American Politics during the Obama Presidency [Archive] - Page 13

Member #4112

04-21-11, 11:17

Esten, the only thing I see 'special' about your post is it must have come from a 'special ed' think tank. You continue to miss the point, I am most certainly NOT 'special'. The fact is I am just like nearly every other small business owner I know. Do I feel 'entitled' to keep what I EARNED, your DAMN RIGHT I do!

As far as Democrats / Liberals liking small business, the only thing they like about small business is figuring out how they can get their hands on more of small business profits and miring them in more red tape reporting. They love big business because without it there would be neither big unions nor a boogieman to scare folks with.

Let me give you another economics lesson. In 2008 I had 30 employees but now I have 22. Why, because the clients began cutting back on the services they received from my firm due to the economic down turn. Under your theory I should have kept all 30 and reduced everyone's salary to cover the reduction in income, everyone could do less well so others could work. Of course then I would no longer be paying my staff competitive salaries and they would seek employment elsewhere. You can't legislate self interest out of human beings, but liberals seem to think you can.

Regarding the way you cherry pick numbers, such as using 2005 for your figures in an earlier post, the same applies to your reference to Clinton. The only reason things got better was due to the reform of entitlements (ie reduced spending / give a ways) and not the increase in taxes. Don't you remember welfare reform which was forced on Clinton by the Republicans? If you want a return to prosperity then cut the spending!

Esten can now move to the mount and continue to preach his gospel, magically making the fishes and loaves appear from nowhere to feed his dutiful followers, of course without the evil rich, big business and small business he could not produce the loaves and fishes. No way will Esten teach them to fish so they may feed themselves and become independent.

Note: Please forgive the Bibical and other comon sense references used to make my point in my closing.

Jackson

04-21-11, 15:11

However, what stands out is that you appear to have a sense of entitlement.Imagine that! The man has a "sense of entitlement" towards the business that he build for himself.

Esten, the person here with the "sense of entitlement" is YOU, who believe that YOU are entitled to take from Doppelganger whatever YOU feel is correct in order to fund YOUR "social justice" agenda.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

04-21-11, 15:15

You can't legislate self interest out of human beings, but liberals seem to think you can."Liberal policies will always fail because they are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior."

Thanks,

Jackson

Stan Da Man

04-21-11, 15:44

However, what stands out is that you appear to have a sense of entitlement. You've built a business and created jobs, paid good wages and benefits, and become very well off in the process. All fine and good. But now you say, that's enough. You shouldn't be expected to pay more taxes, or take a hit to your wealth, because of all you've already done.This is another vivid demonstration of how deluded this guy is. He simply doesn't understand how things work, which is obvious from his statements quoted above.

Esten, he is paying more That's how our tax system works. Are you really this stupid?

If he made $50,000 before he became successful, and $150,000 after he became successful, he's paying three times more in taxes!

But, that's only half of it. The tax system is progressive. So, as Doppel goes up the income ladder, his percentage increases along with it.

For example, at $50,000 a year he'd likely pay very little, perhaps 10% or $5, 000 after the standard deduction, if that.

At $150,000, he probably pays a blended rate of 20% to the feds, or $30,000 a year. That's $25,000 more, or 500% more. The deck gets stacked further against him as he makes more.

In other words, you're special. With our current economic situation, record debt and unemployment, where higher revenue and spending cuts can both address our issues, you shouldn't be asked to chip in because you've done enough. Successful businessmen should be exempted from the shared sacrifice.

Congratulations Doppel, here's your Free Pass. You've earned it. "Special" "Free Pass" Huh? You can't really be this facile? Well, come to think of it, you can.

Sure, he's special. He's what pays your retirement and all the other freebies you're sure to load up on if you seriously believe any of the crap you spew here.

Instead of arguing with him, you ought to be kissing his ass. Without folks like that, you'd be living in squalor.

Member #4112

04-21-11, 17:11

Thanks Stan, but I would have to put on some really thick plastic underpants for Esten to kiss my ass, after all I practice safe sex and would not like to catch anything!

Jackson

04-21-11, 19:20

Esten, he is Paying more That's how our tax system works. Are you really this stupid?

If he made $50, 000 before he became successful, and $150, 000 after he became successful, he's paying three times more in taxes! Guys, this is more liberalspeak, similar to the "income vs net wealth" definition of who is a millionaire.

When liberals talk about "the rich need to pay more", they don't mean that the rich should pay a greater dollar amount that those with lesser income, which they already do. What liberals mean is that "the rich" should be paying a greater percentage of their income, which of course they also do, but that's lost in the class warfare rhetoric.

Thanks,

Jackson

Tiny12

04-21-11, 20:35

Did I mention my state unemployment taxes tripled last year? I ate that one but there is a limit to how many cuts to my income I am willing to absorb. While we are talking about taxes, Federal income taxes are just part of the picture, there is employers matching Social Security & Medicare, state and federal unemployment tax, state sales tax, state property tax (no income tax in Texas) , state franchise tax and the list goes on. When you add them all up you have reduced your net income to about 50% or less of your gross!

Doppelganger, you ingrate.

Here's an example that's not atypical, where taxes add up to more than the business' earnings before state and federal income tax. It wouldn't surprise me if American business on the whole pays more in tax than it makes in net profit.

Federal Income Tax = 35% of income before state & federal income tax.

State Income Tax = 7% of income before state & federal income tax.

Employment Taxes (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) = 45% of income before state and federal income tax (1)

Property Tax = 10% of income before state and federal income tax (2)

Sales Tax = 10% of income before state and federal income tax (3)

Miscellaneous Tax (unemployment tax, etc.) = 3% of income before state and federal income tax (4)

Total Taxes Paid: 110% of income before state and federal income tax.

(1) Assumes employee wages are 30% of sales; employer's share of employment taxes is 15% of gross wages; profit margin before income tax is 10%

(2) Assumes Fixed Assets = 50% of sales; Property tax = 2% of fixed assets; profit margin before income tax is 10%

(3) Assumes total Sales Tax paid on purchases is equivalent to 1% of company's gross sales; profit margin before income tax is 10.

(4) Wild guess

Esten

04-22-11, 03:00

I knew this was going to be a rich discussion when Doppel started talking about his business. But the comedic content from businessmen defending and praising themselves is priceless.

The award for the biggest laugh goes to Stan for his tutorial on our tax system. Stan thank you so much. I never understood how it worked until you explained it so well.

As you may have heard, we have a significant federal deficit and debt issue. This is due to both a loss of revenue and an increase in spending. And it could be addressed by raising revenue and cutting spending. Spending cuts will impact the poor and middle class the most, while raising taxes will impact the rich / well-off the most.

Going forward, it is clear sacrifices have to be made somewhere. But some folks like Doppel don't want any part of that sacrifice. He wants the burden to be all on the poor and middle class via spending cuts. And if faced with a tax increase, he'll pass it on to others. His justification? He's done enough as a successful small business owner. In his mind, that makes him entitled to an exemption from the sacrifice. That is the entitlement I referred to.

Let others do with less, but don't ask Doppel to.

Member #4112

04-22-11, 10:52

Rev BS

04-22-11, 12:56

Esten, the answer is less (spending) not more (taxes). I love the liberal's guilt trip they try to load on every one of "shared sacrifice'. Where was the 'shared sacrifice' in 50 years of Welfare and every other government give a way program beyond fleecing the productive citizens of our country to support the lazy and unproductive?

Esten is right, it is time for sacrifice, but not the type he has in mind. Its time for the sacrifice of the liberal democrat's sacred cow programs from which they harvest votes for reelection every year. It is time for bad joke departments to be sacrificed, Department of Energy (abolish) , Environmental Protection Agency (reduce or abolish) , Department of Health and Human Services (reduce or abolish) , Department of the Treasury (severely reduce) and the list goes on much further than this website has room to allow.

Time for term limits in the House and the Senate (if it's good enough for the president it's good enough for them) to two 4 year term with 1/4 turned over every 2 years and an absolute prohibition of any of them becoming lobbyist. The near eradication of the upper level bureaucrats who remain from one term to the next and exert undue control over our country even though they are never elected.

Time to rid ourselves of the leeches on the body politic and let the bleeding heart liberals fund their give a way projects with THEIR MONEY via PRIVATE projects an no longer be permitted to use government for their social engineering projects.

Esten, it's time for some 'Tough Love' and "Sacrifice"! Are you up to it buddy? In regards to government reforms, I endorsed your recommendations. But when it comes to entitlements and benefits that government provides, then everybody has to pay more into the programs, not just the rich. A recent article points to the fact that most medicare receipients collects FAR more from the program than they pay into in their lifetime. A flat tax seems to be best answer.

When we refer to conservative values, I think of individuals who accept their circustances as they are, and rather than moaning about it or depending on winning the lottery, they then go about solving their problems with determination and hard honest work. But these people could also use a boost in terms of govenment programs. It is a far more complex urban enviroment that we live in today. As we know, the American culture with the breakdown of the family unit and extended family, cannot provide temporary relief that many other countries and cultures can. Even the large number of street dogs in Bangkok are well-fed, their only worry that their adventures do not include getting hit by a car, I am very familiar with their large numbers as they often have choir practices in the middle of the night.

Ever since life evolve, the rich and powerful will always to try maintain their status, by whatever means. That is never going to end, whether it is in Omaha or Pattaya.

Tiny12

04-22-11, 18:19

Black Shirt, Thanks for another thought provoking post. About government programs, my big problem is that they're inefficient in the USA Take health care. Singapore spends 2. 6% of GDP. That's for all public and private expenditures on healthcare. We spend almost double that just on Medicare and Medicaid.

With regard to remaking the urban environment, I don't know what the solution is, but what we've done over the last 50 years hasn't been successful. I suspect that throwing additional money at the problem isn't going to help. There needs to be some fundamental rethinking. Improving the educational system would be a good start. While I don't agree that the rich and powerful maintaining their status is a problem in the USA, again, better education is what's needed to give everyone a fair start. Like health care though, we spend about as much as anyone on education, and the outcomes are poor at the pre-university level.

By the way, a little off the subject, thanks also for your post a couple of weeks ago on Singapore. It got me to thinking about some of my fundamental beliefs, about the appropriate role of government in business.

Going forward, it is clear sacrifices have to be made somewhere. But some folks like Doppel don't want any part of that sacrifice. He wants the burden to be all on the poor and middle class via spending cuts. And if faced with a tax increase, he'll pass it on to others. His justification? He's done enough as a successful small business owner. In his mind, that makes him entitled to an exemption from the sacrifice. That is the entitlement I referred to.Esten, He will indeed pass it onto his customers. He has no choice. Take a look at my post below, and also realize that American business reinvests the majority of net profits. The amount that business pays to federal, state and local governments in taxes is far, far greater than the amount that goes into the pockets of the owners, in the form of dividends or whatever.

Your way of thinking plays into the hands of politicians who raise taxes on business. This is ideal from the politician's perspective. Corporations don't vote. The higher taxes are passed on in the form of higher prices. The consumer blames business for "price gouging" instead of the politicians. I guess depending on what the company is selling and who the owners are, this sort of taxation may be regressive. It certainly would be for a company like McDonalds or ExxonMobil, although not for, say, Tiffany.

This is a big, big problem in the USA We have among the highest income tax rates anywhere in the world on business, and we're becoming less competitive as a result.

Jackson

04-22-11, 19:16

He wants the burden to be all on the poor and middle class via spending cuts.First, when liberals talk about "the poor and middle class", they are in fact talking only about "the poor", because the middle class pay taxes, thus they are generally net contributors to the government's budget, and thus their interests are not the same as "the poor" who are beneficiaries of the government's largess.

Second, when liberals talk about "the burden" of spending cuts falling "all on the poor", or balancing the budget on the backs of "the poor", they make it sound like the poor are going to be asked to somehow pay more, as in shouldering an additional burden.

In fact, what it really means is that the taxpayers are not going to be able to give "the poor" as much free money as before.

Thanks,

Jackson

Rock Harders

04-22-11, 23:13

Mongers-

This has nothing to do with Obama or the current drivel being heaved around in this thread, but here is an interesting article about Mohammed El Baradei (2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner and former head of the IAEA) calling for opening up an investigation as to whether George W. Bush and his minions committed War Crimes in the lead up to and operation of the 2003 Iraq Invasion. I have been saying for years (the war started when I was still a student of International Relations) that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Richard Pearle should be charged as War Criminals. Naturally, as the US refusing the recognize universal jurisdiction of the ICC, nothing is likely to come of this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110422/ap_on_re_us/us_elbaradei_memoir

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Matt Psyche

04-23-11, 01:12

Some scholars analyze that the unilateralist attitude of the USA in question is a partial cause of her trade deficit. Many people in the world conciously or subconciously avoid buying products from a country with bad image.

Naturally, as the US refusing the recognize universal jurisdiction of the ICC, nothing is likely to come of this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110422/ap_on_re_us/us_elbaradei_memoir

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Matt Psyche

04-23-11, 01:24

The description is about "progressive" income tax, ie. Fed tax. Some (about 15) states have flat tax, however. Also, sales tax is "regressive" imposing burden on poor. Rich and poor pay same percentage of "the price of purchased goods", but not of their respective income. Therefore poor pay a larger percentage of income for sales tax and rich pay a smaller percentage of income. Price increase in imported goods due to governmental tarriffs, and inflation caused by expansionist monetary policy are regressive for the same reasons.

Guys, this is more liberalspeak, similar to the "income vs net wealth" definition of who is a millionaire.

When liberals talk about "the rich need to pay more", they don't mean that the rich should pay a greater dollar amount that those with lesser income, which they already do. What liberals mean is that "the rich" should be paying a greater percentage Of their income, which of course they also do, but that's lost in the class warfare rhetoric.

Thanks,

Jackson

Tiny12

04-23-11, 02:03

Speaking of drivel, Richard Pearle should be indicted for war crimes? Why? He wasn't even a politician or government employee. I was extremely pissed off when the US went into Iraq, because I was going to have to pay for it. However if it had played out as Cheney et al expected, with Iraqi's welcoming the USA with open arms, Bush would have been a hero. Sanctions would have ended, Sadam would have disappeared, and many, many Iraqi lives would have been saved.

If that list of characters deserves to be prosecuted for war crimes then how about JFK, LBJ, Abraham Lincoln, and Jefferson Davis? They're all more culpable than Bush IMHO.

Rock Harders

04-23-11, 06:52

Mongers-

Richard Perle, aka "the prince of darkness" was Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee during the first three years of the Bush Administration and was one of the chief architects of the war and a huge advocate of the invasion. He was also responsible for doctoring up some of the bullshit evidence on WMD's and Saddam's alleged links to OBL that was sold to the American public in order to win support for the invasion.

RH

Tiny12

04-23-11, 13:23

The fabrication of evidence was done by subordinates of Rumsfield. And fabrication might be too strong a word. The Bush administration probably believed there were WMD, despite what El Baradei and Blix were coming up with. Rumsfield believed the ends justify the means, so he gave his people orders to find something, or at least that's what I got out of an article Seymour Hersh wrote. The CIA also apparently believed there were WMD, although they were skeptical of the Al Quaeda connection. The Bush administration may have been guilty of hubris or stupidity, but not war crimes.

RH, Sometimes people f*ck up. And sometimes the repercussions are grave, like Iraq and like BP in the Gulf. But they shouldn't be executed or thrown in jail because somebody has a political agenda or wants a scapegoat.

Matt Psyche

04-23-11, 14:33

Milocevic f*cked up in a similar context, and was indicted by the International Court. Although the news media in the U.S. did not report, thousands of Iraqi civilans were killed by the U.S. troops during the war. The world opinion, except Americans who maintain that it is an irrelevant analogy, considers that there are double standards and hypocrisy.

The fabrication of evidence was done by subordinates of Rumsfield. And fabrication might be too strong a word. The Bush administration probably believed there were WMD, despite what El Baradei and Blix were coming up with. Rumsfield believed the ends justify the means, so he gave his people orders to find something, or at least that's what I got out of an article Seymour Hersh wrote. The CIA also apparently believed there were WMD, although they were skeptical of the Al Quaeda connection. The Bush administration may have been guilty of hubris or stupidity, but not war crimes.

RH, Sometimes people f*ck up. And sometimes the repercussions are grave, like Iraq and like BP in the Gulf. But they shouldn't be executed or thrown in jail because somebody has a political agenda or wants a scapegoat.

Esten

04-23-11, 16:05

Esten, He will indeed pass it onto his customers. He has no choice. Really. And you know this how? Do you work for Doppel? Are you his accountant?

Why don't you be honest and admit you really don't know, and therefore what you posted is baloney.

Take a look at my post below, and also realize that American business reinvests the majority of net profits. That's a broad statement that requires closer inspection. Reinvestment is highly variable. Businesses can keep profits in the bank, pay off debt, increase compensation, make acquisitions, increase dividends or buy back shares, donate, invest in R&D, increase headcount, etc etc.

Your apparent implication that business profits are good for the country, for average Americans, is only in part true. A great deal of profit, especially as businesses become larger, is put to use in a variety of ways that merely end up helping wealthy people to become wealthier.

This reminds me of Jamie Dimon's defense for passing costs onto bank customers: 'If you're a restaurant and you can't charge for the soda, you're going to charge more for the burger. '

A restaurant analogy coming from a large bank CEO is amusing, though clever.

We all know businesses exist to make a profit, but profits and wealth are increasingly accumulating in a small subset of the population. This is not happening without a cost. The trade-off is increasing unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class.

We need policies that reverse this trend, not support it. Tax breaks for the wealthy and well-off are most definately not part of the solution, and have to go. If we are to support small businesses, do it through policies that address small business directly (which we already do) , not by lowering personal income tax brackets.

Member #4112

04-23-11, 16:19

Well since the liberals here have pretty much lost the tax and spend debate on AP they want to change the subject.

Matt, I guess the next thing we will hear from you is to bring Harry Truman up on war crimes charges for dropping the bomb on Japan. Your source, Mohammed El Baradei, also said Iran was not enriching uranium either. The consensus since his ouster from the IAEA was he was a shill for Iran.

As far as touting his Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel is not what it use to be. After all they gave one to Obama before he did dick and since then he has been fu*king up by the numbers.

Member #4112

04-23-11, 16:40

Esten, why are you chastising Stan, you are not my accountant and you don't work for me either. Stan is stating the obvious to those who actually run companies. From my posts you know I have absorbed some cost increases and passed others along in the form of higher prices for services to my clients, but these increases are limited by my competition's prices.

You seem to believe business owners can cavalierly pass along any price increase they see fit, which is complete BS as we all have to compete in the market place. If your prices are higher for the same or similar product your customers will go to the lower cost provider. Same with Matt's BS about people not buying American goods, if our product is better and cheaper they buy it and don't give a damn about our politics.

As far as reinvestment, most companies do reinvest in capital goods. I have to retool every 3 years to keep up with changes in computer technology and program development. Not to mention sending employees to CE courses to stay current with the ever changing environment. You want companies to start hiring, then get the government out of business and stop paying 2 years of unemployment. You can not spend your way out of a recession as Obama is finding out now with near stagnant growth and higher fuel costs we are entering a double dip recession.

Matt Psyche

04-23-11, 17:19

It is not my BS. It is scholars' BS!

Same with Matt's BS about people not buying American goods, if our product is better and cheaper they buy it and don't give a damn about our politics.

Tiny12

04-23-11, 19:23

Esten, you're right, I don't know anything about Doppelgangers business. But I've looked at a lot of financial statements of a lot of companies, and I'm very confident in my general conclusion, that business pays a lot more to governments than what goes into the owners' pockets. I think my estimate below, that total taxes paid to federal, state and local governments is around 100% of net income before income tax, is in the ballpark for businesses that have low-to-medium profit margins and medium-to-high labor costs (and employment taxes) relative to sales. This would put the total tax burden as a % of net profit (after income tax) at over 150%.

The average dividend payout ratio for the S&P 500 is 30% of net profits. That means, in the long term. 70% is reinvested in the businesses. Yes, in the short term, you're right, what's left over for a particular business after paying dividends may go to pay down debt or increase cash. In the long term, though, about 70% of the net profits of S&P 500 companies are re-invested. The percentage is higher than 70% for smaller companies.

So if the total tax burden is 150% of net profit, and the amount going into the owners' pockets is less than 30% of net profit, government's making a LOT more from business than the owners are. The business owners have no choice except to pass higher taxes onto consumers, if they're going to stay in business.

Continuing to jack up taxes on business is a recipe for disaster. Fortunately, the majority of Republicans, and I think Democrats too, agree.

Stan Da Man

04-25-11, 14:55

We all know businesses exist to make a profit, but profits and wealth are increasingly accumulating in a small subset of the population. This is not happening without a cost. The trade-off is increasing unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class.Funny, I think you're probably one of the few here who doesn't understand that businesses exist to make a profit. Just because you can mouth the words doesn't mean you understand it. Please provide some support for your assertions that "wealth" is increasingly "accumulating in a small subset of the population" resulting in "unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class."

On a different subject, I see that Scott Ritter, former UN Weapons Inspector and self-appointed critic-in-chief of the Iraq war, has been arrested for propositioning a minor. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42537481/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ His defense? He fuc*ed up. He didn't believe she was underage. Hmmmmm. How ironic that this guy in particular would invoke the honest mistake defense. So, we've demonstrated that El Baradei and Ritter are less than credible. At least the left still has Elliot Spitzer.

Esten

04-26-11, 01:41

First, when liberals talk about "the poor and middle class", they are in fact talking only about "the poor", because the middle class pay taxes, thus they are generally net contributors to the government's budget, and thus their interests are not the same as "the poor" who are beneficiaries of the government's largess.

Second, when liberals talk about "the burden" of spending cuts falling "all on the poor", or balancing the budget on the backs of "the poor", they make it sound like the poor are going to be asked to somehow pay more, as in shouldering an additional burden.

In fact, what it really means is that the taxpayers are not going to be able to give "the poor" as much free money As before. Free money. Is that Libertarian-speak?

That free money you speak of, is more commonly referred to as a component of the social safety net.

Rest assured, when liberals talk about the poor and middle class, we are most definately talking about both. As the latest and greatest example, have a look at Ryan's plan for Medicare. He wants to cut spending on Medicare by hundreds of billions by turning it into a voucher system. Of course Medicare should be part of the debt debate, but his proposal will hit the middle class the hardest, with little pain for the wealthy.

But wait it gets better. In fact, Ryan also wants to lower the top income tax bracket, which will be a huge windfall for the wealthy. Along with their other proposals, Republicans would basically be putting a huge burden on both the poor and middle class, to help the rich get even richer. Amazing, but true.

Ryan's plan has accurately been described in the media as "Ideology on Steroids".

Now a question for you Jackson. When a rich guy parks a million dollars in a dividend paying stock for one year and gets a $30,000 dividend check, is that free money?

Wild Walleye

04-26-11, 03:44

Free money. Is that Libertarian-speak?

That free money you speak of, is more commonly referred to as a component of the social safety net. What language is it that you speak, there in fantasy land? That's a $1. 6T safety net (or more than $15K / household).

Rest assured, when liberals talk about the poor and middle class, we are most definately talking about both.False! When liberals speak about the poor and middle class, they are trying to create the illusion that the US is a class-based society, which it is not. Further, the only reason why poor and middle class are in the liberal vocabulary is to be used as tools to solidify power, confiscate wealth and propagate the liberal, socialist agenda.

As the latest and greatest example, have a look at Ryan's plan for Medicare. He wants to cut spending on Medicare by hundreds of billions by turning it into a voucher system.If you could read, you'd see that Ryan's plan cuts less from Medicare than Obama's. So much for intellectual honesty.

