add via tax and spend policies? Or are you being duplicitous by ignoring how liberal policies regarding the invasion of America by its southern neighbor has distorted the poverty rates in many southern states, not the least of which is Texas?

Spending cuts without higher progressive taxes tend to increase economic inequality and increase poverty.That is complete bullshit. Look at tax the empirical evidence (I. E. Not your unfounded opinions) of tax cuts imposed by Kennedy, Reagan and Bush43.

The only way to possibly offset that will be strong state GDP growth, which is what Perry is counting on.No shit? Why isn't Governor Moonbeam counting on economic growth? Because he knows that there won't be any precisely because of his and his predecessors' policies.

We shall see how the experiment turns out.We shall, but why can't we use factual examples of how things have worked and not worked in formulating solutions to current problems? Why must we throw out what we know so that the left can prove itself wrong again and again?

At the end of the day the most important metrics are those that relate to the well-being of the poor and middle class.At the end of the day, we are stuck with moronic liberal spew like the above. All men are equal, some just more than others.

I know you don't respect it or see any value in it but there is this thing called the Declaration of Independence. Despite the fact that was written a while back by a bunch of white guys, it encapsulates the core upon which America founded.

Part of it goes like this:

'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 Declaration has served us pretty well for nearly 235 years. Who are you that you know better? Herein lies the fallacy and danger of liberalism, outlined above.

Moveon

02-08-11, 16:43

Very interesting article, thanks.

Texas already has a poverty rate over 17, the 6th highest in the country. Spending cuts without higher progressive taxes tend to increase economic inequality and increase poverty. The only way to possibly offset that will be strong state GDP growth, which is what Perry is counting on. We shall see how the experiment turns out.

At the end of the day the most important metrics are those that relate to the well-being of the poor and middle class. Esten,

Yes, the Texas budget deficit destroys the myths about Texas and Tea Bag darling. Republican Governor Rick Perry.

We also know the ones who will be really affected will be the Hispanic population of Texas first and foremost. I really doubt if any Tea Bagger cares, anyway.

Too bad for the Republican Party! They have ZERO chance in the next Presidential election without the LATINO Vote.

Esten, I have been meaning to ask you: Have you seen the FEMA concentration camps or seen the Obama DEATH PANELS yet? (FOX NEWS) Let me know when you do.

Thanks-

Moveon

Wild Walleye

02-08-11, 17:00

Esten,

Yes, the Texas budget deficit destroys the myths about Texas and Tea Bag darling. Republican Governor Rick Perry. How, exactly?

We also know the ones who will be really affected will be the Hispanic population of Texas first and foremost.The legal ones or the illegal ones? Why don't you care about poor black people or Texas' poor white crackers?

I really doubt if any Tea Bagger cares, anyway.About what? If you make up some sort of nonsense hypothetical, why should someone care?

Too bad for the Republican Party! They have ZERO chance in the next Presidential election without the LATINO Vote.All hail Moveon, he knows more than than 86. 19 million Americans.

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/02/americans-think.php

Esten, I have been meaning to ask you: Have you seen the FEMA concentration camps Who suggested there would be FEMA CCs? If Obama is calling the shots, I would expect them to be much more high-minded, reeducation camps.

or seen the Obama DEATH PANELS yet?Check out Avastin.

(FOX NEWS) Let me know when you do.I am pretty sure you'll be the last to know

Moveon

02-08-11, 18:41

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 415469]How, exactly?

*That a Tea Bag Republican Governor politician will never allow a budget deficit to exist under his watch. A $27 BILLION budget deficit, that is.

The legal ones or the illegal ones? Why don't you care about poor black people or Texas' poor white crackers?

*Sorry, the majority happen to be Hispanics in that state.

Who suggested there would be FEMA CCs?

*GLENN BECK, FOX NEWS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEBC63Qr0A0

Check out Avastin.

*You got me there. Last time I checked, Avastin is a drug used to treat certain types of cancer. (colon, brain, etc)

Wild Walleye

02-08-11, 20:22

*That a Tea Bag Republican Governor politician will never allow a budget deficit to exist under his watch. A $27 BILLION budget deficit, that is.Duh, what? Do you follow US politics?

Sorry, the majority happen to be Hispanics in that state.Thanks for removing all doubt.

82. 1% of Texas residents identify themselves (to the census bureau) as being white. 46. 7% as non-hispanic white and 36. 9% as of hispanic or latino origin, while 12% are black. Now I'm sure you got some mighty fine learning when you was growing up but where is you getting that majority number? When I was a kid, a majority used to mean more than 50%.

Who suggested there would be FEMA CCs?

*GLENN BECK, FOX NEWS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEBC63Qr0A0

I'm afraid that I am not all that familiar with Glenn Beck. However, I am pretty sure he is an American citizen. I am not sure why you think the First Amendment (part of the Constitution thingy) should not be available to him, specifically.

*You got me there. Last time I checked, Avastin is a drug used to treat certain types of cancer. (colon, brain, etc)Right and wrong at the same time. Avastin is a drug and while it could be used to treat certain diseases, Obama's FDA has banned doctors from prescribing it.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/jan/12/tdopin02-yes-obamacare-has-brought-them-back-to-li-ar-767967/

If you had half a brain or maybe if one of your loved ones had breast cancer, you might have a different perspective.

Moveon

02-08-11, 21:05

Walleye.

Dude, you must be smoking crack.

Did you bother to read the newspaper article? TEXAS now predicts a BUDGET DEFICIT of $27 Billion. Which means it's in the same league as California. Rick Perry has for years touted Texas and his administration to be fiscally conservative and always liked trampling, liberal California. Now it's deficit is a LOT HIGHER proportionally speaking. Per resident. With no income tax base to work with, that means education and all social services will be cut drastically.

The ones who will be hurt the most will be the Hispanic population. That is what I was referring to. (follow the chain) Anyway, the Tea Party does not care about the Hispanics. They will end up splintering the more moderate Republican party and without Immigration Reform and the Hispanic vote, the Republicans have little chance of winning the next Presidential election.

Glenn Beck is a conservative talk show host on FOX News. But what does the Constitution have to do with the misinformation provided by Glenn Beck?

The FDA is banning Avastin because of the harmful side effects. Come on, are you saying the FDA is part of Obama's "DEATH PANEL"???.

Rock Harders

02-08-11, 22:29

Mongers-

I just got off the phone with my good buddy B. Hussein Obama and he has informed me that "his" FDA is planning on banning Viagra, Levitra, Cialis and the like, officially for safety reasons but really because even taking all three of those drugs at the same time can't give him the "go-power" needed to get it up to fuck his wife Michelle. Time to cut your dick off and hang yourself with it WallyWildeye.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Esten

02-09-11, 01:58

Esten, I have been meaning to ask you: Have you seen the FEMA concentration camps or seen the Obama DEATH PANELS yet? (FOX NEWS) Let me know when you do.I haven't seen the Death Panels yet, but I am sure they are coming because Sarah Palin warned us about them.

BTW Palin provided some brilliant commentary on Obama's SOTU address. Check out the video interview with Fox News below. You can't make this stuff up!

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002802/

GRETA: Governor, last night there was a lot of discussion about the Sputnik Moment the President wants us to have. Do you agree with him? Is this our moment?

PALIN: That was another one of those WTF moments, when he has so often repeated, the Sputnik Moment, that he would aspire Americans to celebrate, he needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory and that race to space, yeah, they won, but they also incured so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union so I listen to that Sputnik Moment talk over and over again and I think, no we don't need one of those.

Esten

02-09-11, 02:27

Liberals / Progressives have done more to insure the 'poor' stay 'poor' therefore insuring their constituency than anyone else. It is the liberal / progressive poverty pimps who have created the new underclass via Welfare and who continue to preach class warfare to that constituency.Republicans have practiced class warfare since Reagan with their huge giveaways to the rich.

Doppel instead of spewing your drivel have a look at the data. Below are poverty rates for red states and your boy Bush. Tell me if you see any trends.

Highest state poverty rates, 2005 (Wikipedia) :

40 Kentucky 14.8%
41 Tennessee 15.0%
42 South Carolina 15.0%
43 Arizona 15.2%
44 West Virginia 15.4%
45 Oklahoma 15.6%
46 Texas 16.2%
47 Alabama 16.7%
48 New Mexico 17.9%
49 Louisiana 18.3%
50 Mississippi 20.1%

Poverty Rate under Clinton:

1993: 15.1%
1994: 14.5%
1995: 13.8%
1996: 13.7%
1997: 13.3%
1998: 12.7%
1999: 11.9%
2000: 11.3%

Poverty Rate under Bush:

2001: 11.7%
2002: 12.1%
2003: 12.5%
2004: 12.7%
2005: 12.6%
2006: 12.3%
2007: 12.5%
2008: 13.2%

Moveon

02-09-11, 03:20

[QUOTE=Esten; 415480]I haven't seen the Death Panels yet, but I am sure they are coming because Sarah Palin warned us about them.

You betcha!

Sarah should stop eating all that Moose meat and quit drinking it up with her Joe 6-pack.

Eye opening "WTF" video. I ended up looking at that video, over and over again. God, is she scary.

By the way, the only DEATH PANELS I am aware of are the health insurance companies that deny coverage.

Wild Walleye

02-09-11, 13:08

Republicans have practiced class warfare since Reagan with their huge giveaways to the rich.I am Esten and I'm saying one thing and posting completely irrelevant statistics. More over, I won't even post the statistics to which I refer. Here I go again, republicans hate the color orange. Don't believe me? Look at the facts, since Eisenhower, attendance at MLB games has increased at an inexplicable rate.

Rank Team Games Total.

1 NY Yankees 81 3,765,807
2 Philadelphia 81 3,647,249
3 LA Dodgers 81 3,562,320
4 St. Louis 81 3,301,218
5 LA Angels 81 3,250,816
6 Minnesota 81 3,223,640
7 Chicago Cubs 81 3,062,973
8 Boston 81 3,046,443
9 San Francisco 81 3,037,443
10 Colorado 80 2,875,245

Doppel instead of spewing your drivel have a look at the data. Below are poverty rates for red states and your boy Bush. Tell me if you see any trends.

Highest state poverty rates. 2005 (Wikipedia) :

40 Kentucky 14.8%
41 Tennessee 15.0%
42 South Carolina 15.0%
43 Arizona 15.2%
44 West Virginia 15.4%
45 Oklahoma 15.6%
46 Texas 16.2%
47 Alabama 16.7%
48 New Mexico 17.9%
49 Louisiana 18.3%
50 Mississippi 20.1%Wow! Stats from one year, holy shit batman look at that trend!

Wait a minute, you can't have a chronology-based trend with data points from only one moment (unless were talking global warming). Now, I would never accuse Esten or Moveon of cherry-picking stats (I know that they would be confused trying to understand multiple data sets and relating causality).

Clearly, it is George Bush's fault for the sky rocketing poverty rate in Mississippi. Due to Bush's policies, that one-time bastion of technology and innovation has slid from 50th in poverty to 50th. Moreover, you deftly ignore the fact that 22 states have poverty rates equal to or above the national average. Clearly, these states suffer in poverty because republicans hate black people and Mexicans, 'cept the ones that make good house help. It has nothing to do with other issues such as population density, lack urban wealth centers, legacies of under education, entitlements and the like. All those states happen to have significant rural populations, suffer from brain drain and lack of opportunity. With the exception of TX (Dallas and Houston) there are few large cities as commercial and wealth centers. Similarly, we know there are no poor people in New York and that the stats for that state don't have rich people in Westchester County offsetting poor people in the Bronx.

Poverty Rate under Clinton:

1993: 15.1%
1994: 14.5%
1995: 13.8%
1996: 13.7%
1997: 13.3%
1998: 12.7%
1999: 11.9%
2000: 11.3%

Poverty Rate under Bush:

2001: 11.7%
2002: 12.1%
2003: 12.5%
2004: 12.7%
2005: 12.6%
2006: 12.3%
2007: 12.5%
2008: 13.2%Once again, Esten is right, our first black president saved us from poverty and delivered us from evil, all the while managing to bust a nut on some fat chick's blue dress. Now I'm not a pointed-headed elite like these two geniuses but back in the one-room school house that I attended, they taught me readin', writin' (maybe right'and too) and 'rithmatic. I was even able to read this from that right-wing bastion of conservatism, the Institute for Research on Poverty:

"In the late 1950s, the overall poverty rate for individuals in the United States was 22 percent, representing 39.5 million poor persons. Between 1959 and 1969, the poverty rate declined dramatically and steadily to 12.1 percent."

Wow, didn't JFK cut taxes during this presidency? When was that again?

"As a result of a sluggish economy, the rate increased slightly to 12.5 percent by 1971. In 1972 and 1973, however, it began to decrease again. In 1973, the poverty rate was 11.1 percent. At that time roughly 23 million people were poor."

Wait, wait! Are you telling me that under Johnson and his great mutherf-ing society poverty increased? Say it ain't so! But he declared war on poverty so the stats must be wrong! Poverty decreased under Nixon? But he was the devil (before Reagan, Bush41 and Bush43).

"In 1975 the poverty rate increased to 12.3 percent. It then oscillated around 11.5 percent for the next few years. After 1978, however, the rate rose steadily, reaching 15. 2 percent in 1983."

Hang on a minute, poverty saw its biggest increase in recent history with Jimmy (I-was-better-than-Obama) Carter and the legacy of economic disaster he handed to Reagan?

"Thereafter it remained mostly higher than 13 percent. In 1993 it reached a new high of 15.1 percent, and then began to fall slowly."

So, the rise of poverty stopped under Reagan and remained in a band between 13-15% for 10 years. Not sure how the author sees 15.1% as a 'new high' when he stated the rate was 15.2% two sentences earlier, but I digress.

"In 2000, 31 million people were poor (11.3 percent of the population)."

So. 1994-2001 we saw an improvement that certainly had nothing to do with the 104th Congress lead by Newt Gingrich? I'm sure it was all Bill Clinton since his party controlled congress, wait, they only did for 2 years.

"In 2001 the number of poor and the poverty rate both rose as economic difficulties moved into recession, and the rate continued to rise; in 2003, 35.8 million people were poor by the official measure of poverty. By 2005, the number had risen to 37 million people (12.6 percent of the population)."

Again, all GWB's fault. Dot-com bubble never burst and 911 never happened.

"After a slight decline in 2006, in 2007, 37.3 million people were poor (12.5 percent of the population). In 2009, the number of people in poverty rose to 46.3 million, and the poverty rate (14.3 percent of the population) was the highest since 1994."

So, the Dems get control of Congress and Obama gets elected and 9 million people get added to the ranks of the poor. Bravo! Encore!

Thanks for enlightening us, Esten. Esten and Moveon are right. I have seen the light, hallelujah, amen, thank you lord, thank you Jebus!

Member #4112

02-09-11, 13:19

Esten, Moreon,

You never answer the question.

If handing people money for doing nothing is a way to motivate them to become more productive and move up out of poverty then why are we in the 45th+ year of Welfare and other federal assistance programs?

If this were true then Johnson's "Great Society" would have been a resounding success and would have ended 25 or 30 years ago as all the "poor" would have been sufficiently motivated and moved up into the middle class.

The assumption is false now as it was then. People are not motivated in the same manner or to the same extent. You could give the "poor" a onetime lump sum distribution to raise them to the middle class and the majority of them would be poor again in a year or less.