Of course Medicare should be part of the debt debate, but his proposal will hit the middle class the hardest, with little pain for the wealthy.Wait a minute, Esten is showing a little more than he thinks. Cuts to Medicare can't hurt 90% of the middle class (those with jobs) , it's for the poor. What Esten is saying is that he wants everyone to be on Medicare.

But wait it gets better. In fact, Ryan also wants to lower the top income tax bracket, which will be a huge windfall for the wealthy.Based upon indisputable, historic facts, lowering marginal tax rates increases aggregate revenue. Check it out.

Along with their other proposals, Republicans would basically be putting a huge burden on both the poorFalse. There is no burden on the poor, they pay no taxes.

and middle class,How so? Most middle class homeowners pay almost nothing in income taxes.

to help the rich get even richer.How?

Amazing, but true. Agreed you are truly astonishing. However, we shouldn't be surprised. Abject ignorance and intellectual dishonesty have a long history together.

Ryan's plan has accurately been described in the media as "Ideology on Steroids".Might want to consider the source.

Now a question for you Jackson. When a rich guy parks a million dollars in a dividend paying stock for one year and gets a $30,000 dividend check, is that free money?No. He didn't 'park' it. He risked it. And if he put in a million and only got a $30k return, he's a shitty stock picker and he will still owe income taxes on the divs that he received (about $4. 5K, I think) which lowers his return to approximately 2. 6, which sucks, unless you compare it to the performance of the $106K he was forced to put into Social Security for the same period (which when you account for inflation is negative).

Have a nice day.

Member #4112

04-26-11, 10:54

Esten,"government money" is not "free money" its our money the governement has taken from us in the form of taxes. But of course you want to take more and more and more, why not just take it all, after all that is the end goal. In liberal speak "social safety net" = "nanny state". Yes folks surrender you freedom and your money, in exchange Uncle Sugar will take care of all your needs. What a crock.

Do we need a safety net for the helpless, yes. Do we need a nanny state that makes everyone helpless, no.

Jackson

04-26-11, 16:17

Free money. Is that Libertarian-speak?Esten,

You are correct in pointing out that my statement could be misinterpreted.

When I was describing the money that the government takes from the producers and gives to the parasites as "free money", I meant that it was free to the parasites as they do not have to do anything to earn it, and they are not expected to repay it.

Of course this money in not "free" to those who actually earned it in the 1st place.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

04-26-11, 16:20

Now a question for you Jackson. When a rich guy parks a million dollars in a dividend paying stock for one year and gets a $30,000 dividend check, is that free money?Your question is moot: It's his money and he is entitled to do with it as he pleases.

In other words, it's not your money, and thus it's none of your business what he may or may not do with his money.

Remember, this is once was a free country.

And no, these dividends are not "free money", because he previously earned and paid taxes on the original capital, and then he subsequently risked his accumulated capital by essentially lending it to the company behind the "dividend paying stock".

Thanks,

Jackson

Stan Da Man

04-26-11, 16:37

If you could read, you'd see that Ryan's plan cuts less from Medicare than Obama's.Which Obama plan?

- Do you mean the one his deficit reduction commission came up with in November and December, which he failed to endorse, and which is still the best plan of all of them because it is the only one with a snowball's chance of passing?

- Do you mean the budget he announced in January, that increased the deficit by trillions more?

- Or, do you mean the one that he shat out a few weeks ago, which blames the country's problems on all the "millionaires and billionaires" and suggests we can tax our way out of our spending mess?

Is it any wonder why no one takes this guy seriously any more?

The truth, though, is that neither of the plans proposed by Ryan or Obama are serious. Unless you have automatic provisions that kick in to reduce spending, etc, like Simpson-Boles, then there's nothing to force Future Congress and Future President to be constrained by a plan. Even automatic provisions are frequently ignored or overridden by Future Congresses, with little fanfare when this happens.

I'm not suggesting that there's no value in planning. If you're going to raise the retirement age or change eligibility for medicare, then it's good to signal these things now. But, in looking at these plans, the focus ought to be on what happens now While Current Congress and Current President are still in office. What happens ten years from now on someone else's watch is mostly pie in the sky.

Tiny12

04-26-11, 16:59

Now a question for you Jackson. When a rich guy parks a million dollars in a dividend paying stock for one year and gets a $30,000 dividend check, is that free money?Do you believe that owners of a business should receive no part of the profits from the business? If they do, it's free money? I don't think you really believe that -- it sounds like something that Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro would say.

A shareholder is an owner of a business. The business pays federal income tax, state income tax, sales taxes, employment taxes and property taxes. Then the corporation re-invests most or the majority of what's left over, in the business. When the business distributes some small part of what it makes before taxes to the owners, then the owners pay tax again on the dividend.

If you jack up the tax on dividends, you encourage corporations to raise capital via debt instead of equity. Some will become heavily indebted. This is a bad thing. You also encourage management to retain earnings instead of distributing them. A company with, say, a 5% return on equity should distribute most of its earnings to shareholders, who then re-invest the proceeds in businesses with higher returns. That improves productivity and the economy. If there's a large tax on dividends, this is less likely to happen.

Member #4112

04-26-11, 18:34

Tiny, Stan don't confuse Esten with Facts and real life Economics it hurts his little head and only confuses him.

Esten

04-27-11, 01:07

Almost every day I stop by here to read the latest pro-business, pro-wealthy arguments from our resident conservatives and libertarians. On some days it is an impressive selection, difficult to choose from. A buffet worthy of Oscar Mayer.

One huge fallacy here is that one's income is entirely their own. Though some might wish it so, it isn't true. Part of your income belongs to the government. It got that way because Americans decided that's how it should be. Though we differ in the degree, most Americans recognize that government plays an important role in making a country great. There is no government without people to run it, and it is Americans that elect those people to represent them. Stating that the government is taking 'your' money doesn't mean what is being taken is yours. And repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

It is only entirely 'your' money from the viewpoint of self-interest.

Esten

04-27-11, 02:41

Rev BS

04-27-11, 07:05

Almost every day I stop by here to read the latest pro-business, pro-wealthy arguments from our resident conservatives and libertarians. On some days it is an impressive selection, difficult to choose from. A buffet worthy of Oscar Mayer.

One huge fallacy here is that one's income is entirely their own. Though some might wish it so, it isn't true. Part of your income belongs to the government. It got that way because Americans decided that's how it should be. Though we differ in the degree, most Americans recognize that government plays an important role in making a country great. There is no government without people to run it, and it is Americans that elect those people to represent them. Stating that the government is taking 'your' money doesn't mean what is being taken is yours. And repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

It is only entirely 'your' money from the viewpoint of self-interest.Well stated. I don't know anyone who enjoys paying taxes. Not too long ago, people used to throw away their money into tax shelters rather than paying it to the government. But the determining factor is "do we have a responsible and capable government?" Congress has failed the test for a few decades now. And here lies the difference between Zimbawe and Singapore. In Singapore, to attract top-notch people, the salaries of the Ministries are comparable to top CEOs. Corruption is not an issue, and then you have a guy from MIT running the Ministry rather than somebody's uncle. The media likes to make fun of Singapore due to censorship issues, but Singapore is a very serious country where almost everything works.

Member #4112

04-27-11, 10:46

Esten, you are wrong as usual. The Section 179 deduction has been around a long time and only accelerates depreciation of assets with limits on the amount you can deduct. This was not an Obama 'gift to small business' I wish you would get your facts straight first.

I have seen nothing that helps small business from Obama. The temporary social security reduction to individuals, really stupid considering the shape the social security system is in, does not apply to the employers matching contribution.

Perhaps we need to adopt the old Russian model, the government owns and runs everything on 5 year plans. We all know what a colossal success that was.

I'll say it again;

YES. We need to help the helpless.

NO – We don't need a federal nanny state who makes everyone helpless

Rev BS

04-27-11, 11:59

Should we ask for Trump's birth certificate? Or just because he is white, we should give him a pass.

Skin color can still influence one's political thinking in America today, I guess. Middle America, I wonder about you.

So I am in Colombia right now, and the question is what shade of skin should I choose? Just kidding, I am a hip & ass guy, and it is quite an overwhelming chore here.

El Perro

04-27-11, 13:13

Wild Walleye

04-27-11, 14:06

Almost every day I stop by here to read the latest pro-business, pro-wealthy arguments from our resident conservatives and libertarians. On some days it is an impressive selection, difficult to choose from. A buffet worthy of Oscar Mayer.Lookout, a humorless left winger trying to be funny. I give you credit for trying.

One huge fallacy here is that one's income is entirely their own. Though some might wish it so, it isn't true. Part of your income belongs to the government.That is entirely false. US income taxes are a labyrinth of nearly incomprehensible and often contradictory regulations that place liabilities upon certain individuals, namely one half of the country. While income and taxes are inextricably intertwined in our Byzantine cluster fuck of a tax system, they are two distinctly separate things.

There are many possible types of income some are taxable while others are tax free. Regardless of the aforementioned varieties of income, when you earn them, theoretically, they are entirely yours (excluding of course instances of adjudicative order such as wage garnishee, QDRO, alimony, etc). Also theoretically, when you earn moneys, you are likely incurring a tax liability, which you are required to pay at some point in time, depending upon the circumstances. Further, depending upon one's situation, there are many, many permissible deductions that can reduce one's tax liability. It is quite possible that in some situations, individuals earning a great deal of money pay little or no taxes.

However, there is 18% unemployment and underemployment and 50% of the public pay no taxes. We can therefore assume that 30% of the US population earns income and pays no taxes at all and perhaps receive payments and or fungible or quantifiable benefits from the government. So, I guess the fallacy you point to is just for those individuals in the top 50, who pay all the taxes.

It got that way because Americans decided that's how it should be.Just like the decided that slavery and segregation should be legal? You are way off here. We have our mess of a tax system not because it is the aggregate wish of the citizenry but due to the long-term dereliction of our elected representatives who have been extending the reach of government in all directions and far beyond the Constitutional limits, for far too long. Then they shakedown the citizenry to pay for it.

Though we differ in the degree, most Americans recognize that government plays an important role in making a country great.What? I couldn't disagree with you more. The principals embodied in our founding documents as written by our founders laid the foundation for a great nation where the individual may pursue his self interests, while being protected by a limited government. End of story.

Our national greatness is derivative of the PEOPLE. The role that the government has played in our greatness has been getting out of the way of the individual. We have a history of greatness that includes certain presidents, military leaders and heroic soldiers, who while ostensibly in the employ of the government in no way derived their greatness from the government, other than certain statutory powers. We also have a had a myriad of great inventors, scientists, doctors, business men and investment bankers; all of which are testament to what can be achieved despite our overreaching government.

There is no government without people to run it, and it is Americans that elect those people to represent them.You are absolutely right and every last individual who votes for politicians that routinely exceed their constitutional authority or act in a way so as to burden the nation with insurmountable debt is responsible to their fellow citizens (past, present and future) for selfishly or cavalierly casting a vote for the destruction of this great nation.

Stating that the government is taking 'your' money doesn't mean what is being taken is yours.If it wasn't yours, your name wouldn't be on the check.

And repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.Yes it does. Yes it does. Yes it does.

It is only entirely 'your' money from the viewpoint of self-interest.Maybe you could enlighten us as to how your view of self-interest works out for everyone within your utopian, socialist / communist workers' paradise.

Jackson

04-27-11, 14:42

Donald Trump has already produced his long form Birth Certificate, replete with the date and time of his birth, the name of the hospital, his birth weight, and the printed name and signature of the attending physician.

Thanks,

Jackson

Should we ask for Trump's birth certificate? Or just because he is white, we should give him a pass.

Skin color can still influence one's political thinking in America today, I guess. Middle America, I wonder about you.

So I am in Colombia right now, and the question is what shade of skin should I choose? Just kidding, I am a hip & ass guy, and it is quite an overwhelming chore here.

Tiny12

04-27-11, 17:07

Wild Walleye

04-27-11, 21:05

Tiny continues to insist that a business or business owner has "no choice" but to pass on costs (or loss of profit) to workers or customers. This is pure baloney. A fictional defense in which business profit is the supreme goal. If Tiny wants to argue that there is a downside to limiting business profit, that's a different claim. Then we can debate the downside of limiting business profit somewhat to the downside of allowing profits to accumulate at the expense of workers, consumers and government revenues. But stating there is "no choice" is nonsense. There is always a choice.My dear Esten, you are once again woefully uneducated regarding the subject upon which you opined. I'll try to make this simple for you. Profitability is perhaps the most important facet of any company. Why you ask? Because the existence of a profit is perhaps the single most determinant as to whether or not the company will continue to be in business next year. Additionally, whether public or private, the value of most companies is determined by looking at their profitability. Every thing that reduces profitability also reduces the overall value of the company thereby denying the company the ability to use the funds taken as well as denying the owners realization of deserved gains. Investors make their decisions based upon the risk / reward relationship. Every time you increase the risk or reduce the risk, you drive investors away.

Moreover, profitable companies tend to reinvest most of their profits into their businesses rather than distribute to shareholders via dividend. This is important because if the board of directors and management don't believe that they can generate better returns via reinvestment they have a fiduciary responsibility to return the funds to shareholders via dividend or other similar means such as a buy-back.

There are different ways of expressing profit or profit potential such as: net income, ebitda, ebit, free cash flow, unlevered free cash flow, etc). However, in its most basic state (cash accounting basis without NOLs or other offsets) , profitability is determined by taking all of the companies revenues and subtracting all of its costs. For most small businesses, this is all the owner gets to take home. You decrease the profit and you make it necessary for him to reduce head count or go out of business. Everything that you and Obama say about business is complete and utter bullshit. With nearly 20% unemployment and underemployment, the foregoing is fairly evident to all.

Why don't we look at big Oil. Let's take their profits! Why are they so damn profitable right now? Obama and the liberals that come before them, pure and simple. Oil companies pump oil out of the earth via infrastructure they have already put in place and probably have paid for. Their local costs are often denominated in local currencies (other than the dollar) however, their cash flow is denominated in OIL. When Obama and his folks force oil companies offshore, they usually have lower costs. Further, because their products are global commodities, their profits are somewhat hedged against a weaker US dollar and inflation. If they sold a barrel of oil for $86 six months ago and another barrel today at $112, the cost of production is the same (delivery costs are somewhat higher) therefore profits grow due to the weak dollar, not due to an actual increase in the price of oil. So if you want to lessen their profits, go ask Obama to stop deflating the dollar.

Esten

04-28-11, 00:52

OK Esten, I agree. There is a choice. Business owners don't have to pass costs onto customers. They can go bankrupt instead. I made no distinction between small business and large business. Your preferred tax policies would hurt both, along with the majority of Americans. You appear to argue for higher tax rates and lots of loopholes, that run up accounting and legal expense and make the economy less efficient.So the only choice is between profits and bankruptcy?

Tiny, you seem like a gentleman attempting to make reasoned arguments based on research. That's commendable. Unfortunately, your steady stream of wild statements and conclusions is casting a shadow on your credibility.

You may have noticed that until recently, I haven't responded to anything you wrote for awhile. There's a reason for that: crazy statements and suggestions. I believe one of them was that Bush tax cuts were progressive, implying it was a good thing. While there may be some paper argument to support this in % terms (i'd have to check), it ignores that in dollar amounts those cuts had little benefit for low income earners and huge benefit for high income earners. Meanwhile those tax cuts contributed substantially to deficits, that the same party that gave us those cuts now wants to balance on the backs of those that benefited the least from them in the first place.

Today you are presenting us with another gem. That a business will go bankrupt if a cost is not passed on to customers (or workers, I presume).

Tell me:
If a corporation postpones a planned dividend raise because of a tax increase, will it go bankrupt?
If a CEO's compensation package is frozen for a year because of a tax increase, will his company go bankrupt?
Will either of these responses necessitate raising the price the customer pays?

The sheer absurdity of some of your conclusions and statements has me considering whether to put you on "ignore mode" for awhile. Alongside the only other poster that has earned that distinction, your friend and mine, Walleye.

Tiny12

04-28-11, 02:48

Esten, The answers to your questions are no, no, and probably not.

However, I'm confused. You don't necessarily dispute that the Bush tax cuts were progressive but you're unhappy because I pointed that out? (By the way, they weren't progressive for all tax brackets, but did result in the top 1% and top 5% paying a higher share of the income tax, according to the Congressional Budget Office.) You say they had little benefit for low income earners (because low income earners paid little or no income tax to start with) and huge benefit for high income earners. So if someone who was making $1, 000, 000 a year gets a $20, 000 tax cut, then the guy making $50, 000 a year should get at least $20, 000 in tax cuts too? Apparently the desired outcome is that we all become more equal, even if that means we all become poorer.

My statement about passing costs onto customers is just math. I'm probably foolish spending the time to do this, especially since you're putting me on ignore, but here are the trailing 12 month profit margins, before income tax, of the 10 largest USA public companies by sales. I've kicked out financial companies:

Wal-Mart 5. 52%

ExxonMobil 11. 51%

Chevron 13. 22%

ConocoPhillips 6. 79%

GE 9. 84%

GM 2. 89%

Ford 5. 39%

Hewlett Packard 10. 4%

AT&T 12. 58%

McKesson 1. 81%

If you, say, raise property taxes and employment taxes enough to wipe out 1. 81% of sales of McKesson or 2. 89% of sales of GM, then the companies become unprofitable if they don't pass the additional cost onto consumers. If they continually lose money they go bankrupt.

You have a point, if you raise the income tax, companies don't necessarily go bankrupt. However, that does put more wealth and power in the hands of the government, and it does reduce the capacity of companies to grow, invest, add jobs, etc. I believe that's something you favor, and I know it's something I detest.

WorldTravel69

04-28-11, 06:12

He Ran Before and chickened Out. He is a Pussy. Do we really need is a pussy in the WHITE HOUSE!

Bring it on Toymann?

I am here and your toys are not.

The Chicas, do know you! Or miss you? Ha Ha Joke, Relax.

Donald Trump has already produced his long form Birth Certificate, replete with the date and time of his birth, the name of the hospital, his birth weight, and the printed name and signature of the attending physician.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

04-28-11, 10:32

Wild Walleye

04-28-11, 12:33

Tell me:

If a corporation postpones a planned dividend raise because of a tax increase, will it go bankrupt? What is this 'planned dividend raise? ' Why not look at it in a more realistic scenario?

If there is a tax raise and the company doesn't price it into their products and pass it on to the customers, their profits will fall. Dividends normally are just a fraction of the company's profit. The portion that isn't distributed via dividend goes on the balance sheet as 'retained earnings' as part of shareholders' equity on the right side of the balance sheet. Retained earnings fuel cash flow (cash generated via operations) which provides the company with the funds necessary to continue to operate and grow the company. A CEO of any of those big companies Tiny named would need a body guard if he tampered with the dividend at all, let alone before it became absolutely necessary. Therefore, the profit would shrink, the dividend would stay the same and retained earnings would be reduced. The reduction in retained earnings effects the funds available for future growth which means they will have to borrow or issue more stock (thus diluting the ownership of existing shareholders) in order to maintain the forward trajectory that they have previously promised shareholders. In any event, that future plan has just become more expensive (interest, investment banking fees and dilutions) and therefore future profits will come at a greater cost thus reducing the profit margin that can be expected down the road. As profits narrow and future prospects are diminished, investors' view of the value of the company and thus its stock will fall as well. Investors holding the stock will sell it and those interested in owning the stock will wait until the price falls to a point where they believe it is properly valued. Therefore the effect of not passing the tax increase through to the customers lead to a loss of capital on behalf of the owners of the company and will increase future operating costs, unnecessarily. The CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to the owners of the company not to the politburo.

Why should owners of corporations have the value of their assets diminished and why should corporations be forced to pay higher operating costs for a political agenda of social engineering?

If a CEO's compensation package is frozen for a year because of a tax increase, will his company go bankrupt? No, his compensation won't be frozen. He will be fired and collect his severance for being a dolt and not looking out for the best interests of the owners of the company. He may have trouble finding a new job if other boards of directors view his actions a some sort of bias or agenda that could harm the interests of their owners.

Will either of these responses necessitate raising the price the customer pays?That depends upon where the company is located. If it is in the real world, yes, the company needs to pass the cost on to the customers. Where you are in fantasy land, they can do whatever they want, even defy gravity if it helps bring social justice.

The sheer absurdity of some of your conclusions and statements has me considering whether to put you on "ignore mode" for awhile. Alongside the only other poster that has earned that distinction, your friend and mine, Walleye.It is an honor I wear with pride.

Wild Walleye

04-28-11, 12:38

He Ran Before and chickened Out. He is a Pussy. Do we really need is a pussy in the WHITE HOUSE!

Bring it on Toymann?

I am here and your toys are not.

The Chicas, do know you! Or miss you? Ha Ha Joke, Relax. I agree with you completely that Trump is a court jester. That said, every time he lays a glove on Obama, it is good for the nation. I hope he keeps the circus act going until a true conservative shows up to the party. I can't imagine any scenario in which I would vote for Trump in a primary. In fact, I can only imagine one scenario in which I would ever vote for Trump: Trump vs. Obama. Shit, I'd vote for Barney Rubble over Obama.

Wild Walleye

04-28-11, 12:50

Jackson

04-28-11, 14:17

He Ran Before and chickened Out. He is a Pussy. Do we really need is a pussy in the WHITE HOUSE!We've got a pussy in the White House now.

Case in point: Obama released his long form birth certificate yesterday, a move that was intended to embarrass those who were suggesting that he was hiding something. A lot of politicians would have been eviscerated by this move, but what does Trump do? He walks up to the microphone and takes full credit for forcing the President to finally release his actual birth certificate.

Psyched!

I loved it!

This Presidential race could be very interesting: The do-nothing, inept, incompetent, in-over-his-head community organizer verses a proven, experienced, get-it-done negotiator who has made billions for himself and created tens of thousands of jobs.

Remember, Trump is the guy who made a billion dollars doing business with the Chinese.

My guess is that Trump is getting inside Obama's head, and he's going to continue to mind fuck the current Pussy-In-Chief right through to election day.

ROTFLMAO!

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

04-28-11, 15:34

We've got a pussy in the White House now.That is an insult to pussies the world over.

Case in point: Obama released his long form birth certificate yesterday, a move that was intended to embarrass those who were suggesting that he was hiding something. A lot of politicians would have been eviscerated by this move, but what does Trump do? He walks up to the microphone and takes full credit for forcing the President to finally release his actual birth certificate.

Psyched!

I loved it!

This Presidential race could be very interesting: The do-nothing, inept, incompetent, in-over-his-head community organizer verses a proven, experienced, get-it-done negotiator who has made billions for himself and created tens of thousands of jobs.

Remember, Trump is the guy who made a billion dollars doing business with the Chinese.

My guess is that Trump is getting inside Obama's head, and he's going to continue to mind fuck the current Pussy-In-Chief right through to election day.

ROTFLMAO!

Thanks,

JacksonAs previously stated, Trump will be my candidate in only one scenario. That said, I love that he keeps landing body blows on Obama.

Obama is bad for America. It can get any simpler than that. Anyone working toward replacing Obama in 2012, via constitutionally prescribed processes, it alright with me, provided it isn't someone who goes third party and splits the national majority that will be voting anti-Obama.

As for the whole birth certificate issue, the one that is responsible for it being an issue is also the one who looks dumbest in its wake. If he has always had it, why did he let it be a distraction for 2. 5 years? If it was as a political game or trap, it is more proof that he is the 'joke' president. If he was trying to create some sort of gotcha-trap, it blew up in his face, in large part because it was Trump who stepped into it rather than some pussy politician.

Again, I am no Trump fan (although I did read his first book about 20 years ago, can't remember the name of it though) but Trump is far more qualified to be president than Obama and Obama is the joke candidate between these two.

Stan Da Man

04-28-11, 18:18

Again, I am no Trump fan (although I did read his first book about 20 years ago, can't remember the name of it though) but Trump is far more qualified to be president than Obama and Obama is the joke candidate between these two.To be perfectly candid, I think Trump is a Democrat, and this whole thing about him running for President, demanding transcripts and birth certificates, etc, etc, is just a stunt. We know the guy is in favor of abortion and has given more money to Democrats than Republicans over the years.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/27/politics/washingtonpost/main20057806.shtml

I could care less about his position on abortion, but where he spends his political money is revealing. If he were on Wall Street or Silicon Valley, it wouldn't mean much. Those guys normally give mostly to Democrats, even though Dems would have you believe that Republicans are the "big money" party. But, for a property developer, this is highly unusual, even one in New York.

Beyond that, no one knows too much about his positions on anything. He hasn't been completely successful in business despite his current fortune, whatever that might be. He's filed bankruptcy personally and for numerous businesses he's started. So what exactly qualifies him to run the country? He's smarter than a community organizer? Okay, but if that's our threshold, then we're really screwed.

No one really knows his position on major issues, other than he thinks the country is going in the wrong direction, and he would hold his breath until the Chinese agreed to play fair. The guy is a joke, at best.

Watch as this knucklehead pulls a Lebron James and "announces" whether he'll run for President in some prime time event, where he sells the media rights. It only works if people are dumb enough to watch. Unfortunately, plenty are.

I like Trump in the same way that I like Big Time Wrestling: I know it's fake, so that makes it sort of fun. But, every once in a while, you run into someone who swears it's all real.

Tiny12

04-28-11, 18:23

Stan, Tiny, WW you are missing Esten's objective.

Esten does not object to seeing the majority of power and wealth concentrated in a minority of holders, his objective is for the power and wealth to be shifted from private companies and individuals to the government.

Once the government has amassed the vast majority of the wealth and power in the US then the government can redistribute it any way the government sees fit, making everyone "equal" except of course the government. Doppelganger, I think I get it now. The governments' share of the economy grew from 35% to 42% during the Bush and Obama administrations. Esten and Moveon (if he's still with us; if not, may he rest in peace) believe this is a good thing. And they rightly question how the government can stay afloat when it's spending a lot more than it's taking in. They think Art Laffer and Milton Friedman were idiots. That there's no way, for example, that you'd see the tax revenue from capital gains increase if you cut the marginal tax rate on capital gains. They also think we're idiots. If big government is a good thing, then the low tax policies we believe in would bankrupt America.

I don't think that they realize that people who believe in liberal economics, like Stan, WW, you and me, didn't necessarily buy into mainstream Republicans' spending binge in the last decade. In any event, when it comes to spending more than we take in, Obama is like Bush on speed.

We want to see government shrink. I personally don't want to live in a country where the government is 42% of the economy. Unfortunately, while I believe our type is in the majority right now, in 10 or 20 years, I think we're going to be the minority. The Esten's and Moveon's will control the USA, which will come to look more and more like the socialist economies of Europe before they started to reform. It's time to start thinking about moving.

Wild Walleye

04-28-11, 23:05

To be perfectly candid, I think Trump is a Democrat, and this whole thing about him running for President, demanding transcripts and birth certificates, etc, etc, is just a stunt. We know the guy is in favor of abortion and has given more money to Democrats than Republicans over the years.I completely agree. Bloomberg ain't no 'publican neither.

I could care less about his position on abortion, Anybody with brains and the sack to speak the truth, can find the answers to vexing problems within the Constitution and our founding documents. I doubt trump has ever read it.

I will say it for the millionth time, abortion is not a presidential issue. If nothing else has been proven, over the last sixty years, we know for a fact that the legislature will never, ever take up the issue of abortion because they are scaredie cats. Therefore, it is virtually impossible for the POTUS to impact the issue of abortion in any substantive manner.

but where he spends his political money is revealing.If he were on Wall Street or Silicon Valley, it wouldn't mean much. Those guys normally give mostly to Democrats, even though Dems would have you believe that Republicans are the "big money" party. But, for a property developer, this is highly unusual, even one in New York.Excellent points. If he's donated to liberals because of business, he is buying access or expecting quid pro quo (a felony in these here parts). Otherwise, it is indicative of what he believes and who he wants in office. Given his profession, as you so aptly pointed out, it is almost unimaginable that someone in the business of owning real estate would ever support a liberal (think regulation).

Beyond that, no one knows too much about his positions on anything.I suspect that most of his political opinions are about as well-formed as my daily constitutional.

He hasn't been completely successful in business despite his current fortune, whatever that might be. He's filed bankruptcy personally and for numerous businesses he's started.He was too big to fail in the early 90's. Citi held the paper on at least three of his buildings in NYC and could not let him go down.

So what exactly qualifies him to run the country? He's smarter than a community organizer? Okay, but if that's our threshold, then we're really screwed.But less screwed with a President Trump than our current Joke President.

No one really knows his position on major issues,I bet this is in large part due to not having any. I wonder how much time he has spent pondering the precarious situation that exists in Pakistan (have nukes, loads of US state-of-the-art weaponry and strong national interest in having islamofascists run the country) or the potential outcomes of simultaneous regime change in Syria, Egypt and Libya.

other than he thinks the country is going in the wrong direction,Well, he agrees with a huge majority of Americans on one issue, at least.

and he would hold his breath until the Chinese agreed to play fair.Might want to give the WH janitor a heads up about cleaning up his exploded head.

The guy is a joke, at best.Agreed. Thankfully, the butt of the joke is Obama.

Watch as this knucklehead pulls a Lebron James and "announces" whether he'll run for President in some prime time event, where he sells the media rights. It only works if people are dumb enough to watch. Unfortunately, plenty are.Wouldn't surprise me at all.

I like Trump in the same way that I like Big Time Wrestling: I know it's fake, so that makes it sort of fun. But, every once in a while, you run into someone who swears it's all real.I love it. I just want to see him get Obama in the Sleeper Hold.

Esten

04-29-11, 00:20

The whole Trump show / birther story is comical entertainment. Obama released his long form to put an end (hopefully) to the media circus that Trump whipped up, not because Trump (as he believes) forced him to. I will say the media (all sides) was as much to blame as Trump. He and the GOP come out looking bad on this one. I think Republicans are relieved Obama did what he did.

Once in a blue moon Stan and I agree on something. Trump is indeed a joke. Not even worth the time to talk about, but I wanted to share my personal favorite recent Trump quote.

It's not when he stepped up to the microphone in New Hampshire yesterday and began with "Today I am very proud of myself."

Not when he talked about taking Libya's oil.

Not when he said he'd get tough with OPEC and force them to lower the price of oil.

Not even how he mentions his TV show in almost every interview. Heck in his press conference yesterday he even mentioned the date of the final show.

Those are all great laughs. But the very best was his interview with CNN's John King yesterday. When King was questioning whether it was hypocritical to bash China while buying from China to make a profit, Trump got irritated and responded "You're supposed to be this great reporter even though your ratings are no good." LMAO!

Esten

04-29-11, 01:41

Just so it's clear: Taxing business is not a main focus or objective of mine.

Yes you read that correctly. That is not to say I wouldn't ever support it. I would support ending tax breaks for Big Oil, and even a tax on Big Oil profits to fund clean energy. But in general, while I do think we have a major problem with businesses (mainly Big Business) distributing vast amounts of wealth back to the wealthy, higher corporate taxes won't likely help change that.

As I've said before, what I do strongly support are tax increases on individuals. Namely:
- Slightly higher taxes on middle incomes.
- Moderately higher taxes on higher incomes.
- Tax capital gains at the personal income tax rate. Top earners should be paying a 45% rate on capital gains, not 15%.

Tiny - I am glad to see you can be reasoned with. Though I wish you wouldn't make wild statements to begin with. You are correct, it is possible to bankrupt companies with higher taxation. It has to be done selectively and responsibly, if at all. See above, it is not a big focus of mine. I also recognize that raising taxes on a small business owner can affect his business. It has some validity. Unfortunately giving him a pass on a tax increase gives a pass to all the non-business owners in his bracket as well. At the thresholds and small increases we're talking about, basically going back closer to Clinton-era rates, there is no reason this should be an issue. Except of course in the eyes of a self-interested businessman.

We have a revenue problem, not just a spending problem. The single most important thing we can do is raise taxes on middle and especially upper incomes, who have benefitted by far the most from declining rates since Reagan.

Rev BS

04-29-11, 11:10

We've got a pussy in the White House now.

Case in point: Obama released his long form birth certificate yesterday, a move that was intended to embarrass those who were suggesting that he was hiding something. A lot of politicians would have been eviscerated by this move, but what does Trump do? He walks up to the microphone and takes full credit for forcing The President to finally release his actual birth certificate.

Psyched!

I loved it!

This Presidential race could be very interesting: The do-nothing, inept, incompetent, in-over-his-head community organizer verses a proven, experienced, get-it-done negotiator who has made billions for himself and created tens of thousands of jobs.

Remember, Trump is the guy who made A billion dollars doing business with the Chinese.

My guess is that Trump is getting inside Obama's head, and he's going to continue to mind fuck the current Pussy-In-Chief right through to election day.

ROTFLMAO!

Thanks,

JacksonObama may be all that you described, but your dislike of him bordered on the psychotic. You and Trump probably share quite a few similar characteristics. Please note, this is not a personal slur.

Jackson

04-29-11, 14:42

Obama may be all that you described, but your dislike of him bordered on the psychotic. You and Trump probably share quite a few similar characteristics. Please note, this is not a personal slur.I don't hate the man, I hate the damage that his incompetence is doing to our country.

As for Trump: Telling me that I share some personality characteristics with a self-made billionaire is a complement.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

04-29-11, 14:46

We have a revenue problem, not just a spending problem.Obviously, we have a philosophical difference of opinion about this, but your comments do remind me of my ex-wife, who was fond of saying "I don't have a spending problem, you just need to give me more money!"

Rock Harders

04-29-11, 21:28

Jackson

04-30-11, 15:51

Mongers-

What Jackson is not telling us is that his first ex-wife had a striking resemblance to both Aunt Jemima and Michele Obama. This is real reason he hates Obama so much; he is secretly envious of the fact that Barry is married to someone who looks like his ex and that Obama's Kenyan grandmother looks like Aunt Jemima.

Suerte,

Rock HardersFortunately, my ex-wife was a stripper whom I first met while she was performing on stage at a club in Tucson, and...

Trust me on this: Aunt Jemima, Michele Obama and any look-alikes may rest assured that they are safe from my sexual overtures.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

04-30-11, 16:12

He hasn't been completely successful in business despite his current fortune, whatever that might be. He's filed bankruptcy personally and for numerous businesses he's started.Stan,

With all due respect, I've never met a successful businessman who didn't have at lease one business failure under his belt.

Thanks,

Jackson

Rock Harders

05-02-11, 04:05

Canitasguy

05-02-11, 05:20

Mongers-

RE-ELECT OBAMA! He finally got the job done that the Neo-Con War Criminals couldn't despite their eight years in office. If the Neo-Con War Criminals hadn't illegally and unnecessarily invaded Iraq this day would have probably happened many years ago. RE-ELECT OBAMA!

Suerte,

Rock HardersA Commander-In-Chief We Can Believe In!

But Wally and "The Donald" insist on seeing the long form autopsy report and want to ask Obama what took him so long!

El Perro

05-02-11, 09:16

Spend time fucking with dead squirrel head Trump, or......

Member #4112

05-02-11, 11:51

Obama didn't do a damn thing but give authorization to take him out and I am quite frankly surprised the pussy had the guts to do it.

If you want to praise anyone, try the intelligence assets at CIA, NSA, NRO (ie all the folks working in signals intelligence) and the military, in particular the Navy who carried out the strike. Give credit where credit is due and it is not Obama.

El Perro

05-02-11, 12:28

Member #4112

05-02-11, 13:21

Wild Walleye

05-02-11, 14:05

I'll give credit where credit is due. Interrogators at Gitmo, our intelligence community, and special ops deserve almost all of the credit for getting this job done. They have kept at it for 10 years.

While I am willing to concede that Obama deserves credit for giving the OP the 'ok' by taking any credit at all, he is proving to everyone that he is either a complete fraud and hypocrite or that he is about to change his fundamental positions on the military, intelligence and interrogations.

His 'credit' should be viewed in the full context should of where he stands on all of the above. Without any evidence, he gave credence to false claims of torture at Gitmoi, he has always been anti-US military and anti-intelligence. Therefore, this political 'win' for him came as a byproduct of things that he fundamentally opposes. If Obama had got his way on any of the above issues, the opportunity for the successful raid never would have presented itself.

That for which Barry does deserve some credit is that he gave the 'OK' to go ahead and make the strike within Pakistan, ostensibly without Pakistani approval (however, some reports have Pakistani intelligence agents within the compound when the raid took place so, we'll see about that). That said, he had absolutely no choice but to act. His numbers are in the basement and this is a good political move for him. If he didn't act, no matter what the excuse (it's in Pakistan, whatever) he would be finished in US politics forever. This would be true of the president no matter who he is. Clinton in the only known POTUS to pass up a free kill shot at Bin Laden. The only reason he has survived that is because it was pre-911.

What will be interesting is what happens next with Pakistan. There is no way ISI didn't know about Bin Laden's presence and there is no way Bin Laden was sheltered there without some level of govt approval or secret ISI approval. I think I read that they built the place in 2005. I'd be interested as to the exact time line of the connecting of the dots.

Regardless of the political stuff, the world is a better place without Bin Laden. Now we just need to eliminate the rest of the anti-Western Jihadis. Looks like we'll need more interrogations, intelligence and military power.

Lefeu

05-02-11, 15:59

Ok do the victory lap but tonorrow we still have the deficit and the debt ceiling to deal with. Obama is good at standing on others accomplishments and this is a great victory for America, but the mess he has created over the last 2 1/2 years us still going to be here on Tuesday when the headlines fade, gas goes to $5 a gallon, and the economy stalls.You are right that the deficit and the debt will be much more challenging than Osama, but attributing the financial mess to the Obama administration is a bit of a stretch. You seem to have forgotten about the economic mess created by the Bush administration over 8 years.

Jackson

05-02-11, 16:39

You are right that the deficit and the debt will be much more challenging than Osama, but attributing the financial mess to the Obama administration is a bit of a stretch. You seem to have forgotten about the economic mess created by the Bush administration over 8 years.Technically, I think was 7-1/2 years of strong economic growth, followed by 6 months of "economic mess".

Of course, many liberals choose to focus on the final 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 bubble / mortgage crisis, but that too is ignored by some individuals while chanting their mantra "the economic mess created by the Bush administration".

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

05-02-11, 17:07

We've been hearing for more than two years how everything bad about the US was inherited from Bush. I don't think I'll hold my breath to hear any liberals point out that the means and methods that caught Osama were inherited from Bush, too.

Jackson

05-02-11, 18:09

Canitasguy

05-02-11, 18:30

[QUOTE=Jackson; 417088]Do you mean that.

Jackson. I know you are too much of a pussy to share this with your members, but just so you understand why Osama survived the W years and that if McCain had won Osama would be out there planning his next one. Read on!

______________________________________________________________________________________________.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority. I am truly not that concerned about him."

So said President George W. Bush on March 13, 2002 during a press briefing at his Texas Ranch in response to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts.

_____________________________________________________________.

In July 2008, Larry King interviewed McCain and asked him: "If you were president and knew that bin Laden was in Pakistan, you know where, would you have USA forces go in after him?"

McCain said: "I'm not going to go there. Pakistan is a sovereign nation."

___________________________________________________.

During the McCain-Obama Debate, Oct. 7,2008, so sayeth BARACK OBAMA: "If we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out.

We will kill bin Laden.

We will crush Al Qaida.

That has to be our biggest national security priority."

Sunday May 1, 2011. Promise fulfilled!

____________________________________

Stan Da Man

05-02-11, 18:33

I'll give Obama credit for continuing the covert ops. He has violated many of his campaign pledges where the military is concerned (Gitmo, Iraq pullout, etc). Generally, he has been smart to violate these pledges, although one could argue that he shouldn't have made the promises in the first place. But, one thing he was clear on from the start is this: He would continue to try to hunt down terrorists while in office. He has kept that promise. Today, he deserves some of the credit. Bravo.

In terms of claims that Obama is not responsible for our current financial condition: Remember, the recession ended In June of 2009, six months after Obama took office. Obama was quick to trumpet his success in ending it. So, what's he been doing for the past two years? He owns it at this point, and the public is very tired of hearing him try to shift responsibility to others. He's very quick to claim credit when it's not entirely due him (he ended the recession and now nabbed bin Laden). But, he's also very quick to try to pin all the blame on someone else, even when he owns some (our poor economy is entirely someone else's fault; he didn't start the war in Afghanistan).

Finally, as to Trump: There's no doubt that many successful businessmen have started ventures that have failed. But, there's a very big difference between a failed business venture and bankruptcy. Most failed businesses don't file a bankruptcy petition or have one filed against them. And, you don't get a "do over" if you run the country into the rocks, which is why so many are concerned with Obama in office. As a capper on Trump, however, I would just point out that he was registered to vote as a Democrat until 2009. It seems he's only "seen the light" since becoming a reality TV star. Him I could live without.

Esten

05-02-11, 23:49

A great day for all Americans.

After watching the news coverage the past couple hours, I am still awed by how this all went down. Scripted right out of an action movie, almost flawless execution, no US casualties, they got the body and seized hard drives, etc from the compound as well. In and out in less than an hour. Brilliant.

Far better dead than caught alive. Close the book on this chapter, it's done. Also impressive (and revealing) were no tip-offs to the Pakistanis. Pakistan cannot be trusted.

A credit to both the past and current administrations that laid the groundwork and completed the mission, and the Navy SEALs and all military who have worked towards this goal for almost a decade. The fight against terrorism will continue, but this is a big deal and a proud moment.

HappyGoLucky

05-02-11, 23:53

Technically, I think was 7-1/2 years of strong economic growth, followed by 6 months of "economic mess".

Of course, many liberals choose to focus on the final 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 bubble / mortgage crisis, but that too is ignored by some individuals while chanting their mantra "the economic mess created by the Bush administration".

Thanks,

Jackson"The extraordinary bailout of the financial sector was financed by ordinary tax-paying Americans – to the tune of almost $13 trillion, according to Bloomberg. That's $42, 000 for every man, woman and child in the United States: probably the single most egregious transfer of wealth from poor to rich in the history of the world. And the same bankers we bailed out are now back to business as usual, with the top four USA banks paying out $84 billion in bonuses last year."

This article is for you jefe: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/01/3590601/myths-about-state-workers-mask.html#storylink=misearch

Thanks,

Hgl

Tiny12

05-03-11, 02:28

Hgl, Your article is a load of crap. The US taxpayer isn't going to pay anywhere near $13 trillion to bale out financial institutions. And "el jefe" was on the record here from the start as believing the government shouldn't have wasted any of the taxpayers' hard earned money on this. If Obama et al are to continue spending like drunken sailors, then there's no choice but to start taking resources away from relatively well off Americans, like government employees. You can take every dime the rich make and you won't balance the budget, if Obama, Pelosi and Reid were to get their way.

Jackson

05-03-11, 03:04

Lefeu

05-03-11, 03:53

Technically, I think was 7-1/2 years of strong economic growth, followed by 6 months of "economic mess".

Of course, many liberals choose to focus on the final 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 bubble / mortgage crisis, but that too is ignored by some individuals while chanting their mantra "the economic mess created by the Bush administration".

Thanks,

JacksonWith all due respect, the Bush administration played a big part, along with the Fed chiefs, in stroking the housing bubble. That took a bit more than 6 months to develop into a nasty recession. By the way, I don't consider myself a Dem or a Liberal. I am rather Libertarian leaning and I think both Dems and Republicans played a big role in the financial mess we're in.

HappyGoLucky

05-03-11, 12:51

And "el jefe" was on the record here from the start as believing the government shouldn't have wasted any of the taxpayers' hard earned money on this.I agree with that, but what would have been the consequences nationally and internationally? I'm no economist, but it's an interdependent world economy now. I hate to see the real criminals (none of which I think are on this board) get away with the biggest rip-off of our lifetime, if not in the history of the world. BTW, I don't know any "well off" government employees, e.g. teachers, fire-fighters, police, etc.

Wild Walleye

05-03-11, 13:14

"The extraordinary bailout of the financial sector was financed by ordinary tax-paying Americans – to the tune of almost $13 trillion, according to Bloomberg. That's $42, 000 for every man, woman and child in the United States: probably the single most egregious transfer of wealth from poor to rich in the history of the world. And the same bankers we bailed out are now back to business as usual, with the top four USA banks paying out $84 billion in bonuses last year."

This article is for you jefe:

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/01/3590601/myths-about-state-workers-mask.html#storylink=misearch

Thanks,

HglHGL:

The author of your article doesn't even know what he is talking about, therefore, I'll give you a pass on repeating it. Just how did the taxpayer pay $13T? Last I checked the total US govt expenditures for FY 2010 were about $3. 6T. Total US govt outlays FY2009. EFY2011 are estimated at approximately $11. 2T. How could the tax payer have paid $42k each ($13T in the aggregate) during this period, just for the financial bail out? The taxpayer paid a lot (about $2. 5-$3T when you include deliberately wasteful stim-pork) but the other $10T didn't come via the tax system. It was taken from US citizens via the US Treasury printing more money and loose monetary policy. $10T was taken out of the cash value of every man, woman and child's US dollar denominated accounts. Every company, every person who held US dollars and dollar-denominated securities paid this stealth "tax." and yet you don't hear anything about it.

Worse yet, is how this ignorant author uses his misunderstanding of the above to weave a completely false story about transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. He is lying. Even if the $10T had been paid via income taxes, the poor in the US don't pay taxes, therefore they couldn't have had wealth taken away from them. The truth of the matter is that every dollar held lost the same amount of value. The more dollars you held, the more you lost. Last time I checked, the 'rich' tended to have more dollars than the 'poor. ' Where did the $13T go? $2-3T of it went to democrat loyalists (I. E. The money doled out by the govt). The rest of it was pissed away by the Fed essentially giving that money to investors who bet against the dollar, went long precious metals (gold, silver, etc) and sold US treasury securities. That's right. Your govt took $10T away from the collective assets of the citizenry with not even a whimper from the press. If they printed that money and put it in a closet, they could now payoff almost all of our accumulated national debt. Of course, they figure they can do that anytime so why not keep spending and spending and we'll print our way out of it in the future.

"The former heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac left with severance and retirement packages worth millions of dollars each; the former head of GM left with $20 million; the former head of Citigroup with $40 million; the former head of AIG with $47 million; the leader of Bank of America with almost $84 million; the head of Merrill Lynch with $160 million. And the list goes on. How come there's no resentment about those benefits?"

All of these are supporters of Obama and / or beholden to him because he bailed them out.

Why haven't we heard about this? Why? Because this stealth tax does exactly what Obama and all the liberals, including the media, want. It redistributes wealth from the rich to the democrat-chosen special interest groups.

There has been a massive transfer of wealth. From US citizens, with the greatest burden on the wealthy, to the poor and to democrat pet causes and supporters and to institutional investors. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Benanke taking your money to payoff their friends. How do you like that?