Don't believe it? I can give you an example. Research the number of lottery / mega-milliions / powerball winners since these games were first offered. Look at the winners of $3 to $10 million dollars and the vast majority of these winners are now poor again.

Liberals / progressives never heard of "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink'.

Liberals / progressives believe you CAN lead a horse to water and CAN MAKE him drink – it only takes three to do this.

Two hold the horse's head in the water trough and the third one sucks on the horse's ass assuming if you draw enough vacuum at one end the horse will have to drink on the other.

Question – which one of you is the third guy?

Jackson

02-09-11, 14:08

If handing people money for doing nothing is a way to motivate them to become more productive and move up out of poverty then why are we in the 45th+ year of Welfare and other federal assistance programs?

If this were true then Johnson's "Great Society" would have been a resounding success and would have ended 25 or 30 years ago as all the "poor" would have been sufficiently motivated and moved up into the middle class.

The assumption is false now as it was then. People are not motivated in the same manner or to the same extent. You could give the "poor" a onetime lump sum distribution to raise them to the middle class and the majority of them would be poor again in a year or less.

Don't believe it? I can give you an example. Research the number of lottery / mega-milliions / powerball winners since these games were first offered. Look at the winners of $3 to $10 million dollars and the vast majority of these winners are now poor again.Liberal policies will always fail because they are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior.

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

02-09-11, 15:54

Never let the truth get in the way of promoting your ideology. The truth is contrary to just about everything Esten and Moreon (thanks Dopple) post. This is particularly evident in Esten's blathering on the subject of poverty and taxes. Below you will find data showing the Top Marginal Tax Rate (TMTR) and the US National Poverty rate going back to 1959. There is no plausible argument that lowering marginal tax rates increases poverty. In fact, just the opposite is true. Lowering marginal tax rates and the resulting economic activity reduces poverty. End of story.

Year TMTR Poverty Rate.

1959 91% 22.4%
1964 77% 19.0%
1965 70% 17.3%
1982 50% 15.0%
1987 32. 5% 13.4%
1988 28% 13.0%
1991 31% 14.2%
1993 39. 6% 15.1%
2001 39.1% 11.7%
2002 38.5% 12.1%
2003 35% 12.5%
2010 35% 14.3%

Canitasguy

02-09-11, 16:29

Never let the truth get in the way of promoting your ideology. Lowering marginal tax rates and the resulting economic activity reduces poverty. End of story.WW is to economics as Sarah Plain is to logic. The link between marginal tax rates and poverty is as strong as the link between the smile on the chicas face at the bar and her performance in the rack. All the university economics programs around the globe should close forthwith, WW will explain it all in his inimitable way. Too fucking funny!

Moveon

02-09-11, 21:13

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

Jackson

> Wasn't MEDICARE a liberal policy/legislation?

Yes, in 1945 by Harry Truman, DEMOCRAT (what a surprise)

Then there were two decades of debate by the Republicans over " socialized " medicine before it was signed into law.

By who? Lyndon B. Johnson, DEMOCRAT, 1965.

Imagine all our senior citizens without it now-

> What about SOCIAL SECURITY?

Yup, you betcha!

By- FDR (DEMOCRAT) - 1935.

Esten

02-10-11, 02:40

Look at them scramble to defend their ideology in the face of Bush's pathetic record! Hilarious!!

Here's some conservative translation for Moveon and others:

It's George Bush's fault.

means:

I'm making a joke to deflect the discussion. I can't defend the record of conservative policies under Bush. I have no idea why the tax cuts didn't work.

Once again, Esten is right, our first black president saved us from poverty and delivered us from evil, all the while managing to bust a nut on some fat chick's blue dress. Clinton was not the black president. If you are so mixed up, why should we take anything you write seriously?

"In the late 1950s, the overall poverty rate for individuals in the United States was 22 percent, representing 39. 5 million poor persons. Between 1959 and 1969, the poverty rate declined dramatically and steadily to 12. 1 percent."

Wow, didn't JFK cut taxes during this presidency? When was that again? That was 1964-65. The poverty rate had a significant decline before those tax cuts.

Another fact: The poverty rate has moved in a range between roughly 11-15% since 1966. How many tax cuts have we had since 1966 when the top tax rate was 70%? Why didn't they have much effect on poverty (while helping the rich enormously)?

Why did poverty go down under Clinton's higher tax rates?

Why did poverty go up under Bush's lower tax rates?

The only clear conclusion: There is no clear cut case that lower taxes reduce poverty.

Member #4112

02-10-11, 14:05

This is what I always love about you guys, you want to lump all the programs together and cry foul.

MediCARE and Social Security are programs funded by PAYROLL TAX DEDUCTIONS from those who work and contribution to the system.

Welfare and MediCAID programs are totally UNFUNDED MANDATES by the Fed for those who do not contribute but depend on the Fed.

Look at the cost of MediCAID and Welfare programs. Eliminating these will go a long way to reducing our debt.

You are always going to have people who are poor in any system, unless you make everyone equal by making everyone poor!

Canitasguy

02-10-11, 14:23

Originally Posted by Jackson "Liberal policies will always fail because they are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior."

As if he has a clue about accurate models of human behavior!

Read his teachings on chica negotiation and try not to laugh!

Just too fucking funny for words!

Delusion central. You have a leader!

Stan Da Man

02-10-11, 14:59

The best indication of muddled liberal thinking on these issues is this: They point to social security and medicare as evidence of successful Liberal policies and programs.

Normally, one might say: If they consider these their successes, I would hate to see their failures.

Sadly, however, we've been forced to witness them. The so-called "stimulus", Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, welfare, the NEA, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, leading up to ObamaCare.

When you step back from it all, you realize that liberals are good at just one thing: Spending other people's money.

Not wisely, mind you. More like a magician.

BHO: "I call this the Stimulus Trick. Watch as I make $800 billion disappear."

"And for my next trick, watch as I f*ck up the entire country by nationalizing health care. No. Really. It will save Money. I'm not fooling this time."

Wild Walleye

02-10-11, 15:45

Look at them scramble to defend their ideology in the face of Bush's pathetic record! Hilarious!

Here's some conservative translation for Moveon and others:

It's George Bush's fault.

Means:

I'm making a joke to deflect the discussion. I can't defend the record of conservative policies under Bush. I have no idea why the tax cuts didn't work. It's funnier when I do it. What negative effects did the Bush tax cuts have?

Clinton was not the black president.According to Toni Morrison, he was in fact the first black president.

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/clinton/morrison.html

From Wikipedia:

"In writing about the impeachment in 1998, Morrison wrote that, since Whitewater, Bill Clinton had been mistreated because of his "Blackness":

Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. [14]

The phrase "our first Black president" was adopted as a positive by Bill Clinton supporters such as on September 29, 2001, when the Congressional Black Caucus honored the former president at its dinner in Washington D. C, with the chair, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) , telling the audience that Clinton "took so many initiatives he made us think for a while we had elected the first black president.".

If you are so mixed up, why should we take anything you write seriously?If you are so poorly informed and know so little about US politics, why should we take anything you say seriously? Oh, wait, we don't.

That was 1964-65. The poverty rate had a significant decline before those tax cuts. I put the numbers right there for you and anyone else to see.

From '59 to the Kennedy tax cuts, poverty dropped from 22. 4% to 19. 0% (or a 15. 2% reduction) whereas during the tax-cutting period of '64 to '03 the rate dropped from 19% to 12. 5% (or 32. 2%). You are so blinded by your ideology, you think reducing the number of people below the poverty rates by 15% is better than reducing it by 32.

Why do you hate poor people so much? Or is it that you are only interested in the poor when they can be used to buttress your false ideological arguments?

Another fact: The poverty rate has moved in a range between roughly 11-15% since 1966. How many tax cuts have we had since 1966 when the top tax rate was 70%? Why didn't they have much effect on poverty (while helping the rich enormously)?The fact that the poverty rate maintained that trading band is absolutely remarkable considering that the US population grew by 57% during that period.

Why did poverty go down under Clinton's higher tax rates? Momentum and continued economic expansion.

Why did poverty go up under Bush's lower tax rates?Momentum, economic contraction (you might recall two small events that occurred in the US around 2000, 911 and the dot-com bust).

The only clear conclusion: There is no clear cut case that lower taxes reduce poverty.In addition to clearly demonstrating the high correlation between tax cuts and reducing poverty it also shows how little command you have of any of these subjects and how you hate the poor.

Moveon

02-10-11, 16:50

Normally, one might say: If they consider these their successes, I would hate to see their failures.

Sadly, however, we've been forced to witness them. The so-called "stimulus", Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, welfare, the NEA, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, leading up to ObamaCare.Ask anyone who is receiving their monthly payments for social security if it was a failure. And imagine if George W. Bush had been able to privatize social security with the stock market? Don't make me laugh. They would all be homeless by now.

Same thing goes with Medicaire. It's not perfect but nothing ever is. (unless a Republican does it, naturally)

According to the Tea Party Republicans and many "mainstream" Republicans we should never have bailed out GM and Chrysler. GM is doing quite well, thank you and Chrysler is slowly improving. (Oh, wait a minute. Who bailed out Chrysler back the first time back in the "80's? A REPUBLICAN President. Ronald Reagan.)

As as for the banks, without the aid the US would have been in another great depression. Again, right-wing Teabaggers did not want any part of this either.

I could go on and on, ....

Jackson

02-10-11, 17:09

Ask anyone who is receiving their monthly payments for social security if it was a failure.You want to do a survey of the people currently receiving free money from the government in which you would ask them if they approve of the government program giving them the free money?

That's as pointless as the results from Esten's survey asking people if they approve of "someone else" paying all of the country's tax burden.

Thanks,

Jackson

Stan Da Man

02-10-11, 20:47

You want to do a survey of the people currently receiving free money from the government in which you would ask them if they approve of the government program giving them the free money?

That's as pointless as the results from Esten's survey asking people if they approve of "someone else" paying all of the country's tax burden.

Thanks,

JacksonThat's all they've got: An argument that those receiving free money like it, so it must Be successful. What rubbish!

Liberals enact these entitlement programs as vote-getting measures."I got you medicare. I got you social security. Vote for me." Then, people get addicted to them and forget how to do For themselves. The result? They rise no higher than the so-called safety net Democrats have erected.

But, ignore the fact that these programs aren't actually helping the people they are intended to serve. After all, that's the dirty little secret of all liberals and Democrats: As long as people think They are benefiting from welfare, handouts and other free money, they'll vote Democrat. It doesn't matter whether they're actually worse off.

So, what are we left with to measure success? How about how the costs stack up in relation to what Democrats said They would cost. Let's take medicare:

In 1965, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance program of Medicare, the federal health care program for the elderly and disabled, would cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost that year was $67 billion.

In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion.

In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid. The joint federal-state health care program for the poor. Would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/18/health-programs-have-history-of-cost-overruns/print/

There are hundreds of examples like this. If these projections were put out by the evil, money-grubbing corporations, a swarm of lawyers would be on them alleging securities fraud. But, this is politics. And those happy left-wing warriors who committed this fraud have long since retired from office, and a new band of left wing thieves has taken their place.

Fortunately, the public is starting to catch on. Survey after survey show that the vast majority of American people do not believe projections that ObamaCare will reduce the defict, result in any savings whatsoever, or do anything more than become a colossal sinkhole for money. Even Democrats know this. But, the prospect of getting access to an entirely new dependency class has them salivating, so much so that they ignore all the carnage that this ill-advised program would cause. All that matters is the votes. And, distilled to its essence, that is Esten and Moreon's platform: If they like free money, then the program's a success. Crank up the printing presses!

Thanks goodness we have some adults in control of the House.

Moveon

02-10-11, 21:49

You want to do a survey of the people currently receiving free money from the government in which you would ask them if they approve of the government program giving them the free money?

JacksonJackson, with all due respect, I don't know how long you've been living in Argentina or if you have made your billions through a Ponzi scheme or an inheritance but wage earners like myself in the US contribute every paycheck to the Social Security System. It's been a safety net for millions of hardworking Americans. Later, at an ripe old age, I'll be entitled to some of the money back on a monthly basis.

Only right-wing Tea Party Republican extremists can call this "free money." Like many Tea Party lies, slogans like this one end up being repeated, over and over again.

Reminds me of what Adolf Hitler once said: 'Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it'

Moveon

02-10-11, 22:52

Thanks goodness we have some adults in control of the House. You bet, just like this one:

Congressman Christopher Lee (R-NY) resigns after Craigslist photos, flirting allegations with lobbyists emerge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/10/AR2011021003020.html

Oh, this was the same R-Congressman that "Warned Teens About Dangers of the Internet."27802"

Esten

02-11-11, 01:46

You want to do a survey of the people currently receiving free money from the government in which you would ask them if they approve of the government program giving them the free money?
That's all they've got: An argument that those receiving free money like it, so it must Be successful. What rubbish!

Liberals enact these entitlement programs as vote-getting measures."I got you medicare. I got you social security. Vote for me." Then, people get addicted to them and forget how to do For themselves. The result? They rise no higher than the so-called safety net Democrats have erected.
The best indication of muddled liberal thinking on these issues is this: They point to social security and medicare as evidence of successful Liberal policies and programs.blah blah blah blah blah

Wouldn't you know it, when you actually look up what Americans think about Medicare and Social Security, they like these programs. Not polls of people receiving benefits. Polls of all Americans.

There are all sorts of polls out there showing little support for cutting these programs. One recent poll from Jan. 21 even showed that nearly two-thirds of Americans would rather pay higher Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes than have those benefits cut.

Poll: Medicare, SoSec worth higher taxes
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/21/Poll-Medicare-SoSec-worth-higher-taxes/UPI-11481295600400/

How could it be that these programs are so popular? Perhaps because they are just good, common-sense ideas. You pay into a program to receive benefits later when you need them.

This is what I always love about you guys, you want to lump all the programs together and cry foul.

MediCARE and Social Security are programs funded by PAYROLL TAX DEDUCTIONS from those who work and contribution to the system. Tell that to Jackson and Stan. They're the ones who just used the terms "free money" in response to Moveon's post about Medicare and Social Security.

In their rabid eagerness to once again regurgitate their stories about free money and creating dependency classes, Jackson and Stan overlooked a few details about how these programs are funded and how widely popular they are.

Esten

02-11-11, 02:31

Welfare and MediCAID programs are totally UNFUNDED MANDATES by the Fed for those who do not contribute but depend on the Fed.

Look at the cost of MediCAID and Welfare programs. Eliminating these will go a long way to reducing our debt.

You are always going to have people who are poor in any system, unless you make everyone equal by making everyone poor! Debating these separately is fair enough. I agree eliminating them would save a lot of money.

The simple fact is that many people have a value system in which it is wrong for a wealthy nation not to provide for their poorest.

That's pretty much what it comes down to. And as I said before, in a democracy, if that value is strong enough in enough people, such programs will exist. Not so the poor can be well-off, but so they can at least escape hunger, malnutrition and disease.

It is not the goal of people who support these programs to make the poor dependant on them. Dems and Repubs alike want to lower unemployment, increase jobs and pay and the standard of living (and thereby get people off these programs). But free market capitalism has been unable to eliminate poverty.

What you and Jackson always seem to forget is that there aren't enough jobs for everybody. Today there are 5 applicants for every job. In your world it seems if the unemployed would just stop being lazy and go find a job, they would find one. And if it didn't pay well to begin with, they could work their way up.