Wild Walleye

05-03-11, 13:23

I agree with that, but what would have been the consequences nationally and internationally? I'm no economist, but it's an interdependent world economy now. I hate to see the real criminals (none of which I think are on this board) get away with the biggest rip-off of our lifetime, if not in the history of the world.You are letting them get away. They are in Washington, NY, CA, NV and all around the us (congress primarily). Please read my previous post. I'd be happy to give you an econ101 primer.

BTW, I don't know any "well off" government employees, e.g. teachers, fire-fighters, police, etc.Anybody who receives a defined benefit pension is immensely better off than his / her private sector counter part. End of story. If you don't know the difference between defined benefit (what union members get) and defined contribution (what private sector employees pay into) plans, I'd be happy to clarify it for you.

HappyGoLucky

05-03-11, 20:52

You are letting them get away. They are in Washington, NY, CA, NV and all around the us (congress primarily). Please read my previous post. I'd be happy to give you an econ101 primer.

Anybody who receives a defined benefit pension is immensely better off than his / her private sector counter part. End of story. If you don't know the difference between defined benefit (what union members get) and defined contribution (what private sector employees pay into) plans, I'd be happy to clarify it for you. Thanks Walleye for the offer to explain a defined benefit. I'm with the folks that believe government employees PAY for the defined benefit as a part of their total compensation package which generally translates to a lower salary than the private sector, (but then defined benefit pensions have gone the way of the dinosaur in that sector anyway). Nevertheless, while a defined benefit may be better than a lousy underperforming 401K, it still does not translate to "well-off" in my book.

Donald Trump (Jimmy Fallon) takes credit for killing Bin Laden; it's good: http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video/donald-trump-i-killed-osama-bin-laden/1324298/

Punter 127

05-04-11, 07:52

If the Neo-Con War Criminals hadn't illegally and unnecessarily invaded Iraq this day would have probably happened many years ago.

Not really, that 'Dumb' War In Iraq Led Obama To Bin Laden.

Posted 05/03/2011 06:49 PM ET.

Leadership: If President Bush had not invaded Iraq, President Obama likely would not have found Osama bin Laden. The al-Qaida operative who fingered bin Laden's courier was caught in Iraq helping terrorists in 2004.

It was a line Obama never got tired of. Most infamously, he used it during an anti-war rally at Chicago's Federal Plaza in October 2002: "I don't oppose all wars," the state senator said as President Bush was preparing to attack Saddam Hussein."What I am opposed to is a dumb war."

Obama accused "political hacks like Karl Rove" of launching the Iraq War for the purpose of distracting Americans from their economic hardships.

A decade later we know Obama was dead wrong. The successful manhunt that delivered justice from the barrel of a gun to the elusive head of al-Qaida wouldn't have happened without an indispensable piece of the puzzle that the USA got because of its presence in Iraq.

In January 2004, Kurdish forces near the Iranian border apprehended Hassan Ghul, a top al-Qaida lieutenant once under the direct command of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. After quickly being handed over to USA forces, Ghul was sent to one of the CIA's foreign "black site" prisons. It wasn't long before this particular terrorist canary started singing.

Ghul told the CIA that "Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti" — determined years later to be Sheikh Abu Ahmed — was a high-value courier for al-Qaida and key associate of KSM successor Faraj al-Libi. When al-Libi was captured and interrogated the next year, USA intelligence began putting together the pieces, finally concluding that al-Kuwaiti was a courier to bin Laden himself.

This early key puzzle piece, without which other pieces might not have been found, came from an al-Qaida operative whose sole purpose for being in Iraq was to organize armed opposition to the USA presence there.

Iraq had indeed, as Bush frequently said, become "the central front in the global war on terror," and the Iraq War success of capturing Ghul led to the success of killing the central personage of global terror, at least symbolically, Osama bin Laden.

Had America not invaded, al-Kuwaiti and the valuable information inside his head would have been someplace else, probably where it was a lot easier to remain on the loose. He might never have been caught.

So we have another reason it was wise to go into Iraq. Not only did the Iraq invasion topple Saddam, who used chemical weapons to commit genocide against his own people, and sought nuclear weapons to slaughter others; not only did it give the Iraqi people their first opportunity for freedom and prosperity, providing a model of liberty for other Mideast Islamic nations. On top of all that, it led to the death of bin Laden.

As a bonus, Ghul's role in the elimination of bin Laden is another validation of the wisdom of Bush's authorization for the CIA's black sites, where harsh interrogation methods against terrorists could be practiced.

Iraq a dumb war? That falsity is another thing for which President Obama owes President Bush an apology — and a thank you on behalf of the American people. Perhaps you like Obama owe President Bush an apology.

Suerte. :D

Member #4112

05-04-11, 10:17

Many studies from both the left and right have surfaced during the "union debates" over the myth governmental employees take less in salary for a better retirement package. Today the average government worker makes more than his private counterpart doing the same job and in many cases receives a defined benefit retirement package which is paid for by the taxpayers. According to Esten’s scale of “well off” to “rich” many governmental workers fall in the “well off” category and above.

Defined benefit plans were phased out of private industry years ago because they were financially unsupportable, just as our current 'entitlement' programs are equally financially unsupportable. In most cases governmental employees contribute very little or nothing to their defined benefit plans and if they do contribute it is much less than the benefits received.

Perhaps you missed it but in 2009 51% of the folks paid NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. That means only 49% of working American's paid for the benefits the others received. I am sure Moveon and Esten are proud of this fact and will continue to beat the 'tax the rich' drum, unless of course a segment of “rich” or “well off” happens to be an important Democratic demographic like governmental or union workers. Proof in the pudding, how about all the waivers granted to unions ect by the Obama administration when it comes to ObamaCare.

Rev BS

05-04-11, 12:49

Not even 24 hrs have pass, and they are bickering over who should get credit for Osama bin Laden's demise. Just like kids when mom & dad comes home, they clamor to get their side of their stories told.

Wild Walleye

05-04-11, 14:17

Thanks Walleye for the offer to explain a defined benefit. I'm with the folks that believe government employees PAY for the defined benefit as a part of their total compensation package which generally translates to a lower salary than the private sector,If govt jobs pay less than the private sector, people won't take them.

I agree with Dopple.

Govt sector jobs require fewer hours, provide higher benefits and overall more lucrative packages than their private sector counter parts, when comparing similar job functions and including the additional hours that private sector employees often work, without over time pay. If you look at the present value of a defined benefit plan, there is no comparison. Additionally, with the knowledge that a defined benefit plan is there for retirement, govt employees can consume more of their take home pay, since they don't have to save for retirement.

Police, fire fighters, EMTs and other safety professionals have very difficult jobs and provide important, critical services and should be appropriately compensated within their current benefits (I. E. What they get paid year in, year out). It is unsustainable to have large chunks of future municipal and state budgets paying benefits to individuals who no longer contribute to the system. With higher current income, they can save for their retirement just like the rest of us.

(but then defined benefit pensions have gone the way of the dinosaur in that sector anyway). In the private sector, yes. They died out in the 80s. However, the practice is widespread for union jobs, particularly state and muni workers. I wonder why that is? Perhaps no one is at the table representing the taxpayers.

Nevertheless, while a defined benefit may be better than a lousy underperforming 401K, it still does not translate to "well-off" in my book.It translates to 'better off' in my book at taxpayers' expense.

Stan Da Man

05-04-11, 18:30

HappyGoLucky, please at least make an effort to arm yourself with facts before making absurd arguments.

Are Public Sector Workers Overcompensated?

Several analyses of average wages and benefits in the public and private sectors reveal that state and local government workers earn more than private sector workers. According to the most recent Employer Costs for Employee Compensation survey from the USA Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December 2009, state and local government employees earned total compensation of $39. 60 an hour, compared to $27. 42 an hour for private industry workers-a difference of over 44 percent. This includes 35 percent higher wages and nearly 69 percent greater benefits.

http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary

These are hardly "new" facts. This information has been well-documented over the past year, including on this board. There simply is no credible argument that public sector employees are not over-compensated in relation to their private sector counterparts. You may feel Differently. That's frequently how liberals claim to reason. But, it doesn't change the facts.

And, the real crime here is that pay disparities alone probably wouldn't get folks as riled up as they are about public sector employees, especially the unionized ones. Coupled with the higher pay are these facts. Public sector employees:

- Are less productive than workers in the private sector;

- File more fraudulent claims for disability and workers' compensation;

- Have more generous vacation, holidays, sick days and paid time off;

- Abuse the pension process through pension spiking, defined benefit pension plans, double dipping, etc.

- Get earlier retirement packages than private sector workers.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-5.pdf

All of this coincides with the rise of public sector unions, which is why they must be destroyed. The parasitic and symbiotic relationship between Democrats and public sector unions has been obvious for decades. Public sector unions steal from their members through mandatory membership and forced union dues automatically sucked out of workers' pay checks. They then take this money and funnel it back to the Democrat party. 96% to 98% of their contributions go to Dems. Dems then ensure that union-only public sector requirements are preserved. Quite tidy.

Except, now the system is broke, and you hear folks like Esten and the Democrat party claiming that we "have a revenue and A spending problem." It's a fiction built largely on the house of cards outlined above. Throw in other vote getting entitlements, such as social security, medicare and now ObamaCare, and you start to get the big picture. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

And, when these facts are laid bare, these same folks cling to the "fairness" argument for taxation. In other words, whatever they think is fair should be the rule. But, under the "fair" tax system we have now, a majority of US households pay $0 taxes. None. Nada. Zip. These same folks argue that the "rich" should pay still more, even though the rich share of taxes here is higher Than the "rich" in Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Japan, etc.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703703304576299560728821804.html?KEYWORDS=High-Earning

+Households+Pay+Growing+Share+of+Taxes.

Again, we don't have a revenue problem, except to the extent the rich pay too much in taxes. We have a spending problem, and it was created largely by Democrats, and it is being perpetuated by them. They have to. They can't win elections without buying votes. That's the bottom line, but it still doesn't make it right.

Esten

05-05-11, 01:44

Jackson

05-05-11, 03:07

...comes from businessmen who are motivated by self-interest to protect their profits at the expense of others.OMG! Imagine that! A individual who would believe that they are entitled to keep the earnings from their own endeavors, although I'm not sure how this is related to "the expense of others", given that they're earning money for themselves, not taking money from "others".

Still, it's interesting how easily one can redirect the target of this hyperbole, to wit: "Some of the propaganda comes from businessmen parasites who are motivated by self-interest to protect their profits benefits at the expense of others."

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

05-05-11, 12:30

Consider this. A man buys a house within his means, mortgage payments easily affordable, and pays the mortgage on time for many years. Then one day he loses his job. He manages to keep up with payments for awhile. But his job search is unsuccessful for too long, his payments lapse and the house goes into foreclosure.

Now is it correct to say the foreclosure occured due to a spending Problem?

Or is it more accurate to say the foreclosure occured due to a revenue Problem? Consider how irrelevant this hypothetical scenario is to the discussion of federal tax revenues and spending. The fallacy of your bullshit story is revenue being cut or disappearing altogether. While tax receipts may have dipped following the global financial meltdown and during Obama's Great Recession, US tax receipts only dipped 1. 7% from FY2007 to FY2008. Meanwhile, federal tax spending FY2008 to FY2009 jumped 34%.

There is NO REVENUE PROBLEM. From 1990 through 2008, federal tax revenue grew 145%, which clearly outpaced inflation and the rise of the cost of living. Interestingly, during this same period, GDP grew 148%. Meanwhile, the US population only grew 23, during the same period. Meanwhile, TAX revenue increased by 63% per capita while spending increase 175% per capita.

A conservative will argue that the man has a spending problem, and conveniently ignore the fact that the man previously could pay his mortgage with ease, until he lost his job and his revenue.His predicament is an unpleasant part of life with which I have had first hand experience. It is in no way a corollary for government taxation and spending.

While not identical it is similar with the government.The fact that both are denominated in US dollars is where the similarities run out.

We had a balanced budget under Clinton.Who forced the fiscal restraint upon him? Where were the roots that drove this (hint: he beat the guy Obama is mirroring, Carter).

Then a combination of increased spending AND lower revenues contributed to deficits under Bush and then Obama.You are either lying or you are ignorant of the facts, or both. The above numbers came from the Treasury. During the above cited 19 fiscal years, revenues only dipped slightly in 4 of them (-1. 7% in '01,.6. 9% in '02,.3. 8% in 03 and. 1.7% in '08). Before you jump on the '01 to '03 dips in revenue, you should know that by the end of '05, revenues exceeded '00 levels by 2% and '06 revenues were 22% higher than '00 levels.

Trillions in revenue losses from:

- Bush Tax CutsEven if you attribute 100% of the '01 to '03 decreases in revenue to Bush's tax cuts, it would be $242 million, in the aggregate for all three years. This would be a mistake to believe because these years were immediately following the bursting of the dot-com bubble and many, many companies folded, people lost trillions of personal wealth and jobs and had lots of write-offs, all of which contributed to lower federal receipts.

- Great Recession loss of millions of jobsFewer people working means fewer people paying taxes.

- Obama tax cut extensions and new cutsComplete bullshit. Any potential decrease in revenue from Bush's tax cuts would have been experienced in the first few years of the policy. As I clearly pointed out above, if there was any initial negative effect on receipts due to implementation, it was minimal and more than compensated for by high revenues shortly thereafter. By extending them, there would be no similar effect because the tax law didn't change. As far as 'new tax cuts' there can be absolutely no reduction in revenue associated with Obama's 'new tax cuts' because there haven't been any.

Anyone with half a brain knows the problem is two-fold: spending and revenue.I guess that confirms that you have less than half a brain while most Americans have more than half a brain.

Fortunately most Americans realize this, reflected in polls such as the recent April 20-23 Gallup poll showing near 80% support for some degree of tax increases.You can get whatever result you want out of a poll by simply constructing the question to get the desired result. Wow. I'd look at the results of the '10 midterm election to see that a clear plurality believe that spending is the problem.

However, through Goebbels-like repetition of "we don't have a revenue problem" from right wing media and propagandists, there is an effort to lead people into believing it. Some of the propaganda comes from businessmen who are motivated by self-interest to protect their profits at the expense of others.The Democrats owe a great debt to Hitler for creating something so awful that they can use it to vilify those that oppose their policies and ideas. You can try all you like to likening us to Nazis, but 'we' are more than half the country and 'we' ain't buying it.

The claim that we don't have a revenue problem is just another GOP fiction. It will probably be in the running for the PolitiFact "Biggest Lie" this year, just like the GOP won it last year.Please, for once, get into the true facts of US federal revenue growth and tell me, based on facts, not your Lenin-marxist biases, how we have a revenue problem.

Your analogy would be more appropriate it is went like this:

A guy with a decent salary buys a house with zero down with a no-verification. 5yr, interest-only ARM mortgage with monthly payments equal to 50% of his take-home pay. He then gets a sweet, new car with a loan, pulls out 20% of the value of the home with a home equity loan, the proceeds of which he spends on consumables, and racks up $150K in credit cards bills.

Now his salary stays the same but he when he adds in his living expenses, his expenditures are 150% of his take-home pay.

Stan Da Man

05-05-11, 16:47

Stan Da Man

05-05-11, 17:08

Anyone with half a brain knows the problem is two-foldExactly!

It takes a big man to confess, Esten. But, you've obviously put your finger on the problem: There are too many half-wits just like you in Washington.

Once we get the half-brained, left-wing politicians out of there, and replace them with some full-brained representatives, then we'll make some progress.

HappyGoLucky

05-05-11, 19:41

HappyGoLucky, please at least make an effort to arm yourself with facts before making absurd arguments.

[i]Are Public Sector Workers Overcompensated?

Several analyses of average wages and benefits in the public and private sectors reveal that state and local government workers earn more than private sector workers.

Again, we don't have a revenue problem, except to the extent the rich pay too much in taxes. Stan, I think we'd probably agree that statistics are what people make of them. For example, the data analysis in this paper from the Economic Policy Institute indicates that public employees, both state and local government, are not overpaid compared to the private sector:

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/debunking_the_myth_of_the_overcompensated_public_employee/

Regarding the rich "paying too much in taxes",

CNN Money's Chris Isidore looked at the gap between rich and middle-class Americans back during the holidays. He wrote on December 23:

"The richest 1% of USA households had a net worth 225 times greater than that of the average American household in 2009, according to analysis conducted by the Economic Policy Institute. That's up from the previous record of 190 times greater, which was set in 2004."

Meanwhile a recent study from the Commerce Department shed some light on an issue that we already know. Over the past 20 years the middle class has been falling behind:

http://www.mybudget360.com/income-budget-game-over-for-the-american-middle-class-inflation-adjusted-wages-up-20-percent-in-last-20-years-while-housing-costs-are-up-56-percent-and-healthcare-costs-are-up-155-percent/

I suppose one might make the argument that these studies were done by "liberals" and therefore biased, but the same can be said of GOP think tanks.

The real bottom line is the extinction of the middle class as we knew it growing up:

"Think of the rise of our economy in the 1940s and 1950s. Many returning GIs had access to affordable education through new programs and grants. It is the least you can offer to someone defending this country. Next, it was possible to support a family with one income because we had a strong and sustainable manufacturing base. Now, we have families with two incomes in the service sector trying to piece things together. Throw in a child, and that second income evaporates through childcare costs and educational fees. In other words, just because people have more income their buying power has collapsed."

"While writing about the increasing income disparity between America's rich and middle class, CNN Money's Annalyn Censky threw out this zinger:

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33, 400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33, 000 in 2008, according to IRS data.

Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans — those making $380, 000 or more — have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust."

So Stan, what kind of a country do we want? It seems like we're fast approaching a nation of only two polarities, the haves and the have-nots; it reminds me of Paraguay.

Wild Walleye

05-06-11, 00:45

There's a blog out there cataloging all of the many inconsistencies of the Obama Administration regarding Osama bin Laden's killing. Obama was armed; then he wasn't; he used his wife as a shield; no he didn't; his wife died; no, just shot in the leg and it wasn't his wife; etc, etc.

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2011/05/04/the-obama-administrations-cloud-of-confusion-explained/

Most of it is pretty mundane, but I thought the following was priceless and wanted to share:

The idiot Carney — they actually managed to find someone who makes Gibbs look good — is currently twisting himself into knots trying to explain why the photograph that the whole world was expecting isn't going to be released. (Obviously the thing to do is get Trump on the case, he'll force Obama to release it.)

LOL. Thing is, I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump take up the cudgel. If you (any senior monger) ever hear me criticizing Obama for giving the 'go' to the OP that rid this world of the scum-sucking swine named Osama Bin Laden, I will buy you a beer at your choice of Bs As chica bars. That said, Obama (and his ilk) is his own worst enemy in this situation. It's like Watergate, the cover up is the problem. If they weren't so busy trying to recast what happened into some Disney tale (that avoids complying with the Bush Doctrine) , everyone would be on board. If I were advising Obama (as this thing went down) I'd tell him to tell the US,"we found out where this POS was hiding, we went in, we found him and we took this mutherf*cker out." End of story. Everything else the administration has said has unnecessarily complicated the matter. Just shut the fuck up and bask in the glory. These idiots could fuck up a wet dream.

I don't care if Osama had an AK47 or his pecker in his hand, if I walked into that room, he would have caught a double tap in the noggin. I would have greased everyone with whom I came into contact. I would have buried that POS inside the body cavity of Hogzilla, in my back yard. I don't care if they were armed or not. If you hang with Osama, you can burn in hell with him.

All of the aforementioned said, I'm just a monger, not the POTUS. If I were the POTUS, I would have rescinded Executive Order 12333 just prior to the commencement of the op. I would then, prophylactically grant all members of Team 6 presidential pardons to protect them from prosecution within the US by liberals. When asked by the liberal media, I would say,"it doesn't matter if he was armed (non of the folks at the three sites of carnage on 9/11 were armed) or not, we were there to dispatch him with extreme prejudice. Are you {mr. Liberal media guy] pro Osama?" "You're pro-Osama? I think that the American people should know that [name of news outlet] is taking sides against the USA."

As it stands, it looks like Obama has violated Executive Order 12333 and many of the members of his administration (excluding Obama) have been actively and intentionally misleading the press and the public. The less he says the better. If he keeps yapping, team 6 is going to be the focus of a tribunal in den Hague and he is setting himself up to be impeached by the likes of Dennis Kucinich.

Matt Psyche

05-06-11, 00:46

You are totally right. Since there is no picture, Obama, Gates, Clinton, Biden, SEAL, Pakistan government- all of them are lying.

There's a blog out there cataloging all of the many inconsistencies of the Obama Administration regarding Osama bin Laden's killing. Obama was armed; then he wasn't; he used his wife as a shield; no he didn't; his wife died; no, just shot in the leg and it wasn't his wife; etc, etc.

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2011/05/04/the-obama-administrations-cloud-of-confusion-explained/

Most of it is pretty mundane, but I thought the following was priceless and wanted to share:

The idiot Carney — they actually managed to find someone who makes Gibbs look good — is currently twisting himself into knots trying to explain why the photograph that the whole world was expecting isn't going to be released. (Obviously the thing to do is get Trump on the case, he'll force Obama to release it.)

LOL. Thing is, I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump take up the cudgel.

Esten

05-06-11, 01:42

Please provide some support for your assertions that "wealth" is increasingly "accumulating in a small subset of the population" resulting in "unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class."Stan, see below HGL's post and my added comments. And as you know unemployment is the highest in decades, and the poverty rate is at a 15-year high (and near a 40-year high) :

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/us/17poverty.html

CNN Money's Chris Isidore looked at the gap between rich and middle-class Americans back during the holidays. He wrote on December 23:

"The richest 1% of USA households had a net worth 225 times greater than that of the average American household in 2009, according to analysis conducted by the Economic Policy Institute. That's up from the previous record of 190 times greater, which was set in 2004."

Meanwhile a recent study from the Commerce Department shed some light on an issue that we already know. Over the past 20 years the middle class has been falling behind:

"While writing about the increasing income disparity between America's rich and middle class, CNN Money's Annalyn Censky threw out this zinger:

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33, 400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33, 000 in 2008, according to IRS data.

Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans — those making $380, 000 or more — have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust."

Good post. You might find this article interesting.

Study: Most Americans Want Wealth Distribution Similar to Sweden.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/569425/study%3A_most_americans_want_wealth_distribution_similar_to_sweden

Click on the "research (PDF)" file and go to Figure 2 on page 12. This study is based on 5522 respondents in 2005. Figure 2 is remarkable. Wealth distribution was as follows:

Actual: Top quintile 84%, second quintile 11%, other three quintiles 5%
Estimated: Top quintile 58%, second quintile 20%, other three quintiles 22%
Ideal: Top quintile 32%, second quintile 22%, other three quintiles 46%

So people's estimates were low, but that was still perceived as too inequal. Imagine what people think of the actual- the bottom 60% with just 5% of all wealth.

Here is another good article. Between 1979-2007, share of after-tax income increased from 7% to 17% for the Top 1%. While it decreased from 58% to 48% for the bottom four-fifths. Lots of other good data and charts here too.

Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220

Jackson

05-06-11, 17:18

If they weren't so busy trying to recast what happened into some Disney tale (that avoids complying with the Bush Doctrine) , everyone would be on board. If I were advising Obama (as this thing went down) I'd tell him to tell the US,"we found out where this POS was hiding, we went in, we found him and we took this mutherf*cker out." End of story. Everything else the administration has said has unnecessarily complicated the matter. Just shut the fuck up and bask in the glory. These idiots could fuck up a wet dream.

I don't care if Osama had an AK47 or his pecker in his hand, if I walked into that room, he would have caught a double tap in the noggin. I would have greased everyone with whom I came into contact. I would have buried that POS inside the body cavity of Hogzilla, in my back yard. I don't care if they were armed or not. If you hang with Osama, you can burn in hell with him.

All of the aforementioned said, I'm just a monger, not the POTUS. If I were the POTUS, I would have rescinded Executive Order 12333 just prior to the commencement of the op. I would then, prophylactically grant all members of Team 6 presidential pardons to protect them from prosecution within the US by liberals. When asked by the liberal media, I would say,"it doesn't matter if he was armed (non of the folks at the three sites of carnage on 9/11 were armed) or not, we were there to dispatch him with extreme prejudice. Are you {mr. Liberal media guy] pro Osama?" "You're pro-Osama? I think that the American people should know that [name of news outlet] is taking sides against the USA."

As it stands, it looks like Obama has violated Executive Order 12333 and many of the members of his administration (excluding Obama) have been actively and intentionally misleading the press and the public. The less he says the better. If he keeps yapping, team 6 is going to be the focus of a tribunal in den Hague and he is setting himself up to be impeached by the likes of Dennis Kucinich. Their problem is that the Navy SEALS lost the Miranda Warning cards that Holder gave them, so they had to improvise.

ROTFLMAO!

Stan Da Man

05-06-11, 18:01

Stan, see below HGL's post and my added comments. And as you know unemployment is the highest in decades, and the poverty rate is at a 15-year high (and near a 40-year high) :Your post is a perfect example of why no one respects you here. You simply spout a bunch of mischief with no intention of supporting it, for obvious reasons. Here's what you said:

profits and wealth are increasingly accumulating in a small subset of the population. This is not happening without a cost. The trade-off is increasing unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class.So, I asked for support for something you claim "we all know," that the 'trade-off' to "wealth" accumulation by the rich is "increasing unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class."

The best you can do is argue that the rich make more today than before in relation to others? Where's the unemployment "we all know" this has caused? Where's the poverty "we all know" this has caused? I'm not sure what "stagnating wealth" means, but if it means that the middle class is doing as well as it was before, then I don't think I disagree. But, that certainly doesn't support your Argument.

And HappyGoLucky's numbers certainly don't support your argument. Indeed, they undercut it.

He points to research by a liberal blogger, which he characterized as a "zinger" purporting to show that the adjusted for inflation median salary of the average American taxpayer is the same today as it was 20 years ago. Now, the underlying data is flawed, but let's take it at face value.

Do either of you understand what "adjusted for inflation" means? It means that these folks' purchasing power is the same. They're not in poverty, they're not worse off, economic policies have not caused them to decline or vanish. Your only argument is that it's not fair that these folks make as much as they did before, because others make more. But, that just gets us back to your standard class-envy socialist diatribe.

And, as I mentioned, the data you rely on is bogus. The data used by nearly everyone here is 'household income' not salaries. Why? Even in 1988, there were a far greater number of households with a single working spouse, and those households (then and today) overwhelmingly make up the bottom quintiles of income. But, if you look at median 'household income, ' you see that conditions have, in fact, improved. Using Happy's baseline period, median household income was $47, 251 in 1988 and it was $49, 777 in 2009 on an inflation-adjusted basis.

http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

That's 5% more in purchasing power after being adjusted for inflation Than during 1988. And, that's measuring from boom times to recession (peak to trough) which is another problem with the data. Regardless, that's not stagnation; that's not poverty; and I'm still waiting for Esten to try to make any connection to unemployment. He can point to the fact that unemployment is bad, but there's no connection between that and the fact that the rich have more wealth. According to both of you, the rich have been getting richer for the past two decades. But, unemployment was historically very low during that time period. So, obviously, there is no correlation there. Where is there a correlation? Hey, you don't have too look far. Perhaps you might want to check into your President's foolhardy economic policies. More than anything else, they have caused the prolonged spike in unemployment.

About two years ago, the Obama Administration tried to start making a correlation between the Obama Presidency and the Reagan Presidency. It was a stretch, at best, particularly since the Obama campaign made it a point to chide anyone who believed in capitalism and said that the economy was proof that Reaganomics didn't work. Yet, a year into office, there was Obama trying to get mentioned in the same breath as Reagan.

Well, it's obvious now that Obama deserves mention, but only to contrast Obamanomics with Reaganomis. Obama and Reagan took office at remarkably similar times. They have deployed polar opposite policies and taken the country in opposite directions. Compare for yourself which one works and which one doesn't.

http://blogs.forbes.com/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

There's not much of an argument.

Tiny12

05-06-11, 21:51

Yes, after two years of federal government under the control of Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the poverty and unemployment rates are at high levels. The USA has not bounced back from the 2008/2009 recession like it did from previous recessions -- see Stan's Forbes link below. And if the USA follows the same policies that Western Europe and Sweden did until recently, you can expect unemployment to remain at high levels. Esten, if you disagree with that last statement you're just not being realistic or reasonable.

The biggest reason for the disparities in wealth in the USA is that politicians, chiefly Democrats but also many Republicans, want a beholden underclass that will vote for them. They encourage people to spend with no thought for tomorrow. They encourage consumption and borrowing and discourage saving. They promote Ponzi schemes for social security and Medicare instead of having people put aside money for retirement, like in Singapore and Chile. The average American, and the lower middle class in the USA, have standards of living among the highest in the world. The reason they don't also have savings is because American government discourages it.

WorldTravel69

05-07-11, 04:10

Everyday for the three weeks I having been checking on all the places for you to get Laid.

And only one or two have responded. Thank You!

Are you really getting off on Politics?

That is really Perverted.

This is One of the most civilized places to get laid.
I got a piece for US$25. And there a few left less expensive. I even gave a 10p tip.

I am on a fixed income. Social Security.

Are you really that frustrated, that you get off on Politics?

Find a massage place at home at least.

IF you do have one where you live, take trip to California. We have lots of Oriental girls. PM Me. But it is US$100.

Or at least come down here and tell me where I fucked on the prices on my Lists and I will buy you a free piece.

Come on take my bet. That should be easy, when my Spanish sucks.

I have listed over 100 privados, prove me wrong for this month and it is on me.

Jackson will cover my bet, because he owes me.

I fixed the his fucking leaky sinks, etc.

Yes, after two years of federal government under the control of Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the poverty and unemployment rates are at high levels. The USA has not bounced back from the 2008/2009 recession like it did from previous recessions. See Stan's Forbes link below. And if the USA follows the same policies that Western Europe and Sweden did until recently, you can expect unemployment to remain at high levels. Esten, if you disagree with that last statement you're just not being realistic or reasonable.

The biggest reason for the disparities in wealth in the USA is that politicians, chiefly Democrats but also many Republicans, want a beholden underclass that will vote for them. They encourage people to spend with no thought for tomorrow. They encourage consumption and borrowing and discourage saving. They promote Ponzi schemes for social security and Medicare instead of having people put aside money for retirement, like in Singapore and Chile. The average American, and the lower middle class in the USA, have standards of living among the highest in the world. The reason they don't also have savings is because American government discourages it.

Tiny12

05-07-11, 13:17

WT, I can sit down in front of my computer with a bottle of baby oil and the American Politics thread and it doesn't cost me anything. $0. That's right, zip, nada. And Esten really gets me hot. Don't knock it until you've tried it.

Thanks again for the lists, for Argentina and elsewhere. I have used and will use them.

Big Boss Man

05-07-11, 15:10

Well, it's obvious now that Obama deserves mention, but only to contrast Obamanomics with Reaganomis. Obama and Reagan took office at remarkably similar times. They have deployed polar opposite policies and taken the country in opposite directions. Compare for yourself which one works and which one doesn't.

http://blogs.forbes.com/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

There's not much of an argument. Although there are similarities as to when Reagan and Obama came into office, I think the differences are much more significant. Reagan came into office during a expansion and Obama during a recession according to NBER. High inflation and interest rates when Reagan came into office and the threat of deflation and low interest rates when Obama came into office.

Really it depends where you are sitting in the economy as to your economic standing right now. I was laid off in the Reagan era, worked temp jobs for 18 months before finding something permanent. I actually faced a marginal tax hike when going back to work because the Reagan tax reforms eliminated income averaging.

Being older my wealth is in the stock market now. S&P 500 as measured by GSPX was 835 when Obama took office and now sits over 1300. Obama's policies favor large business over small business. S&P 500 companies have increased hiring since Obama has been in office but most of the hiring has been overseas. As David Bianco of Merrill Lynch keeps reminding us the S&P 500 is not the American economy. I know many small business owners that have been hurt and have not recovered under Obama's policies

What did you think of Kudlow's proposal to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan to reduce the budget?

Stan Da Man

05-09-11, 19:36

Although there are similarities as to when Reagan and Obama came into office, I think the differences are much more significant. Reagan came into office during a expansion and Obama during a recession according to NBER. High inflation and interest rates when Reagan came into office and the threat of deflation and low interest rates when Obama came into office.I don't mean to quibble too much, but here goes:

First, I agree that no recession or economic period is identical. I also agree that interest rates were high when Reagan took office, and low when Obama took office. But, if you asked most presidents which they would choose to have when they took office, my guess is most would go with low interest rates. They're not considered much of a problem and can be managed easier. I know, tell that to Japan. Also, I don't believe the "threat of deflation" was an issue when Obama took office. That supposed threat came later, and it's one of those phantom economist specters. There's always a threat of anything.

Second, as to expansion and contraction, there still isn't much difference. We may have been contracting when Obama took office, but that stopped a scant five months after he took office, according the the NBER.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-recession-ended-june-2009-nber-says-2010-09-20

Reagan, on the other hand, dealt with a mini-Carter recession that ended in July of 1980, six months before he took office. But, things had been going to hell despite that technical end, which largely explains the results of that election and Carter's defeat after one term. You were alive during that time so I'm sure you can recall the gas lines, joblessness and high interest rates. As a consequence, six months after Reagan took office, another recession began in July of 1981. The expansion when Reagan took office lasted only six months. When Reagan killed the next recession, the expansion lasted a then-record 92 months.

That's the recession I'm talking about. Obama already has had longer to recover from the end of "his" recession but doesn't have the results to show for it. Of course, his term isn't up, so we'll just have to wait and see how it turns out in the end. Judging by the "start" of his expansion, though, it's not looking good.

Finally, the point in all this is not to say each period was / is the same. The point is that each period was seriously messed up. One President addressed it with supply side economics, while the current President turned to Keynesian principles. Again, there doesn't seem to be too much debate about what worked and what failed so far, unless your name is Paul Krugman. Even Krugman doesn't debate this so much as try to say that Keynesianism wasn't fully deployed. But, he has to say that. His life's work is meaningless if he doesn't. Indeed, Obama's latest Keynesian tactic was the payroll tax holiday, and it appears to have failed, as well.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/05/09/another_nail_in_the_keynesian_coffin_99010.html

I definitely agree that Obama's strategy has been to court and coddle big business at the expense of small and mid sized companies. I have personally seen this. There is one set of rules and credits for the GEs and Too Big To Fail Banks, and there is another set of rules and punishments for the community banks and the rest of us left to deal with ObamaCare. The TBTFs contribute generously to Democrats and have been rewarded under his watch. It's very much like defense contractors and Cheney, except no one on the right is howling like the folks on the left did. I wish they would.

What did you think of Kudlow's proposal to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan to reduce the budget?I tend to agree with him. These things can't happen over night. But, I would be in favor of a policy shift at this point toward getting the heck out of both places. Personally, I don't see it getting better in Afghanistan. This is the war Obama said we should be concentrating on. While I don't disagree, we've got our guy, and I don't think there's any more "objective" we can really achieve. If the goal is to defeat the Taliban or al Qaeda, that won't happen. They're ideologies, not nation states. Why stick around?

Regarding Iraq, I think the wind down has been going rather well. I'm not sure there's a need to accelerate that, so much as stay the previously outlined course to wind down. I do think that Obama and Biden owe an apology to Bush and Petraeus, especially after Obama voted against the surge and said we already had lost there. But, I'm not going to hold my breath for that apology.

I've said it here before and I'll say it again. I'm really not a critic of Obama's foreign policy. I think he's done a reasonable job there. It's his domestic policy that's a train wreck.

Wild Walleye

05-10-11, 02:50

Being older my wealth is in the stock market now. S&P 500 as measured by GSPX was 835 when Obama took office and now sits over 1300. Obama's policies favor large business over small business. S&P 500 companies have increased hiring since Obama has been in office but most of the hiring has been overseas. As David Bianco of Merrill Lynch keeps reminding us the S&P 500 is not the American economy. I know many small business owners that have been hurt and have not recovered under Obama's policies You are correct. Big companies have thrived with nearly free money (low interest) and pared headcount. Not too many of them are hiring despite very strong financial performance. I wonder why?

It is absolutely clear that Obama's policies are far better for the wealthy, indifferent for the poor and brutal on the middle class (19% un and underemployment).

What did you think of Kudlow's proposal to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan to reduce the budget?Let's turn plowshares into butter. Ain't going to happen unless Bohner and company grow a pair. They could bring them all home tomorrow and government expenditures wouldn't drop one penny. Look at the fiscal trend coming out of any past war.

Rev BS

05-10-11, 22:47

We have build an economy that is based on cosumerism, and so when the pockets are near empty, then buisnesses suffers in general. Lean times, as they say. No choice, but to balance the budget somewhat and somehow. Not just the national budget, but each household, too. I think that everyone agrees on this, even Congress. So what's all the shouting and gesturing over there, and even here. Yeah, I got it, it's all about the agendas and the elections.

Big Buisness are reeling in big numbers, so do they want people to stop buying?

My recent fact finding mission to Medellin was fun and interesting, reminded me of Thailand about 14 years ago until consumerism came plowing through, and the land was never the same again. Colombia is repeating the same scenario. Sometimes, you don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Esten

05-11-11, 03:11

Your post is a perfect example of why no one respects you here. You simply spout a bunch of mischief with no intention of supporting it, for obvious reasons. Another salvo from the king of personal attacks. I'm crushed.

You should know by now, I do my research and I'll support, clarify or withdraw anything I say, as the case may be. I welcome your continued debate, so I can expose your flimsy rebuttals, just like with the Fannie and Freddie discussion.

So, I asked for support for something you claim "we all know," that the 'trade-off' to "wealth" accumulation by the rich is "increasing unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class." The "we all know" part was about businesses existing to make a profit. Your string of quotes does not convey what I said.

The best you can do is argue that the rich make more today than before in relation to others? Where's the unemployment "we all know" this has caused? Where's the poverty "we all know" this has caused? I'm not sure what "stagnating wealth" means, but if it means that the middle class is doing as well as it was before, then I don't think I disagree. But, that certainly doesn't support your Argument.More selective quoting. Please re-read what I said re: "we all know".

It appears you interpret my statement to mean the rich getting richer always has a causal link with poverty, unemployment and stagnating wealth. If so, your criticism is valid. They do not always occur together, and when they do, there is not always a causal link.

However my original statement was relative to today and the recent recession. And I said nothing about causality, only that there was a trade-off.

In recessions, unemployment and poverty increase while incomes stagnate (don't change much). The rich may take a hit too, but recover quicker. You recall I said before how corporations were sitting on $2 Trillion in cash, increasing dividends and buybacks while hiring little or none. This is little more than corporations and the rich elite that control them protecting and enhancing revenue streams back to the rich. Corporations could have chosen to invest in the economy and create jobs, or at least avoid layoffs and salary freezes. But instead many corporations, already profitable, chose to become even more profitable at the expense of workers. That's a trade-off.

The connection to unemployment is this: mass layoffs increased corporate profits, much of which is being distributed back to the rich through dividend hikes, buybacks and executive compensation. CEO pay now exceeds pre-recession levels, but unemployment is still high.

It ain't rocket science.

Now over the long run, let's take the past few decades, unemployment and poverty have basically stayed in narrow ranges of 5-10% and 10-15%. Adjusted for inflation, middle incomes have grown little. Your data supports this. But upper incomes have had huge gains. Pointing this out is not "class envy", just a statement of fact.

Remember the conservative talking point: when we grow the pie and allow the rich to prosper, it trickles down to others. But you've just acknowledged this isn't the case (or barely). Even as the pie grows, the wealthy are taking an ever-growing share of it. The more wealth is shifted up, the less remains for those below. That's a trade-off.

The CBPP link I referenced uses data from the CBO. Just as valid as your Census Bureau data. I guess it's easier to call it "bogus" than admit it supports my argument.

You cited an increase in median household income from $47,251 in 1988 to $49,777 in 2009 (+5%) as a sign of improvement. How about the 1989 to 2009 comparison: $48,463 to $49,777 (+2.7%). Or 1999 to 2009: $52,587 to $49,777 (-5.3%). Long-term, yes the overall trend is slightly positive, though the slope declined under Bush. If you want to call these meager gains as proof that incomes do not stagnate long-term, very well. But median gains are dwarfed by those of the top quintile and top 1 percent. Refer back to the CBPP article.

Liberals don't object to the wealthy having the biggest piece of the pie. What they object to is the trend of the ever-increasing share of the pie the wealthy hold.

Rock Harders

05-11-11, 11:23

Mongers-

Check this article out. Get ready for "four more years"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110511/ap_on_re_us/us_ap_poll_obama_boost

Tiny12

05-11-11, 14:15

Esten, It's interesting that your endpoint is always 2009, the end of one of the worst recessions since the 1930's. I suspect that if you looked at median household income at the ends of other recessions, for periods ending in 1982 or 1974 or 1931 you'd see something similar. Also, it's interesting that you go back to median household income as your preferred statistic again and again, even though Stan and others have pointed out that you should be using median income of individuals, to adjust for the effect of more families with one wage earner and smaller households.

You're a big believer in polls. From some of your posts, it almost seems that you think the USA should be run based on polls. In particular, you appear to be a big believer in the majority taking whatever it wants to from those who are well off, if that's what the majority wants to do. O. K, well, instead of looking at what individuals believe, how about taking a look at what governments are doing. With respect to your ideas about business in your last post, the majority of the world is headed in the opposite direction of where you want to take us. The exceptions I can think of are the USA under Obama / Pelosi / Reid, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina. Spain under Zapatero and Greece would also be headed in the same direction if recent economic conditions hadn't interceded.

The former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, China, and East Asia are trying to create conditions that are favorable for business, and cutting taxes on business. They encourage savings instead of pushing their companies and their people to spend, spend, spend. They've learned from their past failures, which you seem intent on having us repeat.

You are totally off base on your comments about dividends and cash in corporations. The problem the USA has is too much consumption and not enough savings, at the individual, corporate and government level. So USA corporations have 2 trillion in cash. How much debt do they have? A hell of a lot more. This absence of net savings results in the USA having large current account deficits, and on us not having the savings to fund investment so that we have to rely on China et al, and so that we don't have the investment to grow as fast as we could.

While indeed there are specific instances where companies lay off employees and increase dividends, you're not looking at the big picture. You undoubtedly are in favor of the marginal rate on dividends going back to 39.6%, as it's scheduled to on January 1, 2013. Almost all of the world either franks dividends, so that corporate income isn't taxed twice (once to the company and once to the shareholder) or has a lower tax on dividends than ordinary income. The dividend payout ratio in the USA (percentage of income paid as dividends) is low by worldwide standards. It's too low, the reason being that the tax system encourages companies to become overindebted (interest expense is tax deductible) instead of issuing equity (dividends are not deductible). Anyway, investment should be allocated to companies that produce high returns instead of those that reduce low returns. Dividends are one of the primary mechanisms by which this occurs. A company without opportunity for growth should distribute dividends. The shareholders reinvest this in companies with good opportunites for growth. Money flows, say, from textile companies to Boeing. If you are going to insist on companies retaining and reinvesting income instead of distributing dividends, a lot of money is going to be squandered on stupid investments.

The money that flows to pension funds and mutual funds and individuals in the form of dividends is miniscule compared to the money spent by corporations on labor. The following statement is a complete load of crap:

"The connection to unemployment is this: mass layoffs increased corporate profits, much of which is being distributed back to the rich through dividend hikes, buybacks and executive compensation."

For the record, I do believe that you, Obama, Pelosi and Reid are Democrats, and don't put you in the same category as Chavez, Ortega, Morales, or Correa. I do believe you have similar attitudes towards business though, and believe your policies will damage the economy. The reason I say "will", I believe this country is headed in the direction you want it to go, as evidenced by Rock Harder's post above.

Member #4112

05-11-11, 17:35

HR, while it's a nice article about Obama's current popularity, the bounce is due to Osama getting a bullet in the noggin courtesy of the US Navy Seals. By the way I am still trying to figure out how according to the AG water boarding is torture but shooting an unarmed terrorist in the head is just fine. I'm sure Esten can explain it.

He should enjoy it while he can since it will be the last uptick in his ratings before the 2012 election. I am surprised it has lasted this long, but it will soon fade and his poll numbers and approval rating will once again plummet to the low 40's were they were before. Why, because he is doing his best to ignore the 900 pound gorilla in the room, the deficit, and that big monkey is getting pissed. That's the Gorilla not Obama.

Just around the corner is the debt ceiling debate and the 2012 budget, spending is still unchecked, unemployment went up to 9% again and the 'recovery' is in the process of stalling due to fuels costs.

The Democrats and Obama seem determined to run off the cliff in mass with their latest proposals. While gas prices continue remain at $4+ they are doing their best to:

1. Curtail domestic production by slow walking the permit process creating a de facto moratorium on drilling.

A. The federal judge in New Orleans just order the Fed to either deny or issue Gulf drilling permits in 30 days – then they are in contempt.

B. Stonewalling the process to permit new production in Alaska, which the citizens of Alaska want to go forward creating jobs and income for the state.

2. Punish those dirty old oil companies, at least the 5 that they have some control over, by removing certain tax deductions.

Wow, what brilliant thinkers! Now what do you think will happen to fuel costs as domestic production falls and the oil companies start passing on the cost of business which just got higher courtesy of the Democrats?

The only answer from the Democrats is to Tax Tax Tax and Spend Spend Spend and Borrow Borrow Borrow.

It's time to shut down many of the overreaching government programs and reduce the size of the government. I am well aware of the herculean task this represents but it needs to be done.

Ronald Reagan once said the closest thing to immortality he has ever seen was a government program. Time for the immortals to die.

Next Obama and Immigration Reform . The truth about the Border Patrol's orders from the guys in the field!

Esten

05-12-11, 01:31

Esten, It's interesting that your endpoint is always 2009, the end of one of the worst recessions since the 1930's. I suspect that if you looked at median household income at the ends of other recessions, for periods ending in 1982 or 1974 or 1931 you'd see something similar. Also, it's interesting that you go back to median household income as your preferred statistic again and again, even though Stan and others have pointed out that you should be using median income of individuals, to adjust for the effect of more families with one wage earner and smaller households. Tiny, I stuck with the 2009 endpoint because that was Stan's endpoint. Regardless, as you may have noticed I did conclude the long term trend was slightly positive.

Individual or household income, either will do. If you think individual income is a better metric, post a link and let's see what it shows. And Stan did not point out to use individual income in his reply to me, in fact he posted a link to and discussed data on household income. So whaddya talking about? And furthermore, there is no reason that more one wage earner households would invalidate comparing trends in household income for low vs. high income households, unless shifts to one wage earner households were significantly different for low vs. high income households. I suspect such evidence is hard to come by.