Well the market doesn't work that way. The market always excludes a certain percentage of the population from making a decent wage (enough to avoid poverty). No matter how hard they strive.

I'll also give you an economic argument for these programs (vs. just a moral / value based one). The money from these programs pretty much always gets spent and goes right back into the economy. The same cannot be said for tax breaks for the rich, who do not spend (or create jobs) with all or necessarily even most of their money. This is just another conservative fallacy.

WorldTravel69

02-11-11, 04:11

As he has said many times.

So what does this site have to do with getting Laid?

This site and the movies can tell you how to talk to the chicas in English or Spanish.

What he tells you should be is how to get laid, and were has to get Laid.

This site Will Help.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050025/

G

Stan Da Man

02-11-11, 04:13

An excellent discussion of the reasons private sector unions have been failing, and are destined to fail, can be found here: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/02/10/labor_unions_and_the_problem_with_more_98861.html

As for the wooly-headed Esten and Moreon, it's too much to expect that they'll ever get it. Some things simply will be beyond their grasp forever. This undoubtedly is obvious to the rest here, but apparently they need to have it spelled out: It's "free money" because those programs don't pay for themselves, as advertised. Apparently, you've both been living under rocks, because you haven't heard that the social security program is bankrupt. It's a Ponzi Scheme much larger than what Madoff perpetrated. Again, he's in jail for what he did. But, since this is the government, there are no consequences.

So, you can talk all you want about how people pay into Social Security or Medicare, but they don't pay nearly what they should be paying. They get back far more than what they contribute. The liberal calculators used to tally contributions apparently were missing a few digits. Either that, or the lefties working the calculators were math challenged. That's the free money. Ponzi schemes eventually collapse under their own weight. The only difference between the federal government and Madoff is that Madoff couldn't legally print money.

Moveon

02-11-11, 14:29

Social security is predicted to go bankrupt in the year 2041. (unless you ask a Republican) Plenty of time to fix it one way or another. In the meantime, it has served this nation for generations. It's so obvious that certain right-wing Militia members of this panel just can't deal with that fact.

Nor the fact that a Democrat began with the legislative process to begin with. Besides their obsession with tax cuts to the super rich of this country, do tell me what the Republicans have done for the "average" American on Main Street.

By looking at Texas and their potential of going BK as a state, it's time for the Republicans concede that conservative fiscal policies are not the cure as they pretend to be. Now that state faces a budget deficit which is 1/3rd of their total budget. For years, we have been hearing that the Unions, pension funds, and others were to blame for everything that went wrong in D-California. Well, R-Texas, what's your excuse?

Oh, yes, this was the same Republican Governor, mind you, who wanted to invade Mexico last year. (yeah, you guessed it, Governor Rick Perry is a Tea Party "Patriot."

Patriot? Not really, just anther war monger Republican hell-bent on invading another sovereign nation.

Thank God, you're not our President.

Wild Walleye

02-11-11, 15:20

I don't think you understand the reality of social security, but don't let that stop you from calling people Nazis.

... but wage earners like myself in the US contribute every paycheck to the Social Security System.'Contribute' is a code word for TAX. While your pay stub may call it something else, it is a tax and 'revenue' collected and spent (immediately, if not sooner) by the US govt. Social Security has no assets, no business and no revenues. There is no social security trust fund and there certainly isn't any sort of 'lock-box. ' What the fuck good is a lock-box if you don't have anything to put into it?

You and the rest of us are forced to pay into a gigantic ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is where one 'investors' contribution is used to repay a prior investor, rather than having an underlying revenue generator and paying investors back out of profits or legitimate recapitalizations.

Your funds are not put aside for your future benefit, they are immediately redistributed to those currently collecting social security.

Why don't you pop over to the SS Admin, next time you are in DC. Ask them if you can see the vault where they are keeping your contributions.

It's been a safety net for millions of hardworking Americans."It" does not exist."It" is a current transfer from current workers to former workers. Payments to retirees under social security are not distributed from a Social Security trust fund or a lock-box, since neither exists.

Later, at an ripe old age, I'll be entitled to some of the money back on a monthly basis.What was that Aerosmith hit song, back in the 70's? Oh yea,"Dream On."

As the baby boomers retire in greater and greater numbers, the payments due to them under social security will far exceed the new payments coming in from current workers. That is the simple truth. When there are more people taking benefits out than there are making payments in, there will be a shortfall.

What do you call something with greater obligations than its receipts? Bankrupt.

Only right-wing Tea Party Republican extremists can call this "free money." Like many Tea Party lies, slogans like this one end up being repeated, over and over again.I don't see any tea party folks calling social security 'free money. ' They must be too busy being racist or feeding dog food to old people. I believe Jackson's point is valid, if you ask someone if they want to stop receiving a stream of cash flows, for which they currently have to do nothing (whether or not they may have done something to deserve it in the past) , they will elect to keep getting the cash.

As far as 'free money' anything you receive in the future from SS will be anything but free. You earn it today and give it to the government, they spend it. It does not earn interest or experience capital appreciation (the normal ways that investments grow) because it doesn't exist. When it comes time for you to get some back, you get money taken from someone else and paid out based upon an artificial formula, not actually the growth performance of an underlying investment portfolio. If your payout is based upon a simulated 4% appreciation from the time of your 'contribution' you have lost a theoretical 7% (based upon the historical equity returns for the last 100 plus years) on your investment. Worse yet, if you die, the cash stream goes away. You can't leave the assets of the underlying portfolio to your heirs.

If you contribute to social security for 45 years, with an average annual salary of 100K (in today's dollars) , you will have contributed nearly $600k to 'your' social security benefit. With investment income that you could have earned from that money, had you been able to keep it, you could have well over $1 million in your portfolio. If you die the day after you get your first SS check, you paid $1 million (contributions plus gains) for the privilege of receiving a check from the government for $1, 200. Nope, that sure ain't free and your family sure as shit ain't getting the remainder in the form of an inheritance.

Reminds me of what Adolf Hitler once said: 'Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it'Typical liberal scum. Everyone who disagrees with you is racist and needs to be likened to Nazis.

What sounds more like a totalitarian regime, to me, is one that steals from its people like the above-cited ponzi scheme.

Wild Walleye

02-11-11, 15:41

I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between illiquid and bankrupt nor the difference between a ponzi scheme and an ongoing operation with cash flow issues.

Social security is predicted to go bankrupt in the year 2041. (unless you ask a Republican) Plenty of time to fix it one way or another.Please see prior post. SS has no assets, no revenue and massive unfunded liabilities. It is bankrupt today and has been for some time. The future date, to which people often refer, is when current obligations to retirees will exceed current 'contributions' from workers.

In the meantime, it has served this nation for generations.Yes it has. It has enabled the government to steal more of your hard-earned money under the guise that it is safe-keeping that money for when you retire and will allow it to confiscate any remainder, when you die.

It's so obvious that certain right-wing Militia members of this panel just can't deal with that fact.It is a bitter pill to swallow. If you contribute to your IRA and earn 11% over many years until you retire and when you retire the govt confiscates everything except for a stream of payments equal to a theoretical 4% return on your payments, which stops upon your death, you be upset. Why doesn't the social security scam upset you?

Nor the fact that a Democrat began with the legislative process to begin with.I am quite at peace with the fact that most all of our most egregious give-ways and take-aways have been foisted upon us by democrats.

Besides their obsession with tax cuts to the super rich of this country, do tell me what the Republicans have done for the "average" American on Main Street.Helped to make him above average in terms of quality of life and opportunity than his peers around the world. That ain't so bad.

By looking at Texas and their potential of going BK as a state, it's time for the Republicans concede that conservative fiscal policies are not the cure as they pretend to be.Of course. We need to spend our way out of these problems. We get it already.

Now that state faces a budget deficit which is 1/3rd of their total budget.Good thing Obama's manaed to balance the federal budget.

For years, we have been hearing that the Unions, pension funds, and others were to blame for everything that went wrong in D-California. Well, R-Texas, what's your excuse?Excellent point. Clearly there are no public employee unions in TX so it must be that Rick Perry was investing in some sort of satellite-based laser defence system.

Oh, yes, this was the same Republican Governor, mind you, who wanted to invade Mexico last year. (yeah, you guessed it, Governor Rick Perry is a Tea Party "Patriot."

Patriot? Not really, just anther war monger Republican hell-bent on invading another sovereign nation.

Thank God, you're not our President. I know, it better having a devout marxist in office

Jackson

02-11-11, 16:36

The same cannot be said for tax breaks for the rich, who do not spend (or create jobs) with all or necessarily even most of their money.Esten,

I know that this is difficult for you to understand, but here it is: The money that "the rich" have is not your money that inadvertently happens to be in their pocket, it's their money to spend or not spend as they choose, just as the money that you have in your pocket is your money to spend or not spend as you choose.

Anyone who believes that they have a right to forcibly take someone else's money to serve their own purposes is a THIEF, plain and simple. It is irrelevant whether or not the thieves are operating as individuals, or as an organized gang, or whether they can numerically outnumber (read "outvote") their targets.

Everyone should pay taxes at the same uniform rate to support a government that provides services that uniformly benefit everyone, aka "the common good".

It is not government's job to confiscate individual wealth and redistribute it among it's citizens.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

Moveon

02-11-11, 19:26

Wallyeye, it's good to know that you have finally emerged from your underground bunker! I know you must have been previously embarrassed with your babbling of Glenn Beck, the Constitution, and your complete disconnect between the so called DEATH PANELS and Avastin but that's ok.

However, it's surprising that you have such a spirited ring-wing American Militia Movement view of the world since apparently you weren't born in the US. I would not be surprised if you are actually some deposed Latin American dictator hiding deep in the outskirts of Cordoba with your Nazi drinking buddies.

Speaking of which, you may want to put down that bottle a bit. I sure hope you don't beat your wife at night or kick your dog. Maybe take an anger management course? How about therapy?

Anyway, it's all good fun plus I admit: It's nice to barge into this Republican frat party from time to time.

Perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me why we need to spend $120 billion on the replacement of the F18 fighter jet?

I know we have been experiencing some major dog fight's with the Taliban lately but perhaps you can straighten me out on this one.

Canitasguy

02-11-11, 22:30

Esten,

Anyone who believes that they have a right to forcibly take someone else's money to serve their own purposes is a THIEF, plain and simple.

Everyone should pay taxes at the same uniform rate to support a government that provides services that uniformly benefit everyone, aka "the common good".

It is not government's job to confiscate individual wealth and redistribute it among it's citizens.

Get it?

Thanks,

JacksonSo it's OK for government to "forcibly" take money from citizens under a flat tax rate system and then it would be kosher for it to spend revenues for the "common good", as the government defines it, and anything else is thievery!

Not to put too fine a point on it, when a person chooses to live in a country, they also agree to live by its rules, or risk becoming a criminal. If the rules include progressive income tax systems, the person can voluntarily pay them or leave the country and live elsewhere! It is their choice and to use the word "forcibly" is just juvenile!

And what pray tell are services "that uniformly benefit everyone"! If a bridge is built in Alaska with Federal funds that serves a small community, rather than a high-speed rail systems in Florida that would serve numerous large communities, where is the "uniformity"?

What if the government's duly-elected officials, interpreting the wishes of the voters who chose them, (and the corporate interests who pay for their elections) redistribute the evenly collected taxes with corporate welfare schemes such as subsidies for specific private sector activities? Is that OK to create jobs?

Aren't all the people who paid their taxes but oppose the subsidy schemes being "forcibly" made to pay for them?

Alternatively, what if the government's duly-elected officials, interpreting the wishes of the voters who chose them, (and sublimating the corporate interests who pay for their elections) use the revenues for the purpose of addressing social welfare needs? Would your hair catch on fire Senor Jackson as you are "forcibly" being made to be almost a human being?

Those are rhetorical questions. As contrasted with an empirical statement.

Jackson, you are a fucking (or maybe not so much as you age) idiot!

Get it?

Canitasguy

02-12-11, 15:29

The most recent analysis of the independent Public Policy Polling firm citing its recent polls finds that based on his current public standing in key electoral states, in 2012 President Obama would easily defeat any of the four current Republican front runners (Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich or Palin)"almost certainly" winning "the same number of electoral votes he did in 2008, if not more."

They found: "Across 36 horse race match ups in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Iowa, Nevada, and Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District Obama is 36 for 36."

But, guys. Look on the bright side. You will have four more years to rant and send out your irrelevant and irrational blather for each others' delusional reinforcement!

Wild Walleye

02-12-11, 17:14

Wallyeye, it's good to know that you have finally emerged from your underground bunker!Got to be prepared for the end of the World. Global warming will kill us all!

I know you must have been previously embarrassed with your babbling of Glenn Beck, the Constitution, and your complete disconnect between the so called DEATH PANELS and Avastin but that's ok.I didn't opine on Beck, I'll gladly stack my factual knowledge of the Constitution against what you think it means any day, I think that BHO's FDA blocking the use of a potential life-saving drug on the basis of cost is about as on-point as any example could be, of what is to come.

However, it's surprising that you have such a spirited ring-wing American Militia Movement view of the worldActually, my mind set is fairly far from any militia movement, of which I am aware (other than the original militias that participated in the Revolution). My faith in and defense of country are based upon belief in the principles upon which the country was founded, as memorialized in the founding documents (Declaration, Constitution, BoRs). What is surprising is that you view those principles as so deplorable.

I synthesize my objective view of the world through the prism of America's best interests, in terms of national security, sovereignty, and economic well being. For example, I believe that BHO should not have jumped on the band wagon to depose Mubarak, I am not certain that toppling the regime is in the best interests of the US. While it would be nice for the people of Egypt to experience Jeffersonian freedom, such as we have here, I do not give their concerns the same priorities as I do US national security and economic interests. Not to mention the fact that these were anti-government protests not necessarily pro-democracy demonstrations. Having Egypt, its 80+ million inhabitants and the Suez Canal under the control of an Islamic theocracy is less appealing than a continuation of the Mubarak regime. Thanks to Obama's ignorance, he helped bring about a military coup, which may very well have been set up by Mubarak in advance.

since apparently you weren't born in the US.Born and raised in the brier patch my friend.

I would not be surprised if you are actually some deposed Latin American dictator hiding deep in the outskirts of Cordoba with your Nazi drinking buddies.

There you go again.

Can't argue on the merits of your position, call the other side names. Liberals are particularly fond of calling the opposition Nazis.

Speaking of which, you may want to put down that bottle a bit.Why? I enjoy a little nip every now and then.

I sure hope you don't beat your wife at night or kick your dog.Once again, you are mistaken. I am a conservative so I must hate old people.

Maybe take an anger management course?Please give me some examples of statements that I have made that show a disposition to anger.

How about therapy? I go as often as possible, mainly massage therapy, I prefer a happy ending.

Anyway, it's all good fun plus I admit: It's nice to barge into this Republican frat party from time to time.If I got my figurative ass handed to me as often as you do, I'd have a hard time calling it fun.

Perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me why we need to spend $120 billion on the replacement of the F18 fighter jet?The technology and design of the original airframe are circa 1978. How old do you think the base technology of our primary strike force aircraft should be?