You're a big believer in polls. From some of your posts, it almost seems that you think the USA should be run based on polls. In particular, you appear to be a big believer in the majority taking whatever it wants to from those who are well off, if that's what the majority wants to do. O. K, well, instead of looking at what individuals believe, how about taking a look at what governments are doing. With respect to your ideas about business in your last post, the majority of the world is headed in the opposite direction of where you want to take us. I think polls are valuable (and interesting) to gauge what people are thinking. I don't always agree with them. I wouldn't say they should be used directly to run the country, but polls can and do have some influence on guiding politics and policy. I am a big believer in reversing (to some degree) the ongoing massive wealth accumulation at the top. You often reference other countries, but it seems you are not consistent in whether you suggest we follow or not follow what they do. As you may have noticed, I care little about what other countries are doing.

You don't understand where I "want to take us.". If you did, you would remember I posted before I am a big believer in balanced budgets. I want the USA to get to a balanced budget (and start reducing debt) much quicker than the timeframes we are hearing out of DC. I favor an approach that includes both raising revenues and cutting spending.

You are totally off base on your comments about dividends and cash in corporations. The problem the USA has is too much consumption and not enough savings, at the individual, corporate and government level. So USA corporations have 2 trillion in cash. How much debt do they have? A hell of a lot more. This absence of net savings results in the USA having large current account deficits, and on us not having the savings to fund investment so that we have to rely on China et al, and so that we don't have the investment to grow as fast as we could.Tiny, please. It is very obvious what is going on with large, profitable public corporations. Cutting to the bone (and sometimes deeper) to funnel more and more cash back to executives and shareholders (AKA the wealthy, for the most part).

You raise a good point about debt. It really begs the question - why are profitable corporations more focused on raising dividends and executive compensation, than paying off debt?

As far as dividends going back to 39.6%, that day can't come soon enough. I do hope Obama doesn't bend on that one.

Tiny12

05-12-11, 02:19

Esten, I took WT69's advice. I just got laid. Honestly. I'm happy and content. I love you Esten!

Wild Walleye

05-12-11, 14:11

And you can spin anything any which way you like.

I believe I was the first to commend BHO for nailing UBL. It is the first incidence, since his election, in which it was clear to me that he was doing his job (however reluctantly (IMO) he made that choice). That said, most of the polls only show him getting a 1-3% bump out of the successful, targeted assassination of UBL. The AP poll is pretty sophomoric, only to be outdone by its own shoddy reporting of its own poll.

Not until the very end, in an after thought that isn't even within the prose of the article, do you get this:

"Still, his re-election is far from certain. And there are warning signs in the poll.

_Nearly two-thirds of people — 61 percent — disapprove of his handling on gas prices, even though there's little a president can do about them.

_Less than half give him positive marks on dealing with the federal budget deficit or taxes, two big upcoming issues."

So clear majorities disapprove of his handling of the economy, deficit, spending, taxes and the price of gas (which is 100% his fault since it is the falling dollar and not the rising cost of oil that is the problem). Gee, he should have no problem winning in 2012, when the price of a gallon of gas should be over $5 and unemployment will be somewhere between 8. 5.10. 5.

No matter what the polls and media say, you can't fool the people into believing that their day-to-day existence is other than what it really is. The week before BHO was inaugurated, it cost me about $38 to fill my gas tank. This morning, it cost me $80 to fill that same gas tank. The housing market is re-crashing, consumer credit is a thing of the past and prices of virtually all staples have risen dramatically (again Obama's fault for diluting the dollar).

GHW Bush was at a 91% approval rating (amazing that the press even printed that information) on the bump from the first Iraq War and was considered unbeatable so all of the big-name democrats bailed out of the race. Some no-name from Arkansas, who didn't have the sense to come in out of the rain, stuck it out and beat Bush (thanks in large prat to Ross Perot) and got a second term, four years later.

If the election was held today, anyone from Elmer Fudd to Homer J. Simpson could beat Obama, including both Newt and Sarah Palin (yep, read it and weep). No matter what the press says, the truth is you can't put UBL's dead carcass in your gas tank. UBL's passing isn't reducing the rates of unemployment and underemployment.

Anyone telling you that Obama is a shoe-in is a liar and / or living in a fantasy world.

Member #4112

05-12-11, 18:48

Just a note, the composition of of the poll by AP's own admission is 39% declared Democrats and 18% declared Republicans, a 2 to 1 margin. Talk about cherry picking and rigging the game!

Esten

05-13-11, 00:45

Tiny, you need to get laid more often...

Esten

05-13-11, 01:33

Tiny12

05-13-11, 02:40

As I understand it, Congress intends to treat the 5 largest oil companies differently from every other company in the USA. That's not fair. These "tax breaks" are available to all U.S. companies, not just oil companies.

Several of my friends were laid off by oil companies, because the companies were barely profitable or losing money from 1986 to 2000. I can think of 5 that were laid off by the majors that are the target of Congress right now. (A popular joke at the time: What do you call a geologist in Oklahoma City? Waiter!) Why do you want to preferentially screw people and companies in that industry and communities in places like Texas, Louisiana and Wyoming? Why do you think it's fair to take "excess" profits from commodity producers when the price of the commodity is high, but then tell them to go f___ themselves when the price is low?

And the CEO's were absolutely right in their testimony today. Higher taxes on oil producers in the USA will cause the USA to import more oil, to run a higher current account and trade deficit, and it will result in lower employment in the USA. If you are correct in saying that this will just effect Exxon to the tune of $1 billion then perhaps it is a small hit, AS LONG AS OIL STAYS OVER $90 A BARREL. But if $1 billion is a drop in the bucket, how significant is the $17 million that Tillerson is getting? And I still maintain it's not fair to treat these companies differently from other ones.

Esten, CNBC, which has conservative viewers, ran a poll today. 68% were on your side, saying Congress should punish the oil companies. Regardless of how this issue shakes out, that makes me damn glad there's a Constitution. I was at one time a card carrying member of the ACLU by the way. While that may seem totally unrelated to the matter at hand, the majority at times can be stupid, mean and vindictive, and there needs to be something standing between them and mob rule.

Wild Walleye

05-13-11, 14:13

The pathetic display of Big Oil executives before the Senate finance committee today is a perfect example of the choices large corporations have.

Take Exxon. Exxon makes close to 40B profit a year. Ending the tax breaks in question would reduce Exxon's profits by less than 1B. A small hit, but a hit nevertheless. You are ignoring several relevant facts (no surprise there). First, Exxon paid more than $78. 6B in taxes, worldwide including $15B in income taxes (to foreign governments) and more than $7. 7B of taxes (mostly sales taxes) paid to the US government. Their effective tax rate was more than 47%.

This doesn't include the US fuel excise tax paid by the customer. 18. 4 cents / gal for unleaded and 24. 4 cents / gal for diesel. Including state taxes, the total average excise taxes on gas, nationally, averages 49. 5 and 45. 6 for unleaded and diesel, respectively.

You are absolutely wrong on ever aspect of your argument. Hit the oil companies with more taxes and it goes straight to the customer, which will add to the inflation that your God has wreaked upon us.

If you're so pissed about profiteers paying no taxes, why not get on you soap box about GE?

Exxon could choose to respond to this by slightly scaling back future dividend hikes (which they have raised for 29 consecutive years). Or by slightly scaling back future share buybacks. But no, for these hugely profitable companies, that is simply out of the question. Why? Because a 47% effective tax rate isn't high enough? They are among the highest taxed industries on the planet. One of the major reasons that their profits are so high is that their revenue is denominated in OIL. If the value of the dollar falls, holders of dollars must pay more for the same amount of fuel. If their expenses are denominated in dollars, they (expenses) effectively go down while revenues rise (even without selling any more fuel). You want to know why their profits are so high? OBAMA! He's the one diluting the dollar.

CEO Rex Tillerson instead frames it as an inevitable downside for Americans:

He follows up that bs with this whopper:

Meanwhile, this joker just cashed in 17M worth of stock earlier this year. This guy is too much. His company is shooting the lights out, in part due to Obama, why shouldn't he get paid more for delivering record profits? I thought the object was to do better and reward success.

If you want to be mad at someone for earning money for nothing, be mad at Obama for the more than $10 million he has received for books he didn't write and hasn't written yet. At least Tillerson showed up to work and did the job for which he was paid.

You are a joke and an ideologue. You will never learn because you have closed your mind to information, facts and reality.

"Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?"

Wild Walleye

05-13-11, 14:29

As I understand it, Congress intends to treat the 5 largest oil companies differently from every other company in the USA. That's not fair. These "tax breaks" are available to all U.S. companies, not just oil companies.They aren't going to change thing. This whole thing is DOA. This theatrical performance is just that. It's all bullshit designed to be a distraction from the truth. It couldn't pass the Senate, let alone the House. It's just the Democrat-controlled Senate wasting time for partisan purposes over an imaginary $4B while they are directly responsible for their involvement in putting the country $14B in debt.

Several of my friends were laid off by oil companies, because the companies were barely profitable or losing money from 1986 to 2000. I can think of 5 that were laid off by the majors that are the target of Congress right now. (A popular joke at the time: What do you call a geologist in Oklahoma City? Waiter!) Why do you want to preferentially screw people and companies in that industry and communities in places like Texas, Louisiana and Wyoming?'cause they don't vote for BHO.

Why do you think it's fair to take "excess" profits from commodity producers when the price of the commodity is high, but then tell them to go f___ themselves when the price is low? 'cause he ain't smart enough to know better and is an ideologue.

And the CEO's were absolutely right in their testimony today. Higher taxes on oil producers in the USA will cause the USA to import more oil, to run a higher current account and trade deficit, and it will result in lower employment in the USA.Plus higher fuel prices, inflation, unemployment and despair. Just what BHO wants as he recasts the country to his vision of Amerika.

If you are correct in saying that this will just effect Exxon to the tune of $1 billion then perhaps it is a small hit, AS LONG AS OIL STAYS OVER $90 A BARREL. But if $1 billion is a drop in the bucket, how significant is the $17 million that Tillerson is getting? And I still maintain it's not fair to treat these companies differently from other ones.They would tax all fuel, therefor all companies and the cost to consumers would be many times the laughable and extremely poorly thought out estimate by the local BHO political officer. It only matters that it is fair in the eyes of our glorious leader.

The poor, suffering and dying minions forces into gulags under Stalin, viewed him as a deity and believed that he would be their savior. They also believed that Stalin must not know of their interment because he would never let it be, if he was aware of their plight. They died still believing.

Esten, CNBC, which has conservative viewers, ran a poll today. 68% were on your side, saying Congress should punish the oil companies. Regardless of how this issue shakes out, that makes me damn glad there's a Constitution. I was at one time a card carrying member of the ACLU by the way. While that may seem totally unrelated to the matter at hand, the majority at times can be stupid, mean and vindictive, and there needs to be something standing between them and mob rule.

Just goes to show you how stupid CNBC's viewership is.

Rev BS

05-13-11, 23:53

WW,

In summary, you are trying to say that Obama is stupid enough to want to "self destruct" for 2012?

Esten

05-14-11, 17:11

Exxon 2010 worldwide income before taxes was 57B. This includes 7.7B US income, on which it paid 1.3B in federal income taxes. So the effective rate was 17%.

This compares well with another report showing Exxon had an average 17.6% federal effective corporate tax rate on its annual earnings in the three years spanning 2008 to 2010.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-much-do-oil-companies-really-pay-in-taxes/2011/05/11/AF7UNutG_story_1.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/tax_man.html

Back in 2005, President Bush explained that the profit potential in the oil industry drives exploration, not the subsidies:

“With $55 oil we don’t need incentives to the oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives.”In 2005 Sen. Ron Wyden asked each CEO if he agreed with President Bush that companies did not need tax subsidies to encourage drilling when oil was selling for that price. Each said Bush was right and that subsidies were unnecessary.

Now in 2011 with $100 oil, these same executives now defend federal tax subsidies. A complete about-face from what these jokers said in 2005. With low corporate tax burdens and high oil prices there is simply no reason to continue them.

To defend these subsidies, which most Americans do not support, is hollow and disgraceful.

Tiny12

05-14-11, 20:24

In 2010, Exxon paid $9. 8 billion in USA taxes and received $7. 5 billion in net income from the US. Exxon's overall income tax rate (worldwide) was 40.7% of pre-tax income.

In 2009, Exxon paid $7. 7 billion in USA taxes and received $3. 5 billion in net income from the US. Exxon's overall income tax rate (worldwide) was 43.5% of pre-tax income.

In 2008, Exxon paid $13. 3 billion in USA taxes and recieved $8. 6 billion in net income from the US. Exxon's overall income tax rate (worldwide) was 43.8% of pre-tax income.

"Taxes" above include income taxes, property taxes, and severance taxes. I'd point out that only oil and gas companies are subject to severance tax -- other American businesses do not pay this tax.

You are calling tax deductions "subsidies". American businesses should not receive subsidies or preferential tax deductions. I'm all for eliminating all of them and lowering the corporate income tax rate from the current ridiculously-high rate of 35% to 45%. (The total percentage, federal plus state, varies depending on the state.) If you listened to the hearings last week, you'd know that Tillerson and one or two of the other CEO's of major oil companies indicated they'd have no problem with certain of the Democrat Senator's proposals, if they were applied to all of American industry.

Wild Walleye

05-14-11, 20:36

WW,

In summary, you are trying to say that Obama is stupid enough to want to "self destruct" for 2012? I don't think that I have ever said Obama is stupid. He clearly isn't and wasn't smart enough to get into Columbia or Harvard law on his own cerebral merits but, that's another issue all together.

He is an ideologue and possibly a narcissist. It isn't that he is stupid it is that he can't help himself.

Here is how the election will be framed next year: unemployment of 8.5 to 10% (depending upon what accounting tricks they try) and gas prices over $5 per gallon. In my opinion, no incumbent president would survive those numbers. Ask yourself, are you better off today or four years ago (adjusting for time, of course)? If Obama wants to eliminate those two elements from the debate and secure a second term, he will need to repudiate that for which he stands. I see that as unlikely. It is far more likely that he will just try to blame republicans for all the damage that he has done to the country and vilify the citizenry of known red states. In my opinion, this won't work.

He is too little a man to admit that he is wrong. In the end, that is what will deny him a second term.

Member #4112

05-15-11, 01:07

Just FYI to all our liberal friends. Exxon, the company not the monger, makes the about 7 cents a gallon profit on regular gasoline while the Federal Government taxes that same gallon of gasoline at 18. 4 cents. Seems the Fed is making over 150% more on every gallon of gas than the folks producing it. Of course they also get to tax the oil companies as well.

Estan I can tell by your posts you have no knowledge about accounting in the oil patch. I also doubt you have any idea of what it takes to produce a single gallon of gas. Be nice if you knew what you are talking about.

Stan Da Man

05-16-11, 22:31

I don't normally submit cut and paste, but the following excerpt is the best summary I've seen of the cause of the residential housing market collapse and, thus, the current recession. The author was on the financial crisis inquiry commission, headed by Phil Angelides. Anyone familiar with California politics knows who Phil Angelides is: Member of the boards of CALPERS and the California Teachers pension fund, as well as former California State Treasurer. If you had to count on one hand the five worst run public institutions in terms of finances, these three would be on that hand. So, obviously, Democrats thought this made him qualified to head the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. If it takes a thief to catch a thief, then surely one boob can spot another. Such is the state of these half-wits.

At any rate, here's the excerpt:

From the beginning, Fannie and Freddie's congressional charters required them to buy only mortgages that would be acceptable to institutional investors. In other words, prime mortgages. At the time, a prime mortgage was a loan with a 10-20 percent down payment, made to a borrower with a good credit record who had sufficient income to meet his or her debt obligations after the loan was made. Fannie and Freddie operated under these standards until 1992.

The 1992 affordable housing goals required that, of all mortgages Fannie and Freddie bought in any year, at least 30 percent had to be loans made to borrowers who were at or below the median income in the places where they lived. Over succeeding years, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) increased this requirement, first to 42 percent in 1995, to 50 percent in 2000, and finally to 55 percent in 2007. It is important to note, accordingly, that this occurred during both Democratic and Republican administrations.

At the 50 percent level, Fannie and Freddie had to acquire at least one goal-eligible loan for every prime loan that they acquired, and since not all subprime loans were goals-eligible Fannie and Freddie were in effect required to buy many more subprime loans than prime loans to meet the goals. As a result of this process, by 2008, Fannie and Freddie held the credit risk of 12 million subprime or otherwise risky loans. Almost 40 percent of their single-family book of business.

But this was not by any means the full extent of the problem. HUD took Congress's enactment of the affordable housing goals as an expression of a congressional policy to reduce underwriting standards so that low-income borrowers would have greater access to mortgage credit. As outlined in my dissent, by tightening the affordable housing goals, HUD put Fannie and Freddie into competition with the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) , a government agency with an explicit mission to provide credit to low-income borrowers, and with subprime lenders such as Countrywide, that had pledged to reduce underwriting standards in order to make more mortgage credit available to low-income borrowers. Moreover, all these organizations were joined by insured banks and S&Ls, which as noted above were required under the CRA to make mortgage credit available to borrowers who are at or below 80 percent of the median income in the areas where they live.

Of course, it is possible to find borrowers who meet prime loan standards among low-income families, but it is far more difficult to find such loans among these borrowers than among middle-income groups. And when Fannie, Freddie, FHA, subprime lenders like Countrywide, and insured banks and S&Ls are all competing to find loans to borrowers in the low-income category, the inevitable result was a significant deterioration in underwriting standards.

So, for example, while one in 200 mortgages involved a down payment of 3 percent or less in 1990, by 2007 it was one in less than three. Other credit standards had also declined. As a result of this government-induced competition, by 2008 19. 2 million out of the total of 27 million subprime and other weak loans in the USA financial system could be traced directly or indirectly to USA government housing policies.http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/13/the-true-story-of-the-financia

After reading this, and thinking about the housing market, you might ask yourself: Why hasn't the commercial market suffered similar difficulties? After all, those loans frequently are packaged up just like the residential market. If was the greedy baddies on Wall Street who were responsible, why can't the same problems be found on the commercial side? Sure, things have declined, but nothing like on the residential side.

The answer is that the commercial side didn't have the market distorting government regulations, and didn't have multiple government agencies set up to promote a multi-trillion dollar social and vote getting agenda.

I know the above won't convince some. But, those people are lost already and won't be convinced no matter what the caliber of the smoking gun.

The final travesty in all this is that Dodd Frank and Obama haven't seen fit to even try to fix the cause of this problem. Fannie and Freddie lose billions each month while Barney Frank and the Dems look for the "real killers" just like OJ.

Esten

05-17-11, 03:21

After reading this, and thinking about the housing market, you might ask yourself: Why hasn't the commercial market suffered similar difficulties? After all, those loans frequently are packaged up just like the residential market. If was the greedy baddies on Wall Street who were responsible, why can't the same problems be found on the commercial side? Sure, things have declined, but nothing like on the residential side.

The answer is that the commercial side didn't have the market distorting government regulations, and didn't have multiple government agencies set up to promote a multi-trillion dollar social and vote getting agenda. LOL. I barely have to lift my pinkie to refute this. Go back to my 10-05-10 post on the housing bubble (below). There was a commercial real estate bubble. A big one. And the right-wing argument about the GSEs is largely about their role in creating the bubble. It was the financial sector leverage to the bursting bubble that created the credit crunch and ensuing deep recession.

The latest news is that the HUD inspector general has found that large banks defrauded the FHA and violated the False Claims Act. These banks played a major role in the housing bubble and recession, and then, unbelievably, continued to screw the country through widespread improper foreclosures.

Ain't free-market capitalism great....

5. In addition, commercial real estate also experienced a giant bubble over the same period, but CRE is outside the scope of the GSEs. This provides evidence of a broad-based bubble fueled by other market forces, such as speculation.

http://mit.edu/cre/research/credl/rca.html

Esten

05-17-11, 03:52

Member #4112

05-17-11, 11:17

Esten, if your goal is to stop profiteering via oil futures speculation, it's pretty simple. You could stop it dead in its tracks by drastically increasing the margin required for the futures purchase.

For the life of me I can not see why you are so opposed to domestic production. California, Florida and the east coast should be opened to exploration. Did you know natural seepage from the oil deposits along the California coast releases as much oil each year as the Exxon Valdez incident in Alaska?

Doubt it? Go take a look at the seepage off San Diego and San Francisco alone.

Also all the hoopla from Obama about expanding leases really does not amount to much, since the lease only gives the company the right to attempt to locate petroleum and is no guarantee of finding it.

Tiny12

05-17-11, 13:59

Wild Walleye

05-17-11, 14:22

Very noteworthy last week was Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson's explanation for the rise in oil prices. I give him credit for being honest about it. With such a huge run-up in price over the past year, common sense would tell you there must be more in play than just supply and demand. But that didn't stop the right wing from peddling their explanation that it was all Obama's fault, for not supporting domestic production. Another crock, just like Fannie and Freddie.

ExxonMobil CEO Says Oil Price Should Be $60 To $70 A Barrel.

http://blogs.forbes.com/robertlenzner/2011/05/14/exxon-mobil-ceo-says-oil-price-should-be-60-70-a-barrel/

It is news worthy that since the week before Obama was inaugurated, spot oil prices vs. The dollar have increased a whopping 200. This is a great statistic to hang around the president's neck. It has nothing at all to do with 'speculators' and everything to do with this President's policies.

Market demand for oil has not appreciably increased over the past two years due to the global effects of Obama's Great Recession. Similarly, actual, current oil supply has not been drastically reduced (although Obama is doing his best to reduce it) , however, long-term production expectations have been damaged by this administration.

What has changed is the value of the dollar relative to the value of oil. The value of oil has remained steady while the value of the dollar has fallen. Therefore, it takes more dollars to buy a gallon of gas.

The cost of an ounce of gold and a pound of coffee have similarly increased 84% and 160, respectively. The price of a barrel of oil, expressed in ounces of gold, when the breadth and scope of the quantitative easing and loose monetary policy were becoming more evident (circa Jan 2010) , was. 0674 ounces of gold equaled one barrel of oil. In May 2011, a barrel of oil cost. 0741 ounces of gold or an increase of 3. 3% in the cost of oil versus gold. Therefore, the price of oil is maintaining its value as a rare and demanded global commodity while the value of the dollar, relative to the value of oil, has fallen. All the speculation has done is maintain oil's value in line with other valuable commodities.

By the way, it is of no consequence what an individual oil exec thinks the price of oil 'should' be nor does it establish the effect of speculators. The CEO of Shell believes, and is making long-term decisions based upon the premise that prices will stay above $100 / barrel.

Tiny12

05-17-11, 16:11

The CEO of Shell believes, and is making long-term decisions based upon the premise that prices will stay above $100 / barrel.Exxon under both Raymond and Tillerson has been pessimistic about the future price of oil. Raymond was predicting $20 / barrel for about right now.

Esten

05-18-11, 01:29

Doppel, I don't recall weighing in before on domestic oil production. I am not strongly opposed to it. What I do feel strongly about is (i) it should not be done in a way that takes us on a path to depleting our resources much faster than other countries, and (ii) it should be accompanied by large investments in renewable energy.

As far as higher margin requirements, I'm no expert here but seemed to work for silver. Unclear to what extent recent margin hikes for crude oil are responsible for the recent price drop. There should be pressure to limit speculation and keep oil / gas prices down up to the 2012 elections, time will tell whether that is successful or not.

Member #4112

05-18-11, 14:19

Esten you are such a hoot! 'Renewable Energy', I guess you are referring to Wind and Solar which are the darlings of the Greenies.