I know we have been experiencing some major dog fight's with the Taliban lately but perhaps you can straighten me out on this one.Of course we all know that the only threats we will see in the future will be: home-grown, right-wing terrorists, Bedouins and Candian tourists. Therefore, we should ignore the basic infrastructure of the military which has kept all war theaters (excluding the war against Islamic fundamentalists) from our shores. Eventually, the Kamikaze (or divine winds) failed to protect Japan from foreign invaders (think August 1945) , should we just drop our pants and hope that El Nino will keep us safe?

Tiny12

02-13-11, 02:29

What you and Jackson always seem to forget is that there aren't enough jobs for everybody. Today there are 5 applicants for every job. In your world it seems if the unemployed would just stop being lazy and go find a job, they would find one. And if it didn't pay well to begin with, they could work their way up.

Well the market doesn't work that way. The market always excludes a certain percentage of the population from making a decent wage (enough to avoid poverty). No matter how hard they strive. It's not the market that excludes the majority of the unemployed in developed countries from making a decent wage through work. It's bad government. For example, in some European countries, people do better by going on the dole than by working, so that's what they do. A welfare system should be designed so that there are no disincentives to work. Another example, the government's promotion of home ownership in the USA, through the mortgage interest deduction, artificially low interest rates and federally-backed mortgages makes people less mobile and less likely to go where the jobs are. High taxes on business, overregulation, and giving too much power to unions are other important areas controlled by government that increase unemployment.

I'll also give you an economic argument for these programs (vs. just a moral / value based one). The money from these programs pretty much always gets spent and goes right back into the economy. The same cannot be said for tax breaks for the rich, who do not spend (or create jobs) with all or necessarily even most of their money. This is just another conservative fallacy.By definition, if the rich aren't spending the money, it's going into investment and savings. This is one of the biggest problems facing the USA. While we have close to the highest standard of living in the world, we spend like crazy people. We're dependent on the Chinese and others, who make a small fraction of what we make on a per capita basis, to fund our savings and investment. There are some very smart people (e. G. Paul Krugman) who make the same argument as you do, which is essentially that we should starve the economy of private savings. I think you (plural) are grasping at straws to promote redistributionist arguments and big government. Right, in the short term spending on consumption instead of investment will help the economy. In the long term it's a recipe for disaster.

Esten

02-13-11, 16:08

I know that this is difficult for you to understand, but here it is: The money that "the rich" have is not your money that inadvertently happens to be in their pocket, it's their Money to spend or not spend as they choose, just as the money that you have in your pocket is your money to spend or not spend as you choose.

Anyone who believes that they have a right to forcibly take someone else's money to serve their own purposes is a THIEF, plain and simple. It is irrelevant whether or not the thieves are operating as individuals, or as an organized gang, or whether they can numerically outnumber (read "outvote") their targets.

Everyone should pay taxes at the same uniform rate to support a government that provides services that uniformly benefit everyone, aka "the common good".

It is not government's job to confiscate individual wealth and redistribute it among it's citizens. Jackson,

What you said is ideological and untrue.

Income is not entirely one's own to spend as one sees fit. It is subject to taxation. Taxation and spending are determined by the government, which in turn is determined by the people. Each citizen gets one vote. If you object to this democratic and constitutionally based system, that's too bad.

You are perfectly free to go out and try to convince people of your views on taxation and spending. If your ideas have enough merit, perhaps they will catch on.

Without significant exemptions, the Flat Tax is just another scheme to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, contributing to the further deterioration of America from conservative ideology. My guess is most people would say "no thanks". People should pay according to their ability to pay.

Wild Walleye

02-13-11, 17:35

Jackson,

What you said is ideological and untrue.

Income is not Entirely one's own to spend as one sees fit. Not true. When the country was founded, Jackson's statement was absolutely true. The federal government was funded via sin taxes, internal taxes and tariffs. The Bill of Rights clearly outlines, within the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, protections from the government seizing private property.

It is subject to taxation.The income tax did not come into being until 1862 and the financial burden of the Civil War. The Death Tax followed in 1866. From 1817 through 1862, the federal government was funded almost entirely via tariffs on imported goods.

It clear that the Framers never envisioned the government seizing between one third and ninety percent of a citizen's annual earnings for the purposes of supporting a bloated bureaucracy and redistribution to non-earners.

Taxation and spending are determined by the government, which in turn is determined by the people.Technically true.

Each citizen gets one vote.Unless the candidate happens to be a Democrat.

If you object to this democratic and constitutionally based system, that's too bad.Wow, big defender of the Constitution. I bet typing that gave you a rash, even though you don't really believe in it.

You are perfectly free to go out and try to convince people of your views on taxation and spending. If your ideas have enough merit, perhaps they will catch on.Great idea. I wonder if anyone else has thought about putting Washington's runaway tax and spend policies at the forefront of a political movement?

Without significant exemptions, the Flat Tax is just another scheme to make the rich richer and the poor poorer,A flat tax with significant exemptions, isn't a flat tax, now is it?

contributing to the further deterioration of America from conservative ideology.Of course, an ideology that encourages personal responsibility and excellence is clearly less desirable than one based upon enslaving generations of the citizenry for he benefit of its political elites.

My guess is most people would say "no thanks".My guess is that you haven't read too many newspapers lately.

People should pay according to their ability to pay.Absolutely, fuck the Gotha! I believe that you, Obama, Engels and Marx are all on the same page: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'

I bet you think Joe the Plumber was a bad guy, too.

Stan Da Man

02-13-11, 22:24

People should pay according to their ability to pay.There he goes again. He's not a socialist. He just walks like one, talks like one, believes in socialist ideology, wants to further implement a socialist state, and spouts socialist rhetoric involuntarily.

You know, if you were gay, we'd all be encouraging you to come out of the closet.

Why don't you take that first step. It's the toughest one. You'll feel much better once the burden's off your shoulders.

Your mom and dad will understand.

Eventually.

It's not like you're a transvestite or anything.

But, if you are, that's okay too.

Wild Walleye

02-13-11, 23:49

There he goes again. He's not a socialist.Agreed, he'a a Marxist.

He just walks like one, talks like one, believes in socialist ideology, wants to further implement a socialist state, and spouts socialist rhetoric involuntarily.Again, I concur, what spews from his fingers is most likely involuntary behavior, learned at some reeducation camp.

You know, if you were gay, we'd all be encouraging you to come out of the closet.If he was gay, we'd all be willing to attribute much of his misguided hatred of America as a byproduct of his gayness (not that there is anything wrong with that).

Why don't you take that first step. It's the toughest one. You'll feel much better once the burden's off your shoulders.

Your mom and dad will understand.

Eventually. They are probably still paying his bills and he still lives in their basement.

It's not like you're a transvestite or anything.What's worse? A kid that turns out to be a tranny or a marxist?

But, if you are, that's okay too.That all depends upon how passable you are.

Esten

02-14-11, 01:27

You guys are often good for a laugh....

There he goes again. He's not a socialist. He just walks like one, talks like one, believes in socialist ideology, wants to further implement a socialist state, and spouts socialist rhetoric involuntarily.Forget about government ownership of property and the means of production. If you believe in paying taxes according to one's means, Stan says you're a Socialist. The funny thing is that not only do most Americans believe in this, according to some polls most Republicans do as well. I've posted this before:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1438

Q. Do you think raising income taxes on households making more than "X" should or should not be a main part of any government approach to the deficit?

X = $250,000 X = $1,000,000.
Republican 42% 56%
Democrat 82% 89%
Independent 55% 69%
Income >250k 64% 67%

Notice how even rich folks believe they should pay more. What do you think about that Stan?

Not true. When the country was founded, Jackson's statement was absolutely true. The federal government was funded via sin taxes, internal taxes and tariffs. Your response perfectly demonstrates what you are all about: You live in the past.

Esten

02-14-11, 01:58

Esten

02-14-11, 02:15

My goodness, this story from the Conservative Political Action Conference made me laugh:

Ron Paul Supporters Heckle Cheney, Rumsfeld at CPAC.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20031425-503544.html

The crowd was on its feet, some cheering "Cheney for president!" The boos from CPAC's libertarian contigent continued and at times interrupted Cheney's remarks.

"America is stronger and more secure" because of Rumsfeld's service, Cheney said, prompting one person to loudly shout,"Where's bin Laden at!"

Some of the vice president's supporters shouted,"Shut up!" and started a loud chant of "USA, USA!"

The jeering continued, with some yelling "draft dodger!" at Cheney.

Wild Walleye

02-14-11, 15:01

Recapping our discussion on poverty:

Clinton raised taxes and poverty went down.

Bush43 lowered taxes and poverty went up.

Walleye cited the dot-com bust and 911 as factors. However Bush had two terms, plenty of time for his tax cuts to work. And the economic impact of 911 has been shown to have been short-lived with no more than a 1% GDP effect. The US economy, its components and measurements of its facets, from GDP to poverty are often interdependent and codependent on a wide number of variables, factors, inputs and unknowns. While altering certain variables will generally bring about similar outcomes, the impact of other factors can often outweigh the impact of the altered variable. To argue otherwise, as Esten does, is ignorant, obtuse and intellectually dishonest.

It hurts just to try to grapple with the breadth of your ineptitude.

He also claims it is remarkable that the poverty rate held in the range 11-15% since 1966 despite large population growth. Well there's no claim or evidence of reduction here. I believe we argued a similar point sometime ago (I am sure you'll recall that I prevailed in that one, too). When someone with an intellectual curiosity (clearly that rules out Esten) delves into the composition of the US population growth in the post-WWII era one will see that it was not all home grown. In fact, a significant portion of US population growth during that period was in the form of immigrants. Despite Esten's distorted view of the world, I can assure the rest of you that not all of those immigrants were landed-gentry coming to America in order to fuck California Girls and farmers' daughters. You might be surprised to learn that many of them came to America, destitute and in search of a better life. In search of the American Dream (which in my case often centers upon California Girls and farmers' daughters, often at the same time) which Esten seems so hell bent on destroying. The fact that in the face of meteoric population growth, the poverty rate did not grow does say something significant about opportunity, economic growth and reduction of poverty. Saying anything to the contrary simply isn't true. Not that presenting misinformation would ever make Esten blush.

Remember, the (false) claim is tax cuts reduce poverty.The incontrovertible, factual claim is that tax cuts stimulate true economic growth (not the phony, baloney Keynesian and / or Marxist kinds that Esten likes) which results in a tide that raises all boats.

What actually happened over this period is that after-tax income for the top 1% increased at least 281%, while the poverty rate treaded water.Why are you switching the focus from helping reduce poverty to slamming the rich? I would guess it is because your argument, as usual doesn't hold water.

So just where is the evidence of Walleye's claim? I spoon fed it to you. You chose to ignore it and spiral out of control with your diatribe about the rich.

The Census Bureau did not track poverty prior to 1959, however it is doubtful that 22.4% represented the peak. One estimate from the conservative Goldwater Institute puts the poverty rate at 30% in 1948. That would constitute an 11% drop thru 1964, during which period top tax rates were 91%.Who is cherry picking? I am sure that it won't surprise you but you are wrong yet again, in your analysis.

When the country was founded, more than 90% of the nation participated in subsistence farming. Do you have any idea what that is? That means that in order for you to eat, you had to grow your own food. In addition to religious freedom, anyone want to venture a guess what other things colonists were escaping?

If you said poverty, you're right.

90% of the population of the colonies lived outside of the cities and most colonists didn't have a pot to piss in (although there was abundant forested land upon which one could piss). So upon the founding of this great country almost all of its inhabitants were, oh my gosh, POOR! The wealth of the nation was controlled by a small minority estimated between 10-20% of the population.

So from 1776 to 1964 the poverty rate fell from 80% to roughly 40% when a permanent, excessive income tax was instituted in the 1917 when the top marginal tax rate went to 67, from 7% two years earlier.

1964 Pov. Rate 19. 0%

1965 Pov. Rate 17. 3%

1966 Pov. Rate 14. 7%

Most of the drop since 1964 occured within two years. Although the rate was already trending down over the previous decade, let's assign some credit and correlation with the Kennedy tax cuts. Why give credit to Kennedy? If you do, then you agree with my analysis and are just choosing to argue the opposite for partisan purposes.

This was when the top tax rate dropped 91% to 70%. What did we get following 1966 when the top tax rate was cut from 70% to 35% ? Not much. It dipped down a few points but at times went higher than the 1966 rate. See note above regarding population influx.

Walleye cites the drop from 19% to 12.5% over 1964-2003. But one could just as easily cite the increase from 14.7% to 15.1% over 1966-1993.I could also have picked the drop from 40% (1920) to 12. 5% (2003) during which time the top marginal tax rate was cut from 73% to 35.

It appears Walleye's case is based entirely on cherry-picking. However, the aggregate data shows no consistent correlation.If it supported your agenda and ideology, you would argue that there is no correlation between sunlight hours and crop growth.

The only clear correlation is the giant rise in economic inequality over the tax-cutting period since Reagan.I thought we were still discussing poverty as opposed to income inequality.

Let's suppose that you could manipulate 'Factor A' within the economy via policy. If you decrease Factor A, the economy grows and everyone makes more money, including the poor. However, when you decrease Factor A, the 'rich' generally will make more than the poor, due in large part to the fact that the businesses that do well under this situation are not owned by the poor because, they are poor.

Is your premise that we should decrease Factor A for everyone except the rich?

Esten

02-15-11, 02:33

In addition to clearly demonstrating the high correlation between tax cuts and reducing poverty
The incontrovertible, factual claim is that tax cuts stimulate true economic growth (not the phony, baloney Keynesian and / or Marxist kinds that Esten likes) which results in a tide that raises all boats.The data shows no consistent correlation of tax cuts with reduced poverty. Invoking the beloved conservative fable about a rising tide lifting all boats doesn't prove it either.

While tax cuts can stimulate economic growth, that doesn't mean enough people will rise out of poverty to reduce the poverty rate. I am sure a political trivia buff like yourself has heard this version before:

The rising tide will lift some boats, but others will run aground.

The reason the tax cuts and economic growth over the past several decades have failed to reduce poverty is because almost all the new wealth went to the rich.

Rising economic inequality doesn't reduce poverty. You are too blinded by your ideology to recognize this.

Tiny12

02-15-11, 07:54

Esten,

The changes in the income tax system that occurred during the Bush administration made it more progressive.

With the few data points that are available for the USA, you're right, you cannot show that lower tax rates result in less poverty, although I believe the data provide stronger support for Walleye's position than yours. If you look at data wordwide, which would include a number of countries in Eastern Europe, the FSU, and other places that cut income tax rates and instituted flat taxes in the last decade and the last half of the 1990's, you'd see a clear correlation between (a) lower tax rates / flat tax rates and (b) lower poverty rates.

There's a reason why countries worldwide have cut and are cutting income taxes on business and on capital. Because it results in greater prosperity.

Wild Walleye

02-15-11, 12:45

The data shows no consistent correlation of tax cuts with reduced poverty. Invoking the beloved conservative fable about a rising tide lifting all boats doesn't prove it either.

While tax cuts can stimulate economic growth, that doesn't mean enough people will rise out of poverty to reduce the poverty rate. Excuse me Mr. Einstein, I can tell you unequivocally that the only way an individual rises out of poverty is for that individual to receive a stream of cash flows sufficient enough for him to support himself. In general there are two ways that can happen: he can earn it or someone can give it to him. Only one of these two is sustainable on a scale that includes millions of individuals living in poverty. I don't need to rely upon my many years of studying business, micro and macroeconomics in both university and the real world to know that the only way one can earn his way out of poverty is to have a job. Therefore, the individual must find or create the job. Since, in general, we are not talking about the entrepreneur 'class, ' a disproportionate number of these individuals must find work as opposed to creating it. Therefore, in order for millions of people living in poverty to find work or to get better paying jobs, there must be economic growth in order to create jobs. Lacking economic growth and job creation, poverty can only be artificially reduced via the wholesale subsidization by the public sector. This latter approach has been proven to be a colossal failure in the US via the War on Poverty, food stamps and welfare, none of which has reduced poverty at all because not one of them provides the individual with a sustainable cash flow with which he can meet his recurring obligations. Rather, these programs increase the individual's dependence upon the government to survive, fostering a trans-generational enslavement to entitlements. It is a proven fact that tax cuts stimulate economic growth and create jobs. Increased taxes and regulation (which are taxes of another form) increase the cost of doing business, limit economic opportunity and restrict or eliminate growth thereby preventing the creation of jobs.

It is that simple. You may believe and espouse whatever you like however, you can't alter the truth. Your hatred of the rich and the policies that you adore are most harmful to the poor. Get it through your head.

I am sure a political trivia buff like yourself has heard this version before:

The rising tide will lift some boats, but others will run aground. Haven't heard it that way before. Only a fatalist or eternal loser would see it that way. In order for the latter boats to run aground, something would have to buoy them first. Perhaps that is the entitlements phenomenon?

The reason the tax cuts and economic growth over the past several decades have failed to reduce poverty is because almost all the new wealth went to the rich.Let's enact laws and policies that prevent the 'rich' from making money and see what the economic outcome is and what effect that will have on the poor. Wait a minute, we already have that with Obama. Seems to me everyone is fucked under this scenario. Is it your premise that as long as the 'rich' get fucked, you don't care about anyone else? I think that you should seek professional help (not the kind available herein).

Rising economic inequality doesn't reduce poverty.There is no other force known to man other than job creation via economic growth that can sustainably reduce poverty. It is not possible, in a free market, to create widespread economic opportunity while specifically limiting or eliminating the participation of the very people who must take on additional risk in order to expand their payrolls. To believe otherwise is pure fantasy.

You are too blinded by your ideology to recognize this.Pot, meet kettle.

Canitasguy

02-15-11, 14:52

Confirming what I reported earlier, Fox News national polls echo those of other pollsters showing Obama bests all of the top 2112 GOP candidates.

Fix News, oops, Fox News found that Obama has a substantial lead over all of the GOP's top candidates, which must be galling seeing as most of the GOP POTUS want to be gang are paid big bucks as on screen egos, oops, analysts for Fox.

Mitt Romney loses 41 to 48 to Obama.

Huckabee loses 41 to 49.

Obama wins a clear 55 percent majority against both Gingrich and Palin.

But take heart Jackson and company. Maybe you can deliver the expat monger vote and save the day. Or maybe not!

El Alamo

02-16-11, 13:54

The idea that government can somehow reduce or eliminate poverty should be filed under 'ideas from a birdbrain'

If government could reduce poverty Cuba should have no poverty, Chavez's socialistic nightmare would be without poverty and of course North Korea would be poverty free.

Reagon had it right when he said that government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem.

I've enjoyed Esten's nonsense about as much as I can.

Stan Da Man

02-16-11, 14:43

I've enjoyed Esten's nonsense about as much as I can.My early nomination for comment of the year right there. At first it's amusing, but it quickly becomes disgusting.

Watching the back and forth with him is like watching someone play chess while he's still playing checkers.

Wild Walleye

02-16-11, 18:58

Let me do you a favor by changing the subject, since you didn't fare too well with the last one.

Jimmy Carter Part Deux?

-Unemployment: 10% (I know the govt says 9, but they are the only ones that believe that)

-Job growth: Nil.

-ridiculous energy 'policy' adding to cost of energy.

-inflation is looming.

-runaway govt spending.

-no fiscal restraint.

-Weak (nonexistent) US foreign policy facilitates deposing a US ally in middle east (Egypt)

-US diplomat (s) held hostage by Islamic nation (Pakistan)

-US weakness in the face of provocative military acts (Iran)

Where do the similarities stop? Should we bring back the misery index?

I guess one difference is that Jimmy wasn't an active supporter of the caliphate against the west. At least I don't think that he was when he was president. His recent comments regarding the Muslim Brotherhood may cast doubt on his current involvement.

Esten

02-17-11, 02:29

Don't despair guys, Obama and I will be around for another six years to help shed light on the darkness.

The recent debate that Walleye lost badly is his claim of "the high correlation between tax cuts and reducing poverty".

I haven't weighed in on the government's ability to reduce poverty, or made proposals to prevent rich people from making any money. So those comments will have to be placed in the "red herring" trashcan.

Let me do you a favor by changing the subject, since you didn't fare too well with the last one.No no no, please don't change the subject! I love discussing the wonderful benefits of tax cuts with you.

Excuse me Mr. Einstein, I can tell you unequivocally that the only way an individual rises out of poverty is for that individual to receive a stream of cash flows sufficient enough for him to support himself. In general there are two ways that can happen: he can earn it or someone can give it to him. Thank you for that brilliant analysis.

Only one of these two is sustainable on a scale that includes millions of individuals living in poverty. I don't need to rely upon my many years of studying business, micro and macroeconomics in both university Apparently you flunked statistics, or never took it.

and the real world to know that the only way one can earn his way out of poverty is to have a job. Therefore, the individual must find or create the job. Since, in general, we are not talking about the entrepreneur 'class, ' a disproportionate number of these individuals must find work as opposed to creating it. Therefore, in order for millions of people living in poverty to find work or to get better paying jobs, there must be economic growth in order to create jobs. Lacking economic growth and job creation, poverty can only be artificially reduced via the wholesale subsidization by the public sector. This latter approach has been proven to be a colossal failure in the US via the War on Poverty, food stamps and welfare, none of which has reduced poverty at all because not one of them provides the individual with a sustainable cash flow with which he can meet his recurring obligations. Rather, these programs increase the individual's dependence upon the government to survive, fostering a trans-generational enslavement to entitlements. It is a proven fact that tax cuts stimulate economic growth and create jobs. Increased taxes and regulation (which are taxes of another form) increase the cost of doing business, limit economic opportunity and restrict or eliminate growth thereby preventing the creation of jobs.Notice what you just wrote: A theory. I don't disagree with everything you wrote, but let's call it what it is, a theory. There is no data here.

Now you did start with some data. But when it was exposed as cherry-picking, you've had to fall back on your ideology.

It is that simple. You may believe and espouse whatever you like however, you can't alter the truth. A theory doesn't become truth without empirical evidence. Where's your evidence that tax cuts are highly correlated with reduced poverty? Whoops, you don't have any.

I will go by what the data says. Here is the Census Bureau data plotted:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif

The steep decline from the 1950's to the 1960's occured mostly while top tax rates were 91%, and partly after Kennedy's tax cuts. We can call this no correlation followed by correlation. Now look at 1966-present. Is the line moving UP or is it moving DOWN? The answer is both. With periods of correlation and inverse correlation.

Here's a free statistics lesson for Walleye: Combining data points that demonstrate "no correlation, correlation, and inverse correlation" does not add up to "correlation" (let alone "high correlation"). Although, you don't have to be a statistician to recognize that the poverty rate plot from 1966-present is basically flat, meaning no correlation with the significant tax cuts that occured over this period.

All you got is theories. The numbers say otherwise. But please, keep banging that drum on how tax cuts have reduced poverty. It's amusing watching you try to defend such an obviously indefensible position.

Moveon

02-17-11, 12:10

Jackson

02-17-11, 12:43

Huge amounts of wealth have been sucked out of the economy into the hands of the very few.Really? So in where did these people with their "huge amounts of wealth" decide to invest their money? Savings accounts? Stuffed into a mattress? Buried in their back yard? Perhaps Cuban government bonds?

Anyway, it should be irrelevant to you where these people may have decided to put their "huge amounts of wealth", and here's why: It's their fucking money!

Liberals generally see other people's money as their own, to be taken from them at gunpoint under the banner of government, but it's still theft because...

Anyone who believes that they have a right to forcibly take someone else's money to serve their own purposes is a THIEF, plain and simple. It is irrelevant whether or not the thieves are operating as individuals, or as an organized gang, or whether they can numerically outnumber (read "outvote") their targets.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

02-17-11, 14:17

Moveon, you and Esten will be around for 6 more years I hope but Obama will be history in one year and ten months. His poll numbers are headed back to the cellar again and I doubt he can get reelected with poll numbers in the low 40's or high 30's.

His claims about his budgets effect on the debt was just plain dishonest. The debt still goes up regardless of the reason for the borrowing rather it is new spending or borrowing to meet the interest it still goes up. Folks are just not buying it anymore and become more disgusted with him as he ponies out these easily disprovable claims about debt reduction while trying to spend more.

Wild Walleye

02-17-11, 14:54

Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not with tax rates.

The government per se, can't create economic growth because it creates nothing. Government policies can influence economic growth and contraction. There is ample evidence as to what policies increase growth and which inhibit it.

Wild Walleye

02-17-11, 15:22

I don't believe that one can underestimate the harm done to the US and the free world by our current president. What is worse, I do not believe that his abject failure can be attributed solely to incompetence and hubris. While certain instances of stubbornness could possibly be explained away as the dogmatic embrace of liberal philosophy, I personally believe that the problem is much deeper.

Plodding ahead with record-breaking tax and spend policies (engineered to grow our national debt to some $25T) , in the face of vehement opposition from a vast plurality of the nation's citizens is much more indicative of a man bent on achieving an agenda than one acting in the best interest of those he is supposed to serve. The bigger question is what agenda is he following? It isn't just liberalism because despite the fact that it (liberalism) is built on lies, the intentional destruction of our way of life, while always a potential outcome of liberalism, has never been its primary target.

Given that I believe it isn't liberalism alone, one has to look further.

Some questions I have:

-Why is BHO doing to the US what we did to destroy the USSR, to end the cold war? That is to say, why is BHO bankrupting us from within?

-Why are we intentionally driving up food and energy prices during a time of economic hardship?

-Why, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that the stimulus spending and quantitative easing are not working are we still doing it?

-Why is the only response this WH gives is 'more spending, further exacerbating our race to insolvency? '

-Why is the US actively taking steps to cover up the true nature and agenda of the Muslim Botherhood?

-Why are our top intelligence officials downplaying the significance of the Muslim Brotherhood, when the MB has been at the forefront of the intelligence battle for more than 30 years?

-Why can't our top intelligence officials point out that the MB is a terrorist organization responsible for direct attacks on American assets in Beirut in the early 80s? Who is responsible for 'erasing' their memories? Why are they being prevented from stating the truth?

-Why isn't the WH demanding the release of an American citizen with diplomatic immunity, being detained illegally in Pakistan?

-Why are we abandoning our only true, democratic ally in the Middle East?

-Why are we turning a blind eye to the causes of the spreading turmoil in the Middle East? Is it really just Twitter and Facebook that are upsetting the apple carts?

-Why are we ignoring the common thread amongst all these countries that have recently descended into chaos?

-Why isn't the WH out in front of the issues related to unrest in the Middle East? Why aren't they stressing the importance of secular democracy? Why are they ignoring the likely outcomes that these nations will become Islamic theocracies like Iran?

When I stack all of the answers up, I certainly don't like what I see. How about you?

Wild Walleye

02-17-11, 15:38

-What is the WH doing to prevent elements from deliberately scuttling / sinking a ship or ships (including subs) in the middle of the Suez?

Esten

02-18-11, 03:19

The CPAC convention ended in DC last week and as usual, there were the normal cesspool of Presidential R's who are planning on running for the Presidency. Whether it was Newt Gingrich (former House Speaker) who announced that he would abolish the EPA in it's entirety or the consensus of other candidates for the new "Drill, frack, and lease¨oil drilling policy that would unleash the domestic oil companies in our country. God help our drinking water) No wonder Christie (who did not attend CPAC) is getting hounded so much on running, many Repubs realize they are short on strong candidates. I didn't know much about Ron Paul before, but now I have learned he is a stark raving lunatic.

My GOP dream team for 2012 (Pres / VP) : Palin / Paul.

It was also interesting to see that the NRA was the primary sponsor of this neocon gathering but hardly surprising either.No kidding? I didn't know that. Along with the USCoC, the NRA is one of the most harmful organizations in the country.

Esten, we know by now, the rise in inequality in the US is largely in part of the ruinous banking system and the removal of many restrictions as possible. Huge amounts of wealth have been sucked out of the economy into the hand of the very few. Just what the Republicans like to see.It's all promoted by conservative ideology on lower taxes for the rich and de-regulation, the two foundations of Bush's epically disastrous presidency. It is likely these even worked in tandem by increasing the demand for MBS's (and the increasingly-risky loans required for them) which fueled the bubble. A double whammy.

Here is a great chart showing the rise of economic inequality since the Reagan tax cuts. It's a great example of correlation (inverse) (pay attention Walleye), the downward-trending top marginal tax rate mirroring the upward-trending inequality metric.

http://www.businessinsider.com/plutocracy-reborn

Toymann

02-18-11, 03:38

Be afraid Esten, BE VERY AFRAID! Tick Tick Tick. Go Mitt Romney in 2012! It's a done deal. Just remember who told ya first buddy. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. It doesn't matter who the VP nomination will be. VP's just pick the music for the dance on Saturday night. LOL!

Jackson

02-18-11, 11:30

No kidding? I didn't know that. Along with the USCoC, the NRA is one of the most harmful organizations in the country.Liberals know that if you take the firearms away from the citizens, you can then do whatever you want to them, and the NRA interferes with that objective.

"An armed citizenry is the best defence against a tyrannical government. "

Bush's epically disastrous presidency.ROTFLMAO! Esten, the only "epically disastrous presidency" is the one we are witnessing now.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

02-18-11, 12:11

I think this testimony before congress says it all about why the founding fathers included the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution, and it's not about hunting.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675

Wild Walleye

02-18-11, 12:41

All hail Esten and his liberal propaganda.

Here is a great chart showing the rise of economic inequality since the Reagan tax cuts. It's a great example of correlation (inverse) (pay attention Walleye) , the downward-trending top marginal tax rate mirroring the upward-trending inequality metric.

http://www.businessinsider.com/plutocracy-reborn

That is a brilliant analysis. The 'Income Gap' is what caused the great depression. After all this time, I thought that it was a normal, cyclical downward economic trend which metastasized into a global financial crisis, in large part due to the contraction of the US money supply by the Fed and increased US tax rates. Please note, on the lower chart, the severe increase in tax rates in the late 20s which resulted in DECREASED federal tax revenues (despite the enormous increase in the marginal rate). The combination of tight monetary policy and punitive tax policy resulted in a globally destructive drop in demand which triggered staggering asset deflation ('cause nobody wanted or could afford to by anything). In the year following Black Tuesday, the US government massively increased federal spending to pull us out of a potential downturn. That seems to have worked about as well as it has for Obama. Too bad there aren't any adults in the administration that a familiar with US history prior to the 60s.

Almost everything that that the US government did during the Great Depression exacerbated it. It was the resiliency of the human spirit, enabled by CAPITALISM, that brought the US out and the world out of the Great Depression.