Well let's see, Wind and Solar amounted to less than 2% of the US's energy needs per the government's own stats. Of course neither Wind nor Solar is dependable or economically feasible. Without substantial government subsidies, both in the form of direct cash payments from the government and tax write offs that would send you into a conniption fit if they were applied to the mean old oil companies these 'pipe dreams' would not exist.

We are a fossil fuel world and until someone can comes up with the next better and financially feasible energy source it is where we will stay. I know it gives folks a warm fuzzy to see those mirrors and windmills out there but it's a joke and a bad one at that.

Next thing you are going to tell me is you believe oil came from dinosaur carcasses.

Esten

05-18-11, 22:54

We are a fossil fuel world and until someone can comes up with the next better and financially feasible energy source it is where we will stay. An astute observation. And I might add, demand keeps increasing while supplies keep decreasing (or getting harder to obtain, take your pick). By many accounts, we will need to become significantly less dependent on oil in the next century. These are strong arguments why we should be investing in and developing a renewable energy economy now.

Doppel,

Some folks look out for their fellow man and for the future. Others just look out for themselves. Which camp are you in?

Toymann

05-19-11, 04:28

We are having way more fun over on the Golden Pussy Thread (Overpriced Chica Derangement Syndrome). Come on over and esposse your dos centavos. You're liberal dribble is getting kinda old dude!

LMAO. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Member #3320

05-19-11, 06:23

When is this thread getting closed.

Instead of talking of chicas, all you fellas are just lamenting on politics.

Member #4112

05-19-11, 10:56

Esten, since I fall on the side that believes no good deed goes unpunished; it should be obvious which camp.

All I can say is God save us from folks who want to do the 'right thing' and want to drag all the rest of us along with them no matter what we may think. All Hail the Ruling Elite!

Are you aware of the theory petroleum is a naturally occurring product of nature and is still being produced? This might explain finding oil where the geology is 'wrong' and the failure of many fields' reserves to diminish at the rates originally predicted.

Esten, folks in the environmental / global warming movement are like the Renaissance Man after the Middle Ages, they believed all those before them were woefully ignorant and viewed them as Neanderthal. Trust me in 50 years the folks then are going to look back at us and consider our great environmental thinkers as Neanderthal. It's just the nature of man to believe each generation is at the pinnacle of knowledge.

Monger on Dude!

Stan Da Man

05-19-11, 14:20

When is this thread getting closed.

Instead of talking of chicas, all you fellas are just lamenting on politics. A little jealous?

Hint: Don't click the link if you're not interested. There are plenty of great discussion threads elsewhere. No one forced your mouse pointer to hover over this thread and depress the left-click.

And, there are plenty here who do participate in other threads. Walleye does, for sure. Toymann pops in every once in a while, posts a comment, and then manages to find all the other threads. I have on occasion. But, I'm not a budget monger, so my views don't resonate with the rest of the gang, and I try to keep my thoughts on chicas and pricing to myself, which isn't always possible.

The debates on how much you should pay a chica aren't terribly productive, in my opinion. The same could be said of debates about politics, such as those found here. But you don't see the folks posting here on pricing threads asking that they be shut down.

Good luck to you. Hopefully, though, we won't bother you too much with all this nasty political ruckus.

Rev BS

05-19-11, 20:19

Capitalism and consumerism. Yes, they are the best of the ISMs. They are in our DNA, it's what we are weaned on, but do they make us happy or contented. Some for sure. I quote Saluk Sivaraksa (a Eastern quack, some will proclaim) ,

"Real success is not to conquer others, not to have more cars and money, but to appreciate what you have and how to share with others".

Multi-nationals, and globalization, they are the new colonial masters and religion, and the values they imposed, most are unable to resisit, in fact, they are blind passionate converts.

Not a greenie, but it's the parks and natural beauty in cities and countries I visit that I enjoy the most, not the malls and the latest gadgets.

WorldTravel69

05-20-11, 05:33

I hope you watched this:

Bill Maher interview with Jimmy Carter on HBO last year. It seems to have been censored.

Rev BS

05-20-11, 18:21

Wild Walleye

05-23-11, 15:30

TejanoLibre

05-23-11, 18:20

We all know that anyone who voted against Obama in 2008 did so out of racism, trying to deny him his place in history as the first black president. Therefore, anyone voting to deny Obama any historic first must be racist.

I certainly hope that won't be the case in 2012 and that everyone can put racism aside next year supporting Obama in pursuit of another historic first. For the good of the nation and the world at large, it is incumbent upon all voters to join me supporting Obama in becoming the first black former president.

Who Cares !

As long as he has some hot CHICAS like FLOR to recommend on this site he's got my vote!

If I could vote that is!

And if I gave a shit about politics!

I seem to remember a little guy in Europe with a funny little mustache that had a vision of a UNIFIED EUROPE and a world free of COMMUNISIM!

Guess what?

Europe is ALMOST unified and the world is ALMOST free of communism!

The European Union is almost complete but that country is paying everyone's debt!

Guess which country will be the Head of State?

Best cars in the world too!

Volkswagon will be the number one car company in the world within 5 years too!

Bought Audi and Porche while the rest are falling down the drain!

But oh yeah, we were talking about the USA!

Like I said, who cares?

I live in BA and will always keep BA as my headquarters and base of operations!

TL.

P. S. This is why I NEVER post about Politics!

Not my specialty and and not what I give a SHIT ABOUT !

AND not what this site is about !

Chezz

05-24-11, 01:18

Wild Walleye

05-24-11, 03:39

That's one of the funniest posts I've ever read. Couldn't possibly be because of personal beliefs, values, etc. Had to be I has goaded to voting for Obama because I was afraid of being labled a racist. Ponderous.

Truth be told, you can count on Obama being re-elected if the GOP trots out one of their in-house wackos, ie: Palin, Trump, Bachmann, et al. $5 gas. 3+ year old Obama recession? I stand by my prediction that Homer Simpson could beat Obama. It isn't that he is unbeatable, he is currently unelectable.

Rev BS

05-24-11, 03:45

Are you ready for another black president? Herman Cain, very articulate right now. Let's see how poise he is down the road? I am just tired of the retreads that the GOP puts out. As far as Sarah Palin goes, please!Look, I am only being facetious about the color issue, but I think Obama vs Cain should be very, very, very, very intriguing. The minorities will finally be challenged. And it will put the American brand of democracy on another orbit, and we can be very proud of ourselves.

Wild Walleye

05-24-11, 13:10

That's one of the funniest posts I've ever read.I hear that a lot.

Couldn't possibly be because of personal beliefs, values, etc.In the case of Obama, no it can't be. He has none. Perhaps, erudite Oldnewbie, you can be the first ever to specifically articulate any of BHO's redeeming personal beliefs, values and / or etc.

Had to be I has goaded to voting for Obama because I was afraid of being labled a racist.Sadly, it seems no one goaded you into attending English class.

Ponderous.Yes, your statement is dull laborious and clumsy. However, it is preposterous to claim anything other than the fact that the left has sought to cast virtually all opposition to Obama and his policies as being based on racism. Anyone asking any type of substantive question of the chosen one, particularly during the campaign was painted with the racism brush. There is empirical, statistical evidence that people routinely lied in polls leading up the the 2008 election and exit polls immediate following the election out of fear of being viewed as racist for not having cast a vote for BHO. What do you call that?

Truth be told, you can count on Obama being re-elected if the GOP trots out one of their in-house wackos, ie: Palin, Trump, Bachmann, et al.Already covered this one.

Welcome back, Oldnewbie.

Chezz

05-24-11, 13:19

I hear that a lot.

In the case of Obama, no it can't be. He has none. Perhaps, erudite Oldnewbie, you can be the first ever to specifically articulate any of BHO's redeeming personal beliefs, values and / or etc.

Sadly, it seems no one goaded you into attending English class.

Yes, your statement is dull laborious and clumsy. However, it is preposterous to claim anything other than the fact that the left has sought to cast virtually all opposition to Obama and his policies as being based on racism. Anyone asking any type of substantive question of the chosen one, particularly during the campaign was painted with the racism brush. There is empirical, statistical evidence that people routinely lied in polls leading up the the 2008 election and exit polls immediate following the election out of fear of being viewed as racist for not having cast a vote for BHO. What do you call that?

Already covered this one.

Welcome back, Oldnewbie. Had to come back for a second shot, huh? Ever make a typo or grammatical error?

Doesn't take much to get under your skin.

Wild Walleye

05-24-11, 13:26

Clearly, a black GOP nominee would disenfranchise democrat voters who are too dim to figure out which black candidate is the one that the Left has handpicked for the purpose of continuing the wholesale exploitation of minorities for political purposes. The Left would seek to have Justice Thomas recuse himself, due to a conflict of interests, being black and all. Further, since we all know that white, conservative men are racists due to defective chromosomes, Roberts, Scalia and Alito will have to be excused. Just to be fair, they'll leave Kennedy, who's a white guy but clearly not conservative despite being appointed by Reagan.

So the court will be comprised of Ginsberg, Sotomyor, Kagan and Kennedy who will no doubt side with the plaintiffs and bar the GOP from nominating a black candidate. If left unchecked, allowing the GOP to brazenly select a candidate, specifically for the purposes of disenfranchising democrat voters, would be tantamount to a tacit approval of individual rights, including the right to vote, for non-statist republicans and conervatives.

Wild Walleye

05-24-11, 13:34

Had to come back for a second shot, huh? Ever make a typo or grammatical error? Me no mistake make, ever.

Doesn't take much to get under your skin.I have rhino skin. That said, if you've read the forum, you'll see that once in a while, I'll jump at the opportunity for a little verbal (written or oral) sparring, lest my *****-slapping skills get rusty.

It's OK, I know you suffer from lackofhumoritis, being a lefty an all, so I'll let you in on the secret that I am messing with you for comedic purposes. It's nothing personal.

Dccpa

05-24-11, 20:13

I hear that a lot.

In the case of Obama, no it can't be. He has none. Perhaps, erudite Oldnewbie, you can be the first ever to specifically articulate any of BHO's redeeming personal beliefs, values and / or etc.

WW it is very easy to list BHO's beliefs.

1. BHO.

2. BHO.

3. BHO.

Oh wait, you said redeeming personal beliefs, values and / or etc. Okay, here is my new list.

1.

2.

3.

Regarding what the left is doing to the blacks, I believe Randy Newman said it best in a song and the title wasn't Short People.

Canitasguy

05-25-11, 01:58

Thanks to Paul Ryan and the Republicans' brilliant plan to kill Medicare (which is endorsed by most of the policy experts on this forum) in a special Congressional election today in upstate New York, the Democrat won!

The district is as red as they come. It went for W over Kerry, for McCain over Obama and even for the whack job Paladino over Cuomo.

Karl Rove and the right wing money bags spent hundreds of thousands on ads trying to save the seat.

The number one issue was that the Republican candidate had supported Ryan's kill Medicare plan. The Democrat hung that support around her neck. In response, older voters. D, R and I. Turned out in droves and voted Democratic!

So fellow mongers. I got some bad news and good news, both based on today's election and what is going on with national Republicans.

Republican national leaders are pushing budget cuts that are out of step with public opinion. They refuse to consider tax increases for the wealthiest that almost 80% of Americans favor. They are so opposed to everything and anything Obama, they risk alienating independents who do not like non-stop negativism. They have assembled one of the weakest roster of presidential candidates in party history.

So, the bad news from your view. Obama is very likely going to be re-elected!

But the good news is. You all will have four more years to rant and rave!

Rev BS

05-25-11, 03:16

Rock Harders

05-25-11, 07:19

Mongers-

The blowback begins: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_usa_campaign_newyork

Suerte,

RH

Jackson

05-25-11, 16:55

Mongers-

The blowback begins:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_usa_campaign_newyork

Suerte,

RHBlowback? Yea, right.

More like a fart in a wind storm.

Kathy Hochul won because third-party millionaire candidate Jack Davis, who ran twice before for the same seat as a Dem, and this time ran as a self-proclaimed but unofficial Tea Party candidate, drew 8 percent of the vote.

I suggest that Mr. Davis is and always has been a Democrat, and that he specifically ran his own self-funded campaign as an unofficial Tea Party candidate specifically to "split" the ticket by siphoning off some otherwise conservative voters, thus handing Hochul a 2 point win.

You can bet that the Republicans and the Tea Party will not let that happen in the 2012 Presidential election.

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

05-26-11, 18:09

Mongers-

The blowback begins:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_usa_campaign_newyork

Suerte,

RHAs Jax pointed out, the game-changer was Davis and his deliberate actions to defraud the voters. Nothing new for the left. No one is buying the line that it was anything else. Quite to the contrary, Hochul campaigned against Obamacare (at least the part the gutted Medicare of $500B). Not much of an endorsement of BHO. Rather, it looks like more blow back from BHO's overreaching on healthcare.

That doesn't excuse the republican of doing a shitty job educating the voters about himself and Davis' phony campaign.

Member #4112

06-12-11, 16:18

No one has posted here in a while so I thought I would point out my earlier prediction Obama's poll numbers would plummet after the euphoria of Osama's death had passed and the 900 pound debt gorilla in the room made his presence known again.

The man has received warnings from all the ratings agencies that matter, even the Chinese threw in their 2 cents, that continued deficient spending is unsustainable but he still does not get it. Obama still wants to spend more than we take in on every Democratic wet dream that comes down the pike.

As we approach the 2012 election cycle the economy is stalling, unemployment is up again and ObamaCare is on the ropes and looking as if it will be heard by the Supreme Court and struck down during the middle of the cycle. What is really scary is the bag of tricks the Democrats use to push the economy in the short term have been used and the bag is empty, we are drowning in debt and no help is in site.

Stan Da Man

06-13-11, 11:38

This is a long read.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/10/when-government-jumps-the-shark/

But, it's the best description I've seen recently of the life cycle associated with Obama-style progressive policies: Social Security, farm subsidies, medicaid, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Obamacare, and many others. They start out as small, well-meaning, lefty-do-gooder-feel-good projects and eventually morph into unsustainable beasts.

This is what we see with Social Security, Medicaid and Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac today. They are failed liberal programs. But, you can't touch them without getting viciously attacked by the left. Witness Paul Ryan's fate after trying to address medicare, or the Republican effort to include Fannie / Freddie in the Dodd-Frank talks.

Unfortunately, the author's conclusion if we don't act is inevitable. The whole thing will collapse in upon itself. It's just a matter of when.

Toymann

06-13-11, 15:34

Wild Walleye

06-14-11, 12:30

Perhaps the frequency of posts is inversely related to Obama's reelection chances.

One of the major problems with Congress (primarily the left but the right doesn't get a pass either) is that they have become a ruling class. They are out for themselves and their benefactors and not for the good of the nation and without true patriotic fidelity in their actions. Add to that the fact that very few of them have ever worked an honest job and still fewer have ever run a business. Because lying and deceiving have come to be accepted as qualities in a politician, black and white subjects, like accounting, have become blurred.

I doubt that many in Congress, past or present, that have voted to create these gigantic entitlement programs were completely unaware of the inevitable consequences that they set in motion or cared that there programs were unsustainable, from the start. It doesn't take a genius to realize that when you commit to pay someone, who is no longer paying into the system, periodic payments of a fixed amount, to be funded out of the operating cash flow and not from the proceeds of invested funds, you will eventually hit the wall when disbursements exceed receipts. If the population grows and then shrinks, you have guaranteed that there will come a time when disbursements exceed receipts, unless you raise taxes. Similarly, I would expect that most members of congress understand that the government is one of the most inefficient organizations ever created and the byzantine operating procedures and regulation almost guarantee that something done by the federal government will be inherently less efficient than if it were done by private enterprise. Yet they will look into the camera and tell you that the government will do it better and cheaper than the private sector. Show me one example of this ever being true.

Then why would they vote for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Obamacare and the like?

*Tangent #1* I'm not saying that there isn't a moral obligation for us to care for those who can't care for themselves, but everyone of these programs is a cluster f*ck costing taxpayers far more than simple solutions that would give the recipients better results. But that is a debate for another day*end of tangent #1*

The answer is political expediency, lust for power, quid pro quo and greed. You might notice that conspicuously absent from that list of motivations are: 'for the good of the country' and 'to truly help those in need. ' You see, long ago, the ruling class discovered that there is a time warp between the pace at which things get announced and trumpeted in Washington and the time in which the negative effects of those policies are felt by the voters. By the time the unpleasant repercussions start to impact voters, the national discourse has changed, the politicians will wave off past actions like trying to disperse a fart, knowing all the time that there is very little likelihood that it will negatively impact their chances for reelection and continuing to drain the national coffers for their own personal benefit. Therefore, they get to bask in the glow of adulation from the leftist media and escape all responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

*Tangent #2* This is why members of congress, like Weiner, do the things they do with impunity."I can vote to destroy the greatest economy in the history of mankind and not be held responsible for it, therefore, I'll never get called out for send a few shots of my weiner to underage girls." You can also add in names like Murtha Cunningham (a republican, BTW) , Pelosi, Reid and countless others who have act unethically, if not illegally, who no expectation of ever being held accountable*end of tangent #2*

Further, politicians exploit the notoriously weak collective American memory and miraculously get voters to vote for tripe that has been proven to be junk many, many times. When was the last time a feckless, socialist, American-apologist ran for president and was elected, at a time a great economic hardship? 1976. What happened? It was a disaster. Thirty two years later, the American public made the same mistake trying to solve a recession with Keynesian, neo-solcialist band aids that have already been proven not to work.

Then these political scum imbue upon themselves the right to lie, dissemble and distort with impunity and so long as they belong to a certain political class, they will never be called out by the media and therefore most Americans will never know that the line of BS that they just got fed was complete crap. For instance, more than a few stated that Obamacare will cost less than doing nothing. Not only is this not true, those speaking those lines knew it to be false as it passed over their lips. Accountability? None."Pass this stimulus bill (read: 8-yr backlog of Democrat payoffs) and unemployment won't go above 8%." Accountability? None. These are pretty big whoppers that effect each and every American. For the nearly 20% of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, these are very dark times, the type of which destroys people and families. Yet, not a voice is to be heard calling for the ruling class to be held accountable. No one from the mainstream media has the time to look into these matters, however, they can scramble legions of workers and dispatch them to Juneau to sift through thousands of emails sent and received by the former governor, who today is a private citizen and not a candidate for any office.

When you add the time warp to a malleable public with a faulty memory and dishonest media, you get a dangerous cocktail that almost assures making the same mistake over and over again. While that is a pretty depressing synopsis of the past, there is hope. Due in large part to the unimaginable suffering wrought upon so many Americans by this president and the Pelosi-Reid congress, Americans are getting more involved and are starting to hold elected officials accountable. As much as last November's election was a referendum on all things Obama, it was also an indication that the formerly sluggish and docile electorate is starting to keep score and demand accountability.

Rev BS

06-14-11, 19:16

Argento

06-14-11, 19:45

Perhaps the frequency of posts is inversely related to Obama's reelection chances.

One of the major problems with Congress (primarily the left but the right doesn't get a pass either) is that they have become a ruling class. They are out for themselves and their benefactors and not for the good of the nation and without true patriotic fidelity in their actions. Add to that the fact that very few of them have ever worked an honest job and still fewer have ever run a business. Because lying and deceiving have come to be accepted as qualities in a politician, black and white subjects, like accounting, have become blurred.

I doubt that many in Congress, past or present, that have voted to create these gigantic entitlement programs were completely unaware of the inevitable consequences that they set in motion or cared that there programs were unsustainable, from the start. It doesn't take a genius to realize that when you commit to pay someone, who is no longer paying into the system, periodic payments of a fixed amount, to be funded out of the operating cash flow and not from the proceeds of invested funds, you will eventually hit the wall when disbursements exceed receipts. If the population grows and then shrinks, you have guaranteed that there will come a time when disbursements exceed receipts, unless you raise taxes. Similarly, I would expect that most members of congress understand that the government is one of the most inefficient organizations ever created and the byzantine operating procedures and regulation almost guarantee that something done by the federal government will be inherently less efficient than if it were done by private enterprise. Yet they will look into the camera and tell you that the government will do it better and cheaper than the private sector. Show me one example of this ever being true.

Then why would they vote for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Obamacare and the like?

*Tangent #1* I'm not saying that there isn't a moral obligation for us to care for those who can't care for themselves, but everyone of these programs is a cluster f*ck costing taxpayers far more than simple solutions that would give the recipients better results. But that is a debate for another day*end of tangent #1*

The answer is political expediency, lust for power, quid pro quo and greed. You might notice that conspicuously absent from that list of motivations are: 'for the good of the country' and 'to truly help those in need. ' You see, long ago, the ruling class discovered that there is a time warp between the pace at which things get announced and trumpeted in Washington and the time in which the negative effects of those policies are felt by the voters. By the time the unpleasant repercussions start to impact voters, the national discourse has changed, the politicians will wave off past actions like trying to disperse a fart, knowing all the time that there is very little likelihood that it will negatively impact their chances for reelection and continuing to drain the national coffers for their own personal benefit. Therefore, they get to bask in the glow of adulation from the leftist media and escape all responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

*Tangent #2* This is why members of congress, like Weiner, do the things they do with impunity."I can vote to destroy the greatest economy in the history of mankind and not be held responsible for it, therefore, I'll never get called out for send a few shots of my weiner to underage girls." You can also add in names like Murtha Cunningham (a republican, BTW) , Pelosi, Reid and countless others who have act unethically, if not illegally, who no expectation of ever being held accountable*end of tangent #2*

Further, politicians exploit the notoriously weak collective American memory and miraculously get voters to vote for tripe that has been proven to be junk many, many times. When was the last time a feckless, socialist, American-apologist ran for president and was elected, at a time a great economic hardship? 1976. What happened? It was a disaster. Thirty two years later, the American public made the same mistake trying to solve a recession with Keynesian, neo-solcialist band aids that have already been proven not to work.

Then these political scum imbue upon themselves the right to lie, dissemble and distort with impunity and so long as they belong to a certain political class, they will never be called out by the media and therefore most Americans will never know that the line of BS that they just got fed was complete crap. For instance, more than a few stated that Obamacare will cost less than doing nothing. Not only is this not true, those speaking those lines knew it to be false as it passed over their lips. Accountability? None."Pass this stimulus bill (read: 8-yr backlog of Democrat payoffs) and unemployment won't go above 8." Accountability? None. These are pretty big whoppers that effect each and every American. For the nearly 20% of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, these are very dark times, the type of which destroys people and families. Yet, not a voice is to be heard calling for the ruling class to be held accountable. No one from the mainstream media has the time to look into these matters, however, they can scramble legions of workers and dispatch them to Juneau to sift through thousands of emails sent and received by the former governor, who today is a private citizen and not a candidate for any office.

When you add the time warp to a malleable public with a faulty memory and dishonest media, you get a dangerous cocktail that almost assures making the same mistake over and over again. While that is a pretty depressing synopsis of the past, there is hope. Due in large part to the unimaginable suffering wrought upon so many Americans by this president and the Pelosi-Reid congress, Americans are getting more involved and are starting to hold elected officials accountable. As much as last November's election was a referendum on all things Obama, it was also an indication that the formerly sluggish and docile electorate is starting to keep score and demand accountability.Calvin Coolidge got it exactly and completely in 1914.

"The normal must care for themselves".

Argento

Stan Da Man

06-14-11, 21:14

Calvin Coolidge got it exactly and completely in 1914.

"The normal must care for themselves".