To suggest that somehow income inequality triggered the Great Depression is folly so absurd, I'd even be surprised to hear Esten espouse such a laughable explanation.

However, the bottom chart does illustrate another interesting phenomenon. The trend of marginal tax rates from 1962 to the present is unmistakeably downward. Is it just a coincidence that this has been the period of man's greatest technical and industrial advancement since the Industrial Revolution? Further, it has seen the greatest strides in reducing global hunger and poverty than any previous period. Esten will probably say that it was a result of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and rail against the fact that some people made more money than others during that period.

Esten, when I was 24, I was destitute and were it not for friends and family, I would have been homeless. By the time I was 30, I had created and amassed considerable wealth and could have retired, never needing to work again and living a very comfortable lifestyle. So by the nature of excelling at certain things, I reduced the number living in poverty by 1 (not to mention the hundreds of people that I helped to employ) and increased the income gap because my formerly-destitute self had created massive opportunity. Seems to me that is consistent with the American Dream. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be punished for removing myself from the ranks of the poor and providing for myself, my family and my many, many employees?

Other than carp about the rich, what have you personally done to reduce the ranks of the poor?

Wild Walleye

02-18-11, 12:57

Moveon

02-18-11, 13:07

Wow, what a selective memory from our friends on the right!

Didn't George W. And (Carl Rove) way back when, preached to us about the Administration´s ¨Freedon Agenda?" (invading Iraq)

And I quote,"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." (George W.)

Well, for all the these "patriots" out there, this is exactly what happened in Egypt. But wait, I know who so famously said,"He's a son of a *****, but at least he's our son of a *****."

Freedon rang and so be it. How on earth can we as a nation preach freedom and liberty for all, when at the same time we try to slant the elections in the direction of what we want? Brothers, we can't have it both ways.

Grant it, there are some risks. But this comes with the territory of preaching free elections. We will have to see how this turns out.

No one on the right talks about Qaddafi and Libya. We all know his involvement with the Pan Am airline bombing, Lockerbie.

I don'see anyone from our "patriot" nation complain since he is in our fight against terror organizations. (he is doing this to protect his iron rule, his survival, let's not forget) Again, he's a son of a *****, but at least he's our son of a *****. Right?

As for Wallyeye's ever apolyctic view of the world, I would not be surprised if he follows Glenn Beck's doctrine of: "Store food. Buy guns." What is this far right obsession with guns anyway?

And as for me, for all in this forum who might think I address my friends with the word "Comrade." Please note that I don't have to wear an American flag lapel pin on my suit jacket to know that I love my country, warts and all.

Wild Walleye

02-18-11, 17:14

Wow, what a selective memory from our friends on the right!

Didn't George W. And (Carl Rove) way back when, preached to us about the Administration's ¨Freedon[sic] Agenda?" (invading Iraq) Didn't Obama declare the Freedom Agenda dead, upon his arrival in Washington?

And I quote,"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." (George W.)I agree. Do you disagree? The bigger question is what are we as a nation prepared to do in support of liberty, beyond our shores?

Well, for all the these "patriots" out there, this is exactly what happened in Egypt.What exactly happened in Egypt? I wasn't aware that whatever is happening in Egypt is over. If so, one might say what happened is that opportunist hijacked the original protests over food prices and turned them into anti-government demonstrations and riots. While there may have been an occasional mention of freedom or democracy, most of that came from the media covering the situation and not the 'leaders' of the demonstrations. The US government then threw our ally, albeit not an ideal ally, under the bus which resulted in a military coup. I don't recall too many liberals supporting military coups when they were in America's best interests so why do you support this coup?

But wait, I know who so famously said,"He's a son of a *****, but at least he's our son of a *****." Not sure why you quote this, clearly it isn't attributable to WW.

Freedon rang and so be it.For whom, exactly, has freedom rung?

How on earth can we as a nation preach freedom and liberty for all, when at the same time we try to slant the elections in the direction of what we want?Is that what Obama was doing, preaching? I wouldn't expect you to have too many historical facts at your finger tips (despite the appearance that you are somehow connected to the internet). Why would the US encourage elections the outcome of which will likely harm US interests at home and abroad? Like I have said, I would love for the Egyptian people to experience true, Jeffersonian freedom. However, America's involvement in said effort must be weighed in terms of the costs and benefits to American and her national security.

Brothers, we can't have it both ways.Because you say it, we shouldn't try?

Grant it, there are some risks.Just a few, small incidental risks like subjugating 80 million people and control of the Suez Canal to an Islamic theocracy?

But this comes with the territory of preaching free elections.I'm pretty sure Neville Chamberlain was preaching too. I guess you probably never knew that Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the democratically elected President, Paul Von Hindenburg.

We will have to see how this turns out.I don't recall the aforementioned ascension of the Third Reich working out too well for most folks.

Why should we stand by and allow others to effectuate change that is more than likely going to result in outcomes that are deleterious to US interests and security?

No one on the right talks about Qaddafi and Libya. We all know his involvement with the Pan Am airline bombing, Lockerbie.What about Muammar? I'd love to discuss him, his involvement in Pan Am 103 and Pan Am 73 (Karachi) which preceded Lockerbie. I am surprised that you aren't on Muammar's side. After all, Pan Am 73 and 103 were clearly attempts to strike back at the US or our intransigence in shooting down two Libyian fighter jets and sinking four or five Libyan navy vessels in the Gulf of Sidra, during the early 80s and of course Operation El Dorado Canyon.

I don'see anyone from our "patriot" nation complain since he is in our fight against terror organizations. (he is doing this to protect his iron rule, his survival, let's not forget) Again, he's a son of a *****, but at least he's our son of a *****. Right?What?

As for Wallyeye's ever apolyctic view of the world, I would not be surprised if he follows Glenn Beck's doctrine of: "Store food. Buy guns."When Armageddon does come, I'll be well armed and well fed. However, my current world view is anything but apocalyptic. That said, my outlook could change. What would your outlook be if the Muslim Brotherhood is successful in coalescing hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world to actively prosecute its caliphate against the West?

What do you think the Muslim Brotherhood has done thus far? Any idea which global terror groups are offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood? Anyone ever hear of Al Qaeda?

What is this far right obsession with guns anyway?Since when does legally possessing and operating a piece of machinery equate to obsession?

And as for me, for all in this forum who might think I address my friends with the word "Comrade." Please note that I don't have to wear an American flag lapel pin on my suit jacket to know that I love my country, warts and all.You are exposing yourself and your own conscious or subconscious doubts with such an declarative narrative (hey, that rhymes) in a discussion where no one has doubted your love for country. I would have guessed, given your writing, that you picked up English as a second language, my error.

I for one don't own a lapel pin and a rarely wear jackets with lapels. When I do, I sure as shit am not going to put a pin through the fabric of a finely, custom-tailored jacket, in order to make others feel better.

Symbol and idol worship are often the manifestation of the detachment from the origins of said symbols. You need to look no further than the story of Jesus and the Money Changers to understand what I mean. That said, if you want to wear a lapel pin, I certainly won't cast you out of the temple.

Esten

02-19-11, 01:01

Esten, when I was 24, I was destitute and were it not for friends and family, I would have been homeless. By the time I was 30, I had created and amassed considerable wealth and could have retired, never needing to work again and living a very comfortable lifestyle. So by the nature of excelling at certain things, I reduced the number living in poverty by 1 (not to mention the hundreds of people that I helped to employ) and increased the income gap because my formerly-destitute self had created massive opportunity. Seems to me that is consistent with the American Dream. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be punished for removing myself from the ranks of the poor and providing for myself, my family and my many, many employees? It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too.

Wild Walleye

02-19-11, 11:16

It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too.Clearly the chance was there for me. It is still there for me and everyone else who AVAILS themselves of it. The fact that I got ahead in no way harmed the chances for those 'behind' me. However, one has to actually do something to avail oneself of it.

The truth is something else. We are all friends here, feel free to let us know what it is.

Rev BS

02-20-11, 01:19

The debate here has now progress into vulgar political theatre ala Washington D. C.

Has anybody stopped to consider that maybe, just maybe, the way our government is organized is just not working under current conditions? Never has so much been spent to misinform and corrupt. Fact, fiction, and tall tales are the standard political offerings to the American public who through their own selfishness and ignorance can only swallow instant gratifying diatribe that the media dole out. Americans are in chronic debt with little to show for it, yet, we are encouraged to buy even more. Some proclaim with ideological zeal, less Washington, more state and local government? They will do better? Sure.

We Americans like to characterize ourselves and our society as exceptional. But we can't live in the past, we are caught in a time warp. The Marlboro man is long gone and we are approaching the tipping point.

Moveon

02-20-11, 20:18

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;

Just a few, small incidental risks like subjugating 80 million people and control of the Suez Canal to an Islamic. (blah, blah, blah)

Why should we stand by and allow others to effectuate change that is more than likely going to result in outcomes that are deleterious to US interests and security?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Obama might have called off Bush's Freedom agenda over in the MIddle East. But that just means he was not going be invading another country on that premise. The yearning for democracy in Egypt came from within. He was not about to discourage it. Just imagine if Obama was still oodling for Mubarack to stay??

If the Egyptian people have valid elections and they elect a pumpkin as a leader. Let it be. Does that mean we need to invade it? Walleye's obession with the Muslim brotherhood looks to me as a bit fanactical. What do you want to do about it? A military excursion in Egypt because of the possibility? Should we force in a despot who's under our thumb? (as if that would work.)

All this reminds me of Nicaragua in the'80's. Reagan was arming the contra's because the Republican's belief that a Cuban invasion of Latin America was forthcoming though the Sadinista's.

Guys, take a deep breath, get laid and stop watching FOX NEWS. (¨"We Report. We Decide.")

Wild Walleye

02-21-11, 13:44

Obama might have called off Bush's Freedom agenda over in the MIddle East. But that just means he was not going be invading another country on that premise.Obama and his ilk scoffed at the idea of a democratic Iraq. While their reasoning was wrong (Iraqis can't handle freedom) , their knee-jerk opposition to all things Bush may have been right (nation building is a long road frought with obstacles).

The yearning for democracy in Egypt came from within.OK, so now you're an expert on what the people of Egypt think. As I mentioned above, Liberals were telling all of us that 'these people' weren't capable of existing in a Jeffersonian democracy.

He was not about to discourage it.No, he was busy encouraging a military coup.

Just imagine if Obama was still oodling for Mubarack to stay??Maybe there wouldn't have been a military coup in Egypt. Perhaps the unrest, driven by the Muslim Bortherhood, would not be spreading throughout the Muslim world.

If the Egyptian people have valid elections and they elect a pumpkin as a leader. Let it be. Does that mean we need to invade it? Depends what the pumpkin's intentions are visa vi the USA.

Walleye's obession with the Muslim brotherhood looks to me as a bit fanactical.Again with the 'obsession' terminology. People put CO and smoke detectors in their homes to protect against known threats. Are they fanatical?

What do you want to do about it?Discourage it. What do you want to do about it? Oh yeah, nothing.

A military excursion in Egypt because of the possibility?A military 'excursion? ' What are they going to do, book a Carnival Cruise? How about a military incursion, which would include boots on the ground? I propose neither, although if the Suez gets closed, I might vote for both.

Should we force in a despot who's under our thumb? (as if that would work.) Not that I am proposing it, but why wouldn't that work? Seems to me things went better for us with Iran while the Shah was still around. Jimmy Carter screwed the pooch and we've been paying for it for 32 years.

All this reminds me of Nicaragua in the'80's. Reagan was arming the contra's because the Republican's belief that a Cuban invasion of Latin America was forthcoming though the Sadinista's.You are totally clueless regarding past, present and likely future events.

Guys, take a deep breath, get laid and stop watching FOX NEWS. (¨"We Report. We Decide.")Like I have stated many times before, I don't watch any TV news, not even Fox. There is very little happening in the world that can be synthesized, analyzed and articulated in 60 seconds or less. If you chose to get your news that way, particularly from the liberal mainstream media you will get it with their bias imbued into every nook and cranny.

Member #4112

02-21-11, 14:44

No matter how you spin it the 'Military Care Taker' government is nothing more or less than a military coup and there is no democratic government in place at this time. Egypt is now ruled by a Military Junta.

Moveon, Esten, here is a question for you. Who assassinated Egyptian President Sadat for making peace with Israel? Give up? The Muslin Brotherhood. After the assassination all members of the Muslim Brotherhood were purged from the military. To this day the military takes a dim view of the Muslim Brotherhood and will hopefully suppress them during any election. In case you don't recall the Muslim Brotherhood is calling for a style of government similar to Iran and not a representative democracy.

Why should we be concerned about the government in Egypt? As WW points out the Suez Canal is controlled by Egypt. Now take out your maps boys and girls and trace where much of the world's oil comes from and what canal it transits. If the Suez is shut down the tankers will have to make the run around the end of Africa which will add both time and cost to current oil deliveries. Since we are getting well into the mid $3's for gas what do you think will happen. Of course the price goes up and when that happens everything that is delivered with the US price will rise as well.

This might be a good thing in it might get Obama off his ass and let the US recover our own petroleum resources here at home.

As a Post Script, since Moveon and Esten are such ardent admirers of democracy what about the other half of the Egyptian population which are still treated as second class property (not even citizens) who may be killed or maimed at the male family members whim. You guys know who I’m talking about, women. How about the American female report who was “assaulted”, can we all say raped, by those stalwarts of democracy and freedom in Egypt!

Jackson

02-21-11, 15:40

Guys, take a deep breath, get laid and stop watching FOX NEWS. (¨"We Report. We Decide.")If we could get just that ONE news channel shut down, the world would be such a better place to live, with everyone living in harmony with each other and prosperity for all.

Sigh.

Jackson

Tiny12

02-21-11, 23:00

Moveon

02-22-11, 14:24

Moveon, What makes you think the Bush administration would have reacted any differently than Obama to what's happening in Egypt? The positions of Obama and Hillary Clinton on democracy in the Middle East aren't any different from positions of Bush, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell, with one exception. Unfortunately, Bush was willing to go to war, in part to try to prod along this process.Maybe, who knows?

But in retrospect, let's be completely candid:

If IRAQ did not contain an ounce of oil reserves but held just squabbling tribesman would Bush have invaded Iraq? Remember, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda hated each other. There was no terrorist link what-so-ever.

Yeah, Saddam ws a ruthless dictator. But there were a lot of other ruthless dictators around the world as well, why not go after them?

So George W.´s real agenda was oil and the use of Halbitron thanks to Cheney. (no bid contracts, etc)

Democracy - one could say, was just a cover.

Wild Walleye

02-22-11, 16:02

Maybe, who knows?

But in retrospect, let's be completely candid:

If IRAQ did not contain an ounce of oil reserves but held just squabbling tribesman would Bush have invaded Iraq? Probably not. If Iraq didn't have oil, I would have a hard time seeing how Iraq alone would be a material variable in calculating our national best interests and security. That said, Iraq has abundant oil and is a key strategic element of the Muslim world which had the proper elements for US to tee up for an invasion. That said, Bush took the Rice / Powell advice on post-invasion Iraq (nation building) rather than listening to Rummy (go kill a bunch of people, break a few things and get the F out). Irrespective of the foregoing, the invasion of Iraq projected immense strength to the Muslim world. Strength is the only thing that they respect (in a nation, that is). We are currently projecting national pussy-ness. The fact that the Muslim world sees us currently as 'weak' is exacerbating the unrest, which again, has little or nothing to do with what we consider to be democracy and freedom.

Remember, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda hated each other. Who cares?

There was no terrorist link what-so-ever.You are a blind idiot. To state that Iraq had no terrorist connections and was not a sponsor of terror is one of the most ignorant things you have said.

Yeah, Saddam ws a ruthless dictator. But there were a lot of other ruthless dictators around the world as well, why not go after them?'cause they aren't: in our strategic interests, they aren't tee'd up just right and our president is a pussy.

So George W.´s real agenda was oil and the use of Halbitron thanks to Cheney. (no bid contracts, etc)Pull your head out of your ass. How many no bid contracts do you thing BHO's govt has handed out? Lots, it is often how our govt does business. Don't like it? Go vote for someone who will do it differently. Clearly, that ain't Barry.

Democracy - one could say, was just a cover.Not for me. We should engage the enemy wherever they are and whenever it suits us best. Kill all the bad guys and it'll be just us good guys left to nail all the chicas.

Moveon

02-22-11, 18:38

Probably not. If Iraq didn't have oil, I would have a hard time seeing how Iraq alone would be a material variable in calculating our national best interests and security. That said, Iraq has abundant oil and is a key strategic element of the Muslim world which had the proper elements for US to tee up for an invasion. That said, Bush took the Rice / Powell advice on post-invasion Iraq (nation building) rather than listening to Rummy (go kill a bunch of people, break a few things and get the F out). Irrespective of the foregoing, the invasion of Iraq projected immense strength to the Muslim world. Strength is the only thing that they respect (in a nation, that is). We are currently projecting national pussy-ness. The fact that the Muslim world sees us currently as 'weak' is exacerbating the unrest, which again, has little or nothing to do with what we consider to be democracy and freedom.

Who cares?

You are a blind idiot. To state that Iraq had no terrorist connections and was not a sponsor of terror is one of the most ignorant things you have said.

'cause they aren't: in our strategic interests, they aren't tee'd up just right and our president is a pussy.

Pull your head out of your ass. How many no bid contracts do you thing BHO's govt has handed out? Lots, it is often how our govt does business. Don't like it? Go vote for someone who will do it differently. Clearly, that ain't Barry.

Not for me. We should engage the enemy wherever they are and whenever it suits us best. Kill all the bad guys and it'll be .....yadi,yah, yah-"Who cares?" How funny. Well, if you listened to Cheney and Rumsfeld, there was indeed a connection. Therefore, by invading iraq we were fighting Al Qaeda. Don't believe me? - look it up, clueless.

"Kill all the bad guys?" You are so naive to think that we as a country can invade or ¨put boots on the ground¨whenever, wherever, we please without looking into the consequences both diplomatically and from a practical standpoint.

Are you stating all Defense Contracts of that magnitude are "no bid?"

Lastly, your obsession with the Muslim Brotherhood is typical of some so many neocons that led us to a disastrous war in Iraq. What thappened in Indonesia way back when with this organization? When the dictator Suharto at the time got overthrown, how did that party do in the election? Not too well, did it? It's a secular country just like Egypt or Turkey.

So put your John Wayne costume back in the closet. Halloween is in October, jerk.

Wild Walleye

02-22-11, 19:35

"Who cares?" Well, if you listened to Cheney and Rumsfeld, there was indeed a connection. Therefore, by invading iraq we were fighting Al Qaeda.My 'who cares' was directed at your liberal baloney. Everyone, except you of course, knows two things: 1) terrorism (terrorists, state sponsorship, etc) existed in Iraq prior to the war and 2) Bush et al never stated that Iraq had anything to do with 911 (the usual red herring flung about by lefties). Clearly, the Bush administration pushed the idea that we'd be fighting terrorism in Iraq. Please cite line and verse where either Cheney or Rummy, prior to our invasion of Iraq, made erroneous statements about Iraq and its terrorist connections. Not that you would know a fact from a fart.

Ever heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Any idea where he moved in 2001 (hint: it used to be called Mesopotamia)? Among other things he is believed to have been behind the Millenium bombing attempts in the US and UK (1999) as well as the assasination of American diplomat, Laurence Foley (2002) , in Jordan. You may call him a freedom fighter, I call him a terrorist and believe that we should do all in our power to assist him and his ilk in meeting their god. His version of the Hole in the wall gang was called "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" which later was changed to al Qaeda-in-Iraq.

Don't beleive me, look it up, clueless.Why don't you try providing a fact or two for a change?

"Kill all the bad guys?" You are so naive to think that we as a country can invade or ¨put boots on the ground¨whenever, wherever, we please.Yep. However, I don't suggest we do it without a good reason. By the way, if we need a new place to go, I pick Libya, its got loads of oil and not that many inhabitants.

And your obsession with the Muslim Brotherhood is typical of some so many neocons that led us to a disastrous war in Iraq.Again with this 'obsession' language.

What thappened in Indonesia way back when with this organization? When the dictator Suharto at the time got overthrown, how did that party do in the election?Are you holding up Indonesia as shining example? Why, because it is Obama's birthplace?

It's a secular country just like Egypt or Turkey.Egypt now? Or a month ago? How about Egypt in 12 months? Turkey is a far better example. Hows that working out in terms of US interests? Better or worse?

So put your John Wayne costume back in the closet, jerk.Again with your intolerance. I thought liberals were against forcing people back into the closet? What's next? Are you going to make women go to back alleys for abortions?

Moveon

02-22-11, 21:16

[quote=wild walleye; 415750]my 'who cares' was directed at your liberal baloney. Everyone, except you of course, knows two things: 1) terrorism (terrorists, state sponsorship, etc) existed in iraq prior to the war and 2) bush et al never stated that iraq had anything to do with 911 (the usual red herring flung about by lefties). Clearly, the bush administration pushed the idea that we'd be fighting terrorism in iraq. Please cite line and verse where either cheney or rummy, prior to our invasion of iraq, made erroneous statements about iraq and its terrorist connections. Not that you would know a fact from a fartC

@ Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq, before we invaded it. What part of this do you not understand? Plus it was Cheney who, still to this day states Al Qaeda was flourishing in Iraq when Hussein was in power. Again, Saddam Hussein did not trust Al Qaeda-both did not trust each other.

Ever heard of abu musab al-zarqawi? Any idea where he moved in 2001 (hint: It used to be called mesopotamia)? Among other things he is believed to have been behind the millenium bombing attempts in the us and uk (1999) as well as the assasination of american diplomat, laurence foley (2002) , in jordan. You may call him a freedom fighter, i call him a terrorist and believe that we should do all in our power to assist him and his ilk in meeting their god. His version of the hole in the wall gang was called "jama'at al-tawhid wal-jihad" which later was changed to al qaeda-in-iraq.

@ Sure, he had the opportunity in that country only after we invaded it.

Why don't you try providing a fact or two for a change?

Yep. However, i don't suggest we do it without a good reason. By the way, if we need a new place to go, i pick libya, its got loads of oil and not that many inhabitants.

@ Do go, please. Come to think of it, you would probably like the atmoshere there as well.

Again with this 'obsession' language.

@ Heck it was you that kept throwing it out there in your previous posts. I am just replying to it.

Are you holding up indonesia as shining example? Why, because it is obama's birthplace?

@ Because you know what i said is true. You can call it a shining example, if you like.

Egypt now? Or a month ago? How about egypt in 12 months? Turkey is a far better example. Hows that working out in terms of us interests? Better or worse?

@ What on earth is wrong with our relations with Turkey? Oh my God, you are really tripping.
It's disturbed neocons like yourself that feel that every country out there is of strategic importance to our freedom and existence and therefore we have a right to ¨put boots on the ground."

Esten

02-23-11, 01:02

Liberals know that if you take the firearms away from the citizens, you can then do whatever you want to them, and the NRA interferes with that objective.If you allow citizens to own firearms, some of them rob, shoot and kill people. Happens every day. Violent crime also tends to increase with greater inequality. The destructive synergy of (largely) conservative ideologies is remarkable.

"An armed citizenry is the best defence against a tyrannical government. "

Another one liner! And one which once again makes no sense. Most crimes involving guns are not aimed at the government. Unless you believe guns served a useful purpose in the shootings of Kennedy, Reagan, Giffords and other elected politicians.

ROTFLMAO! Esten, the only "epically disastrous presidency" is the one we are witnessing now.Jackson,

It was the Bush presidency that led us into the Great Recession.
It is the Obama presidency that has led us out of it.
That's what happened and how it will be recorded in history.

Now, Bush would have been just a mere failure based on the underperformance of real income and poverty metrics, after tax cuts which were supposed to bring prosperity to everyone.

Of course, his presidency became a disaster as the financial crisis unfolded. It has been determined that de-regulation and lax regulatory oversight were major contributers to the crisis.

But it became an epic disaster when the crisis led to a deep recession with near 10% unemployment, with the legacy of Bush policies (wars, tax cuts) and the economic downturn driving huge federal deficits.

It is truly astounding, the damage conservative ideology has caused to the country.

Tiny12

02-23-11, 09:24

Maybe, who knows?

But in retrospect, let's be completely candid:

If IRAQ did not contain an ounce of oil reserves but held just squabbling tribesman would Bush have invaded Iraq? Remember, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda hated each other. There was no terrorist link what-so-ever.

Yeah, Saddam ws a ruthless dictator. But there were a lot of other ruthless dictators around the world as well, why not go after them?

So George W. 's real agenda was oil and the use of Halbitron thanks to Cheney. (no bid contracts, etc)

Democracy. One could say, was just a cover. Oil had very little to do with it, and anyone intelligent, like you, who says it did is saying so purely for political reasons. For the Neocons, Democracy wasn't the cover, it was the primary underlying reason. Weapons of mass destruction were their cover. And I'm not sure the American intelligence and the military, let alone Bush or Blair, knew WMD were the cover. They thought WMD were a legitimate threat. It was like a lot of scientific research -- you're looking for a particular result that you believe is true, so you fabricate the evidence, without really knowing you're doing it.

Moveon

02-23-11, 11:41

Oil had very little to do with it, and anyone intelligent, like you, who says it did is saying so purely for political reasons. For the Neocons, Democracy wasn't the cover, it was the primary underlying reason. Weapons of mass destruction were their cover. And I'm not sure the American intelligence and the military, let alone Bush or Blair, knew WMD were the cover. They thought WMD were a legitimate threat. It was like a lot of scientific research -- you're looking for a particular result that you believe is true, so you fabricate the evidence, without really knowing you're doing it.The UN had declared Iraq had no WMD's. Some elite member's of the previous administration insisted they did and used a unreliable informant,"Curveball." His supposed eyewitness testimony was the main reason used to justify the invasion.

In addition, Paul Wolfowitz, Mr. Neocon himself, promoted Bush's "Freedom Agenda" in the hope that free and democratic elections would spread in the MIddle East once Iraq had been "liberated."

However, there is no way that we have gone to war if Iraq had no oil reserves. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq at the time. Eliminating a ruthless dictator? Their were plenty of those around the world. It now appears it was all a ruse and oil was the Number 1 reason.

Jackson

02-23-11, 13:22

It now appears it was all a ruse and oil was the Number 1 reason.This has been the liberal's mantra ever since we liberated Iraq, but as usual with liberal logic, it doesn't hold up under any scrutiny.

If all we wanted was the oil, then Saddam Hussein would have gladly sold us all the oil we wanted, and at a cost that would have been much less than the cost of liberating the country.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

02-23-11, 13:27

Moreon:

I realize the likelihood of someone mistakenly attributing any of my brilliant analysis to you is extremely remote, however, if you wouldn't mind, please set off the material that you wish to quote with the proper syntax. Open a quote with '[ quote= ]' and end the quote with '[ /quote ]' (both without the quotation marks or spaces).

Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq, before we invaded it. What part of this do you not understand?I don't understand why you are so obtuse and unwilling to accept the facts :

"Everyone, except you of course, knows two things: 1) terrorism (terrorists, state sponsorship, etc) existed in iraq prior to the war and 2) Bush et al never stated that iraq had anything to do with 911 (the usual red herring flung about by lefties)."

Plus it was Cheney who, still to this day states Al Qaeda was flourishing in Iraq when Hussein was in power.Clearly, there were elements in Iraq, prior to the initiation of rapid dominance in March 2003 (aka Shock and Awe) , that were sympathetic and / or related to al Qaeda. There is absolutely no question that terror elements existed in Iraq prior to Operation Desert Storm (1990) , let alone Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003).

Again, Saddam Hussein did not trust Al Qaeda-both did not trust each other.Well, that settles it then. I guess, since they both rely so heavily on the "honor system" that they couldn't do business together due to a lack of trust.

Sure, he had the opportunity in that country only after we invaded it.Please reread, in light of the historical refresher above (I. E. Op Iraqi Freedom started in March 2003) :

"Ever heard of abu musab al-zarqawi? Any idea where he moved in 2001 (hint: It used to be called mesopotamia)? Among other things he is believed to have been behind the millenium bombing attempts in the us and uk (1999) as well as the assasination of american diplomat, laurence foley (2002) , in jordan. You may call him a freedom fighter, I call him a terrorist and believe that we should do all in our power to assist him and his ilk in meeting their god. His version of the hole in the wall gang was called "jama'at al-tawhid wal-jihad" which later was changed to al qaeda-in-iraq."

Do go, please. Come to think of it, you would probably like the atmoshere there as well.Despite false scientific claims to the contrary, the composition of the atmosphere (don't forget the 'p') is generally the same, all over the world. It is just a little dryer in Tripoli. Our boots have been on that soil before. I seem to recall a song.

Heck it was you that kept throwing it out there in your previous posts. I am just replying to it.I think not. That is an example of transference.

Because you know what i said is true. You can call it a shining example, if you like.You said nothing. Therefore, I must conclude that nothing you say is true.

What on earth is wrong with our relations with Turkey?Simple question, are our relations, measured in terms of serving our best interests, better or worse, now?

Oh my God,Given your position on the lunatic left, I doubt you have one. If you do, good for you. I would venture to guess your deities are liberal fabrications.

you are really tripping.Not since I volunteered for the govt study.

It's disturbed neocons like yourselfI am not a neocon, I am an old school conservative.

that feel that every country out there is of strategic importance to our freedom and existence and therefore we have a right to ¨put boots on the ground."I don't think that every country is of direct strategic importance. If I did, I'd be supporting Monroe (some doctrine thingy he was fond of) and playing dominoes (theory, that is). It is pretty clear which countries are strategically important to us and which are of significant strategic import that if necessary, we should be willing to occupy or at least invade and secure our interests.

Member #3320

02-23-11, 14:43

sold us all the oil we wanted.

JacksonNow you have it for free. No need to "buy".

Wild Walleye

02-23-11, 15:36

Then why the fuck are we paying market prices for Iraqi oil?

I said back then (2003) and I'll say it now. Regardless of why we went in, we should have immediately started garnishing Iraqi oil revenues until we were paid back 100% of the expense of the war plus interest (average US treasury 10 year note) plus inflation adjustments and compensation for each American casualty (wounded, KIA and MIA) or his / her estate. We are doing none of that. We are footing the entire bill, excluding the de minimis financial contributions from our allies (in no way meant to belittle our allies' wounded and KIAs) and have borne the highest casualties.

Further, regardless of which Bush camp one was in (Powell / Rice or Rummy) all knew that invading Iraq would drive up oil prices and would likely result in a prolonged interruption to Iraq's oil production capability. It was no secret that Saddam intended to practice scorched earth once in retreat.

So we went in knowing that we would reduce oil supply and increase oil prices which in turn would drive up the cost of all most everything we use or consume on a daily basis (inflationary) which in turn reduces the value of each dollar held by the individual, all of which typically cause economic harm.

So tell me again, how was it just about oil?

Wild Walleye

02-23-11, 16:26

If you allow citizens to own firearms, some of them rob, shoot and kill people. Happens every day.Please don't let ignorance prevent you from 'contributing' your poorly developed positions.

Rarely do the rightful owners of legally-possessed fire arms commit crimes with them. Anything to the contrary is more liberal gibberish. However, please feel free to provide statistical evidence stating the contrary. Maybe Gini did a study on gun ownership.

During the 80s and 90s homicide rates increased (most via GSWs) at the same time overall gun ownership in America was experiencing a significant decrease (from close to 50% in the 70s and early 80s to approximately 36% in 2004). The increased homicide rates were mostly due to young (18-24yrs old) black and Hispanic inner-city males involved in the drug trade and gangs. Please don't waste your breath on saying the preceding is racist, it is not an opinion it is fact. It is also a fact that most gang bangers and drug traffickers do not feel compelled to legally acquire or register their firearms or use them in a manner consistent with the law.

Criminologist Gary Kleck compared various survey and proxy measures and found no correlation between overall firearm ownership and gun violence.

How about this from Wikipedia citing various studies:

'People with a criminal record are also more likely to die as homicide victims. Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record. In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996. In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime."

So it also seems to be true that bad guys have a much higher incidence of being shot than good guys. Works for me.

Violent crime also tends to increase with greater inequality.Bull shit! Violent crime is closely correlated with employment and economic growth, not income inequality. The fact that more crime is committed by poor individuals is not unique to America or countries with liberal gun ownership policies.

The destructive synergy of (largely) conservative ideologies is remarkable.The ignorance and arrogance of the Left is even more remarkable.

Another one liner! And one which once again makes no sense.It certainly does. The fact that you don't get it speaks volumes.

Most crimes involving guns are not aimed at the government.Careful, I think you might have stumbled into stating something that is factual.

Unless you believe guns served a useful purpose in the shootings of Kennedy, Reagan, Giffords and other elected politicians.Stupid comment, standard ad hominem liberal BS.

It was the Bush presidency that led us into the Great Recession.We all know that Bush was president going in. His policies did not led us in to the GR.

It is the Obama presidency that has led us out of it.Other than you, I don't know anyone who thinks we are out of it. However, I agree that wherever we are, Obama led us here.

That's what happened and how it will be recorded in history.The main stream media records it like you see it on a daily basis. Why doesn't America believe it? 'cause it ain't true.

Now, Bush would have been just a mere failure based on the underperformance of real income and poverty metrics, after tax cuts which were supposed to bring prosperity to everyone.I am afraid that is unintelligible.

Of course, his presidency became a disaster as the financial crisis unfolded. It has been determined that de-regulation and lax regulatory oversight were major contributers to the crisis.Determined by the same people who 'proved' anthropogenic global warming is turning the planet into a fiery ball of death and that the 'science' is settled and no further debate should be allowed?

But it became an epic disaster when the crisis led to a deep recession with near 10% unemployment, with the legacy of Bush policies (wars, tax cuts) and the economic downturn driving huge federal deficits.How is it that Obama triples that national debt and you have a bone to pick with Bush?

It is truly astounding, the damage conservative ideology has caused to the country.It is truly astounding that you can get yourself around town, given this discontinuity of your cognitive functions.

Jackson

02-23-11, 21:05

Now you have it for free. No need to "buy".Captain,

Do you really believe that the United States is stealing oil from Iraq? I mean, do you believe that USA oil tankers are docking at Iraqi oil terminals, filling up on Iraqi oil and just sailing off without paying the Iraqi government for a single drop?

I know there are many ignorant people in the world who believe this, but I always thought you were more educated than that.

So, are you?

Thanks,

Jackson.

BTW, how are all those illegal Bangladeshis in Assam working out for the Indian people? Did the border fence the Indians built eventually work?

Wild Walleye

02-23-11, 22:22

Are you stating all Defense Contracts of that magnitude are "no bid?" Why put the qualifier "all" into your response? You are without a doubt completely void of intellectual honesty.

Wild Walleye

02-23-11, 22:30

Wow, what a selective memory from our friends on the right!Blah, blah, blah.

No one on the right talks about Qaddafi and Libya.Don't forget Obama, 'leader' of the free world who has been silent on the subject of Libya for 9 days. What leadership. I wonder what he will do with the revelations that Muammar personally ordered the Lockerbie attack or that he allowed al Qaeda to set up an emirate in Libya.

If I worked in an aspirin factory, I would have some serious pucker factor right now.

Wild Walleye

02-24-11, 00:40

Under-bama is here!

Awesome. Now that he has been AWOL for 9 days on the Libya thing, he's on it. Man, am I relieved. I can rest assured that someone with Esten's hatred for America and Moreon's understanding of geo-political realities is on the scene. Once again, I must say that Obama is the least qualified person in the room, no matter what room in which he finds himself. Now let's see this genius community organize the muslim world, that he helped set a blaze.

We can all take comfort in knowing that he will bring that same laser beam focus to the Libya situation that he has brought to the jobs-issue here at home. Boy, will I sleep tight tonight.

Wild Walleye

02-24-11, 00:56

I have proven myself to be a pretty decent barometer on certain subjects. I admit that I was off on the Republicans gaining control of the senate, that one was pretty close. I will tell you without a doubt, there are no polls that are currently, accurately tracking Obama's negatives amongst likely 2012 voters. If there were, they would be predicting something that would make Jimmy Carter blush. Despite the fact that in political terms there is still an eternity until November 2012, America hates this piker and it has nothing to do with his race.

America rejects liberalism, socialism and Obamaism. The election results of 2010 were a mere prelude. Thank God (I have one, thank you) they overstepped on healthcare (feel free to review WW's take on Obama overreaching circa summer 2009) and woke up the American public.

The political *****-slapping of 2010-2012 and beyond is like the culmination of 86 years or want by Bosox fans. The Yankees series is analogous to 2010 and hopefully 2012's electoral outcome will reflect the series win trouncing of St Louis.

Esten

02-24-11, 01:08

While some posters have from time to time used put-downs in their posts, Walleye has demonstrated he is the indisputable king of insults and put-downs. He uses them frequently in his responses, probably to compensate for the weak impact of his arguments.

Some recent gems:

F-ing brilliant and poignant
One of the most Moreonic posts
Hopelessness and cluelessness
Mr. I don't know how to do a quote
Sorry, I meant utterly clueless
Still clueless
Clueless
There is the basis for your lie
Don't let ignorance keep you from posting
You are deluded
Basing emotional issues on lies
Hey dimwit

It just goes to show you, all the money in the world can't buy class.

Rev BS

02-24-11, 02:49

I have proven myself to be a pretty decent barometer on certain subjects. I admit that I was off on the Republicans gaining control of the senate, that one was pretty close. I will tell you without a doubt, there are no polls that are currently, accurately tracking Obama's negatives amongst likely 2012 voters. If there were, they would be predicting something that would make Jimmy Carter blush. Despite the fact that in political terms there is still an eternity until November 2012, America hates this piker and it has nothing to do with his race.

America rejects liberalism, socialism and Obamaism. The election results of 2010 were a mere prelude. Thank God (I have one, thank you) they overstepped on healthcare (feel free to review WW's take on Obama overreaching circa summer 2009) and woke up the American public.

The political.slapping of 2010-2012 and beyond is like the culmination of 86 years or want by Bosox fans. The Yankees series is analogous to 2010 and hopefully 2012's electoral outcome will reflect the series win trouncing of St Louis. So are you giving 10-1 on Obama NOT winning 2012? Since my savings deposit's interest rate is so low, I don't mind taking the underdog.

Wild Walleye

02-24-11, 13:01

So are you giving 10-1 on Obama NOT winning 2012? Since my savings deposit's interest rate is so low, I don't mind taking the underdog.An actual national election, without suspending the Constitution and / or declaring Marshall Law, I'll treat you to a night out on the town

Wild Walleye

02-24-11, 13:03

Stan Da Man

02-24-11, 14:48

While some posters have from time to time used put-downs in their posts, Walleye has demonstrated he is the indisputable king of insults and put-downs. He uses them frequently in his responses, probably to compensate for the weak impact of his arguments.That's a bunch of nonsense and you know it. He's quite civil until attacked. Once someone else crosses the line, the gloves come off.

Once again, you distort things. I've come to expect nothing less, though, so that's par for the course.

Rev BS

02-24-11, 22:33

An actual national election, without suspending the Constitution and / or declaring Marshall Law, I'll treat you to a night out on the townThat's nice, and my chances are quite high. Obama will go all out to present a centrist policy with unemployment and economy being the key issues. Any liberal policies will be put on hold until 2nd term. The crisis in the Middle East and high oil prices will be roadblocks in his strategy.

In case I lose, is 2 girls in a soapie a deal?

Stan Da Man

02-25-11, 16:40

We knew that Governor Sanford read this board, but it's good to see that Scott Walker is following along as well.

I threw this out there nearly a year ago and several times since then: Why do we need public unions? No one, not even Esten or Moreon, tried to answer it. The closest we got was someone who claimed that private Sector unions had done some good long ago in San Francisco. That point is debatable, especially given San Francisco's dire financial condition, but it also was non-responsive.

Even now, with all the union furor in Wisconsin, none of the union bosses or lackeys, and no one in the media, has ever bothered to try to articulate why public unions are necessary or beneficial. I'm pretty sure I know why.

But, one last time: Why do we need public unions?

Here's another one I'll throw out to the masses:

Why do we have unionized government workers?

I understand the historical reasons for the rise of unions. Unions allowed workers, collectively, to negotiate with powerful capitalists and companies over things like wages, work safety and work conditions. There was a time when the country needed that.

Frankly, I think unions have served their purpose and do far more harm than good now.

But why do we have unionized government workers? So that they can collectively negotiate over safety, wages and work rules with who? The government? In other words, us.

This issue is the largest problem USA States need to grapple with. For the past 40-50 years, unions such as CALPERS, the teachers' unions, police and fire unions, have collectively negotiated with who? Other government workers, who frequently are unionized themselves, over pay and benefits packages that are now simply obscene. It is the equivalent of the wolf and fox negotiating with each other over who gets rights to the sheep and the hen house. We're the sheep and hen house. The result is defined benefit pension plans, fully funded early retirement plans that pay 20-year employees six figure salaries for life, massively underfunded retirement plans, work rules that can easily be exploited by the workers to significant financial advantage (ask any cop) and a system that will collapse under its own weight.

I'd say that the solution is easy: Some of these states should declare bankruptcy and just negotiate new contracts, like GM and Chrysler. The only problem is, states are constitutionally forbidden from filing for bankruptcy. As a consequence, these issues are the elephant in the room that no one talks about. This is because the public employee unions are so powerful that any dissent from politicians is immediately met with a huge union war chest allocated to unseating anyone with the temerity to address this obvious issue.

In the end, we're the folks footing the tab. But sooner or later. Likely sooner. Something has to give. It won't happen under the current administration, but a starting place would be to simply ban unions from representing public employees. Union necessity can be debated where the private sector is concerned, but why are they the least bit necessary for government workers?

WorldTravel69

02-25-11, 19:28

It is hard enough to get laid in the USA, now he wants to closed Nevada's brothels.

http://www.elynews.com/articles/2011/02/25/news/news12.txt

Tiny12

02-25-11, 20:04

Stan, Take a look at this, if you haven't already, about public sector unions,

http://www.economist.com/node/17849199

Wild Walleye

02-26-11, 00:04

That's nice, and my chances are quite high. Obama will go all out to present a centrist policy with unemployment and economy being the key issues. Any liberal policies will be put on hold until 2nd term. The crisis in the Middle East and high oil prices will be roadblocks in his strategy.

In case I lose, is 2 girls in a soapie a deal? It'll take a really, really soapie deal (or a coup) to get our supreme ruler another term.

Wild Walleye

02-26-11, 00:12

It is hard enough to get laid in the USA, now he wants to closed Nevada's brothels.

http://www.elynews.com/articles/2011/02/25/news/news12.txt

When that fat bald dude with the hen house in NV jumps in front of the camera to stand up for the rights of the working girls. I have seen that show on HBO once or twice (literally only once or twice). While I enjoy titillating entertainment as much as the next monger, that show is a waste of time, unless you are a non-monger and the thought of dipping one's wick in some strange (any strange) gets the juices flowing. I think I recall some guy dropping 2Gs to play out some fantasy with one of the pigs on the farm (ranch or whatever) for an hour or two. Are you kidding me? That is round trip air fare to any number of mongering spots and would likely cover hotel or apt rental. Shit, in NV, if you go to a brothel, you're over paying (and getting a sow) anyhow.

Wild Walleye

02-26-11, 00:17

WorldTravel69

02-26-11, 01:14

It used to be great.

Of course that was years ago.

When it was, it was, what we are paying in Argentina now.

I showed the owner of that brothel, you are talking about; Kit Cat ranch, a photo of Dennise (from the Mansion) that I paid 150p for, he invited me to visit his ranch. If I was younger I might have gone, just to tell him what he is missing in Argentina.

When that fat bald dude with the hen house in NV jumps in front of the camera to stand up for the rights of the working girls. I have seen that show on HBO once or twice (literally only once or twice). While I enjoy titillating entertainment as much as the next monger, that show is a waste of time, unless you are a non-monger and the thought of dipping one's wick in some strange (any strange) gets the juices flowing. I think I recall some guy dropping 2Gs to play out some fantasy with one of the pigs on the farm (ranch or whatever) for an hour or two. Are you kidding me? That is round trip air fare to any number of mongering spots and would likely cover hotel or apt rental. Shit, in NV, if you go to a brothel, you're over paying (and getting a sow) anyhow.

Esten

02-26-11, 01:15

That's a bunch of nonsense and you know it. He's quite civil until attacked. Once someone else crosses the line, the gloves come off.

Once again, you distort things. I've come to expect nothing less, though, so that's par for the course. Very laughable Stan. Quite civil until attacked? How many seconds do you think it would take me to locate a post where he insulted someone who was simply stating a point of view without attacking anyone?

Every reader here has seen enough of that from Walleye to know that what you wrote is a complete lie.

Tequila Tim

02-26-11, 10:54

I agree with Stan, there should be no public sector unions, period. There is no 'Man' against whom they are railing, no evil corporation with whom they are facing off. The evil on the other side of the negotiation is. The tax payer. Give them standard benefits package (a la private sector jobs) and place a 'suggestions box' where they can find it. If they don't like it, provide them with an informative slip of pink paper, upon which the realities of the private sector a written."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. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for officials to bind the employer. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives.

"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people. This obligation is paramount. A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent to prevent or obstruct government. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government, is unthinkable and intolerable."

Was it?

A. Ronald Reagan.

B. Ron Paul.

C. Rush Limbaugh.

Nope. FDR!

Here's the link:

http://www.huberheightslibertygroup.com/node/259