ArgentoI agree to a point. But, I wouldn't say he got it completely right. Many of these progressive entitlement programs start with the notion that everyone will pay for themselves. You pay into social security when you're young and collect when you're old. You pay unemployment tax and can collect if you should happen to get laid off. There are other programs like this, as well, and there also are blatant handouts like Fannie and Freddie become once legislators mandate that they loan money to non-creditworthy people.

Next these programs morph into "the normal must pay for themselves and everyone else." At that point, folks begin to grumble and complain. But, there's no one in particular to grumble and complain against. The government is playing Robbing Hood, taking from the "normal" and giving to the "abnormal"

Then, you get to the point where the normal must pay for everyone else and expect nothing in return. This is what Coolidge was talking about. We see this with the social security concepts that are being bandied about even by some conservatives. Social security will be means tested. Those who make too much won't qualify. In other words, they'll just pay for everyone else and get nothing in return. They must take care of themselves. We've reached this point because these programs are such utter failures that this is the last phase before it collapses. Liberals will act aghast when anyone suggests that social security be taken away or benefits limited. But it's only because they don't realize that the light at the end of the tunnel is, in fact, a train coming at them.

Then, you get to that last stage where there's not enough in the pockets for Robbing Hood to pick. The normal are incapable of taking care of everyone else. Yet the government insists that they do, because that's what the progressives promised way back when these programs were set up. This is where Greece is today. It's where we're headed.

Wild Walleye

06-15-11, 15:13

WW,

Your editoral was slanted as usual, nothing wrong with that, we know your politics.

I do agree with your take on Congress, but the morality and ethics of the ruling class is a direct reflection of the American culture. Just watch American tv for a few days. Consumers are max out on credit. 2nd mortgages have crushed out any equity, and graduates have student loans millstones. Single parents, drugs, high prison and criminal records. It's all about the money and of course, the fame.

So we have American presidential candidates like John Edwards, and even Newt Gingrich! And then, there is American heroes like Bart Favre, Roger Clemons, Barry Bonds, and oh, no, no, no, please, it cannot be, Lance Armstrong.

So America is getting the leadership they deserve. This is 2011. Why would honest, capable people volunteer to jump into the cesspool that is American politics?

Let's look at the example of Sarah Palin. Ignore policy differences for the moment and try to clear your heads of the media distortions about this woman. She's a regular person who works hard, gets ahead and learns from her mistakes. She is principled and has a significant record of accomplishments and integrity. She is, and was, far more qualified to be president than Obama. As far as we can tell (and she's been vetted more thoroughly than any democrat (or republican for that matter) candidate for president in history) there is little or no hypocrisy between her positions and the way she leads her personal and professional lives. When she burst onto the scene, she had "future president" written all over her. She immediately connected with huge numbers of American's desirous for candidates that lead by example and do as they say. Go to youtube and watch her first two speeches when McCain announced her selection to join the ticket. She was straight-shooting and reminiscent of Reagan. My immediate impression was that we should dump McCain and put her at the top of the ticket and Palin 2012. Not because she belonged in Mensa but because she came right out and stated her conservative positions, based upon personal responsibility and American Exceptionalism.

That is exactly why she was savaged by the liberal media. They had to destroy her. They feared her. They still do. The McCain campaign then put her under lock and key and prevented her from continuing to shoot straight or defending herself, in the face of an unprecedented, coordinated attack by the media to destroy her personally and as a candidate (then and in the future). Ironically, those who were supposed to help her helped to harm her. Yet, here we are, almost three years later, and she's survived, in fact, she's thrived. She is now a likely republican 'king maker. ' During that same period of time, Katie Couric has managed to put the final nails in the coffin for the once venerable CBS news franchise.

It is important to understand what your opponent fears most, because it is indicative of its weakness and how to defeat it.

Again, looking at this example, regardless of ideology, why would people of integrity volunteer to become the personal pinatas of the mainstream media?

Argento

06-15-11, 19:41

I agree to a point. But, I wouldn't say he got it completely right. Many of these progressive entitlement programs start with the notion that everyone will pay for themselves. You pay into social security when you're young and collect when you're old. You pay unemployment tax and can collect if you should happen to get laid off. There are other programs like this, as well, and there also are blatant handouts like Fannie and Freddie become once legislators mandate that they loan money to non-creditworthy people.

Next these programs morph into "the normal must pay for themselves and everyone else." At that point, folks begin to grumble and complain. But, there's no one in particular to grumble and complain against. The government is playing Robbing Hood, taking from the "normal" and giving to the "abnormal"

Then, you get to the point where the normal must pay for everyone else and expect nothing in return. This is what Coolidge was talking about. We see this with the social security concepts that are being bandied about even by some conservatives. Social security will be means tested. Those who make too much won't qualify. In other words, they'll just pay for everyone else and get nothing in return. They must take care of themselves. We've reached this point because these programs are such utter failures that this is the last phase before it collapses. Liberals will act aghast when anyone suggests that social security be taken away or benefits limited. But it's only because they don't realize that the light at the end of the tunnel is, in fact, a train coming at them.

Then, you get to that last stage where there's not enough in the pockets for Robbing Hood to pick. The normal are incapable of taking care of everyone else. Yet the government insists that they do, because that's what the progressives promised way back when these programs were set up. This is where Greece is today. It's where we're headed. Re-read the quote. Coolidge expected people who were normal to pay their taxes and he expressly was in favour of supporting people who were disadvantaged socially, physically and mentally. And why wouldn't you if you had an ounce of humanity. And he went to bat for these people. He was against middle-class welfare, complex support packages such as the USA has for agriculture still, against industry subsidies rife in the USA; in short he believed that such supports were a tax on the rest of the population. Non-the-less, he progressively reduced company and lower salaried workers taxation through-out his presidency precisely because he reduced the pork that really is responsible for the complex mess that the USA tax system represents. He liked transparency, was against the USA involving itself in foreign military adventures and in other country's sovereign business and believed in and supported a strong military. And when he left the presidency, the military was stronger, taxation receipts were higher and the USA was an admired country.

So pray tell after 80 odd years which political party got it wrong? In my estimation both parties should hang their heads in shame. Reagan is about the only one who tried hard to stop the shit and he got as much support as Coolidge did. Very little and grudgingly.

Argento

Stan Da Man

06-15-11, 20:57

Re-read the quote. Coolidge expected people who were normal to pay their taxes and he expressly was in favour of supporting people who were disadvantaged socially, physically and mentally. And why wouldn't you if you had an ounce of humanity. Easy. Because these same people were better off before the government began "taking care" of them.

First, let's parse this out. You identified three groups. Those who are "disadvantaged" socially, physically and mentally. No one is talking about the latter two, the physically handicapped or the mentally retarded. We're talking about those who are "socially" disadvantaged.

Second, we're not talking about whether I, other citizens, or whether a church or civic group has enough "humanity" as you put it to take care of the socially disadvantaged. We're talking about whether the government should force me, you or the rest of the country to take care of the socially disadvantaged.

Third, no one is saying that the government has no role. Many others here, including myself, agree that the government's responsibility is to ensure that all individuals, including the socially disadvantaged, have opportunities To better their stations. Frankly, I think you would be hard pressed to point to another country where all individuals have as many opportunities to advantage themselves as exist in the United States.

So, to get to your point: No, the government shouldn't have the right to force me to tend to the socially disadvantaged. The government should do the minimum necessary to ensure that opportunities exist for all, and then get out of the way. Doing more is self-defeating because the government does nothing well. If I read your reference to Reagan correctly, I think we agree on most of this. His goal was to reduce the size of government, which is the opposite of the current president's view. And, lest I be accused of being too partisan, I will agree that George Bush the 2nd didn't do a darn thing to reduce the size of government and was not a fiscal conservative. He was a social conservative, which I don't support, either.

Speaking of our current president, here's an interesting clip. This is Obama stating that if he didn't fix the economy by the end of his first three years in office that he would be a one-term president.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/06/15/flashback_obama_on_economy_in_2009_i_will_be_held_accountable.html

He's got six more months until the jig's up. But, recently I've notice how much more enlightened he's become since then. He didn't realize just how bad everything was when he made those statements. It's still all George Bush's fault. Well, that's a little overbroad. It's all George Bush's fault except for the auto bailouts and Cash for Clunkers programs that Obama thinks he can take credit for. Oh, Americans hate ObamaCare because those mean Republicans are spreading lies and calling it ObamaCare rather than PPACA. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Argento

06-15-11, 23:52

Easy. Because these same people were better off before the government began "taking care" of them.

In Coolidge's time, ie. 80 years ago, the quality of life for all Americans measurably improved and their tax burdens were lessened by the instigation of his policies. And that is what I am referencing. You are the one that sought to extend the polemic. So as regards Coolidge and his quote, you are simply incorrect. So if you applied the same policies today, there certainly would be a beginning to the end of the bullshit that permeates tax and social programs in the USA. But fat chance I would say. The US economy and the U$ drachma will continue their fall unless radical change comes about. So I'd be looking for a new Coolidge. That fat guy from New Jersey could be a candidate. He doesn't take too many prisoners and appears to have a point of view that is not focused on the principle of popularity.

Argento

Jackson

06-16-11, 01:07

On Monday, Obama made the following statement while speaking at a "Jobs Council"

"Shovel-ready was not as 'shovel-ready' as we expected."

Gee, who knew that there was no such thing as a "shovel-ready" project?

Only everyone involved in the public works industry, that's who.

I knew the day Obama announced his stimulas plan that he couldn't possibly actually spend billions of dollars on public works projects on any timetable that would create jobs today or in the immediate future. It's elementary: Public works programs don't get to "shovel-ready" status until well after the funding has been secured. Prior to the funding, you do the preliminary planing, the engineering and cost estimating, then you get public approval, and then you secure the funding. After the funding has been secured, you then do the final engineering, the final environmental impact studies, the land acquisition, and the contract bidding process, all of which typically takes many months and usually years, assuming that nothing holds up the process (like environmentalists contesting the findings of your impact studies, or property owners protesting their assessments, or archaeologists finding an old arrowhead in the project's path, etc.).

Fortunately, less than 6% of the stimulus plan was budgeted for these non-existent "shovel-ready" projects, although they certainly sold it as a much higher percentage.

Unfortunately, these "shovel-ready" expenditures represented the only portion of the Stimulus Plan that had any possibility of resulting in tangible assets, the remainder having been pissed away temporarily maintaining bloated state and local government payrolls with little to show today for the billions spent.

Anyway, this is yet another example of Obama's appalling lack of executive management experience.

Jackson

Wild Walleye

06-16-11, 13:25

On Monday, Obama made the following statement while speaking at a "Jobs Council"

"Shovel-ready was not as 'shovel-ready' as we expected. "Obama and his cronie-capitalists in the room started laughing. There is nearly 20% unemployment and underemployment and these a-holes are laughing at Obama's failed policy? I guess they are laughing because they don't feel any of the pain the Obama has wrought upon this nation. Perhaps they are laughing because they too knew back when it was passed that the 'stimulus' was designed to be payoffs to stimulate more democrat loyalty.

Gee, who knew that there was no such thing as a "shovel-ready" project?

Only everyone involved in the public works industry, that's who. As well as everyone who wrote the bill and voted for it.

I knew the day Obama announced his stimulas plan that he couldn't possibly actually spend billions of dollars on public works projects on any timetable that would create jobs today or in the immediate future. It's elementary: Public works programs don't get to "shovel-ready" status until well after the funding has been secured. First, you do preliminary planing, engineering and cost estimating, then you get public approval, then you secure the funding. After the funding has been secured, you then do the final engineering, the final environmental impact studies, the land acquisition, and the contract bidding process, all of which typically takes many months and usually years, assuming that nothing holds up the process (like environmentalists contesting the findings of your impact studies, or property owners protesting their assessments, or archaeologists finding an old arrowhead in the project's path, etc.).

Fortunately, less than 6% of the stimulus plan was budgeted for these non-existent "shovel-ready" projects, although they certainly sold it as a much higher percentage.

Unfortunately, these "shovel-ready" expenditures represented the only portion of the Stimulus Plan that had any possibility of resulting in tangible assets, the remainder having been pissed away temporarily maintaining bloated state and local government payrolls with little to show today for the billions spent. Yes, it is unfortunate that most of the rest went to the states to payoff unions as well as other charitable giving to leftist groups and causes.

Anyway, this is yet another example of Obama's appalling lack of executive management experience.Even with two and a half years of on-the-job training, he is still the least knowledgeable and least experienced person in the room, no matter which room it happens to be.

Member #4112

06-16-11, 13:36

Unfortunately our liberal / progressive friends have confused the terms humanity with hubris. If I can take one dollar from an individual for 'humanity' then they believe they can take it all. For the current definition of said humanity / hubris see ObamaCare.

Do a little research on the Great Depression. Most folks in this country were not looking for 2 years of unemployment checks, welfare, food stamps et al, no they were looking for WORK. Today far too many of our unemployed are looking for the Federal Tit not Work.

By the way Calvin Coolidge was the first of the Progressives to become president.

As an addendum to this post please review the current problems in Greece and Spain:

The people have been on the public tit for so long they can not envision it running dry. So what do they do, they riot.

Greece’s sovereign debt interest rate is 18%+ when they can find someone to buy it. There is no money left unless they can get the EU to loan it to them and their people are rioting because they don’t care if there is no money they still want the nanny state to take care of them.

To quote one protester in Spain “I think it is important to be here protesting against the spending cuts, because to cut social spending with the excuse of the crisis is a big farce.”

The European style of social governance is collapsing around their collective heads but these people are totally detached from fiscal reality. The remaining EU countries who underwent social spending and other cutbacks early while Obama kept telling them to spend are now not so keen on helping out their EU partners unable to curb their own debt.

We are not far behind and Obama / Democrats want to continue to drag us down this road.

BlueFalcon

06-16-11, 20:35

Doppelganger: I have to disagree regarding "Silent Cal". If anything, he was the antithesis of the modern day "Progressive" neo-Marxist. I think Teddy Roosevelt was the first "Progressive" President, even though he served under the banner of the GOP, he later founded the Progressive Party.

Coolidge was a small government conservative, who cut taxes and spending, which pulled the USA out of the post WWI depression and sparked the roaring 20s. Quite the opposite of Wilson and TR.

A personal observation, and related to this topic. I have a close associate who, during the presidential campaign of 2008, attended a speech given by the current CINC. My friend actually shook his hand and exchanged a couple of pleasantries. Prior to this event, this guy was quite rational, and capable of critical analysis over that which he read, heard, etc. I guess the medicine is really strong when you actually touch that man, because after that event, my friend became a character straight out of Jonestown, circa 1977. Completely brainwashed, and incapable of thinking for himself, instead preferring to be spoonfed his liberal (Marxist) talking points, which he would regurgitate at any opportunity he thought he had. It is really spooky what happened to him.

My dos centavos,

BF.

Unfortunately our liberal / progressive friends have confused the terms humanity with hubris. If I can take one dollar from an individual for 'humanity' then they believe they can take it all. For the current definition of said humanity / hubris see ObamaCare.

Do a little research on the Great Depression. Most folks in this country were not looking for 2 years of unemployment checks, welfare, food stamps et al, no they were looking for WORK. Today far too many of our unemployed are looking for the Federal Tit not Work.

By the way Calvin Coolidge was the first of the Progressives to become president.

As an addendum to this post please review the current problems in Greece and Spain:

The people have been on the public tit for so long they can not envision it running dry. So what do they do, they riot.

Greece's sovereign debt interest rate is 18%+ when they can find someone to buy it. There is no money left unless they can get the EU to loan it to them and their people are rioting because they don't care if there is no money they still want the nanny state to take care of them.

To quote one protester in Spain 'I think it is important to be here protesting against the spending cuts, because to cut social spending with the excuse of the crisis is a big farce. '

The European style of social governance is collapsing around their collective heads but these people are totally detached from fiscal reality. The remaining EU countries who underwent social spending and other cutbacks early while Obama kept telling them to spend are now not so keen on helping out their EU partners unable to curb their own debt.

We are not far behind and Obama / Democrats want to continue to drag us down this road.

Esten

06-16-11, 23:27

June 15 POLL: People Still Blame Bush More Than Obama For The Economic Mess

http://www.businessinsider.com/people-still-blame-bush-more-than-obama-for-the-economy-2011-6

Solely or mainly responsible: Obama 34% Bush 47%

Of course, the real blame lies in two core conservative philosophies that reigned under Bush - tax cuts for the wealthy and free-market deregulation. Look what we have to show for it.

Bush gets off way too easy in this poll.

BlueFalcon

06-17-11, 01:40

Esten: The Bush tax cuts were for EVERYONE who paid taxes (not for the bottom 50% of the wage earners who pay nothing, yet are a parasite upon the Republic). I was on the low end of the tax bracket at the time, and appreciated the extra $ in my pocket at the time. The main deregulation that led to the meltdown in 2008 was the repeal of Glass-Stegal via the Grahmm-Leach-Bliley act of 1999. Signed by. Guess who? Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner."William Jefferson Clinton". I bet Bobby Rubin at Treasury was holding his signing hand as he passed it into law. Oh. And I forgot one thing. The Community Reinvestment Act signed into law by? Jimmah Carter. Man these neo-Marxist libs just love wrecking the pursuit of happiness.

Lack of oversight and enforcement of existing regulation (SEC porn surfing). (thanks Barney Frank.) and poor Federal Reserve policy (Thanks Alan and Ben. LOVE you guys!) , led to interest rates being held artificially below market for a long time from 2001-2007. Hey, it was free money. If you had a pulse, you could get a Jumbo mortgage. It would all end very badly. Because at the end of the day "There is no such thing as a free lunch." gratuitous maybe, but free. No. Someone is paying.

Seems to me you drank Rachel and Keith's Koolaid.

BF.

June 15 POLL: People Still Blame Bush More Than Obama For The Economic Mess.

http://www.businessinsider.com/people-still-blame-bush-more-than-obama-for-the-economy-2011-6

Solely or mainly responsible: Obama 34% Bush 47%

Of course, the real blame lies in two core conservative philosophies that reigned under Bush. Tax cuts for the wealthy and free-market deregulation. Look what we have to show for it.

Bush gets off way too easy in this poll.

Rev BS

06-17-11, 03:54

Due to temporary lodgings, the only American news channel I will be getting for the next few months will be Fox News & Bloomberg.

Fox News' domination was mystifying to me, but after watching Weiner and the mother child killer 20 hrs out of 24, I can understand why. In between, you have Prosecutor O'Reilly who actually doesn't allow his guest to talk till the last 20 seconds, Pastor / Professor Beck who is rewriting history, and good old boy Hannity who tries very hard to be a heavyweight. Juan Williams suffers the role of the fool, caught in a tsunami but beaming always at the end. Probably, because he has a job. The News Panel shows are much better. The women reporter from News Radio is quite foxy and is the type to talk dirty when you are drilling her.

All of them are laughing their way to the bank. Nothing wrong with that, it is free market and capitalism at it's best. I am very grateful that I have France 24, the only other English language news channel I have. By the way, I barely watch CNN or BBC even when I had them. I do miss CNBC. Most of all, I do enjoy the International Tribune, Los Angeles Times and of course, the Bangkok Post and the Strait Times.

Stan Da Man

06-17-11, 14:07

Fox News' domination was mystifying to me, but after watching Weiner and the mother child killer 20 hrs out of 24, I can understand why. In between, you have Prosecutor O'Reilly who actually doesn't allow his guest to talk till the last 20 seconds, Pastor / Professor Beck who is rewriting history, and good old boy Hannity who tries very hard to be a heavyweight. Juan Williams suffers the role of the fool, caught in a tsunami but beaming always at the end. Probably, because he has a job. The News Panel shows are much better. The women reporter from News Radio is quite foxy and is the type to talk dirty when you are drilling her.I don't watch Fox News except when traveling, so I'm no expert. But, from my perspective, I think that's a pretty apt description, especially of Beck. There is a certain element of faith healer / snake charmer about him. I instinctively check to make sure I still have my wallet whenever I see him on the air.

I would never suggest that Fox News is a middle of the road news outlet. What gets me, however, is when its detractors claim that the other news outlets like MSNBC, CNN, CBS or CNBC are fair, balanced or middle of the road. That's the real joke. The other day I was having dinner with a couple of friends who happen to be gay. They could not get their heads around the idea that I thought NPR was left of center. To both of them (they're extremely liberal Hollywood types) NPR is the epitome of fair and balanced. As to Juan Williams' firing, they both agreed with it 100% because 'you just can't say what he said on the air. '

That, I think, is the difference. Conservatives can admit that Fox is right wing. Liberals frequently cannot fathom how anyone can suggest that their favorite news outlets are left leaning. A good example of this is Obama, who tries to ban Fox as not being a "real" news outlet, suggesting that he thinks the others are fair and balanced. At least the other networks were quick to condemn him since even they understand that this is a crock of sh*t.

By the way, I believe you may be the only person on the planet who misses The Los Angeles Times. Most folks just tolerate it. At least you're the first I've heard suggest that it puts out quality anything. I live here and tried to like it for years before giving up in disgust. You should send your post to Sam Zell. He'll take it as vindication for his recent purchase. Who needs billions when you've got adoring fans?

Jackson

06-17-11, 17:14

Rupert Murdoch identified an underserved segment of the American news market, and it turned out to be half the country.

WorldTravel69

06-17-11, 18:32

Because he doesn't own the other half.

Rupert Murdoch identified an underserved segment of the American news market, and it turned out to be half the country.

Rev BS

06-17-11, 20:47

Jackson

06-17-11, 22:43

Because he doesn't own the other half.Hey WorldTravel69,

Have you been drinking and posting again?

Your statement doesn't make ay sense.

Rupert Murdoch owns one cable news channel. That's not half of all cable news channels.

Also, I'm not aware that he has aspirations to "own the other half" aka CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc.

Or perhaps you are suggesting that Rupert Murdoch owns half of the people in the country and that he's converted them into conservatives, and that he has designs to somehow "buy" the other half of the country's population and convert them also?

Please advise.

Thanks,

Jackson

Esten

06-18-11, 02:05

Looks like David Koch has upped his funding of internet trolls.

Sorry BlueFalcon, we have a higher caliber of discussion here. You're clearly not ready to debate with the Big Boys. Go back to Fox News or HotAir of whereever you came from and have them send over someone more qualified.

WorldTravel69

06-18-11, 05:07

He Owns many Newspapers, Radio stations, and TV Stations.

He Fucked the Union Workers in California, And and in a Few Other States. I am sorry I do not know all of them, I am not on top of all the Right Wing worker killing politicians.

As You Are.

I am trying to keep my working Union pension alive.

It is Too Bad You Did Not Have Too Work hard for a Living!!

It Must Feel great To have born With a Silver Spoon In Your Mouth?

Hey WorldTravel69,

Have you been drinking and posting again?

Your statement doesn't make ay sense.

Rupert Murdoch owns one cable news channel. That's not half of all cable news channels.

Also, I'm not aware that he has aspirations to "own the other half" aka CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc.

Or perhaps you are suggesting that Rupert Murdoch owns half of the people in the country and that he's converted them into conservatives, and that he has designs to somehow "buy" the other half of the country's population and convert them also?

Please advise.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

06-18-11, 13:34

WT,

You are wrong on so many levels.

He Owns many Newspapers, Radio stations, and TV Stations.The discussion was about the success of FOX News in reaching an otherwise un-served conservative audience, not about how many other media outlets one of it's owners may also own.

He Fucked the Union Workers in California, And and in a Few Other States.Really? How? I'd like to know, because when a union member says things like that, what they usually mean is that the employer stopped dancing to the union's tune.

I am sorry I do not know all of them, I am not on top of all the Right Wing worker killing politicians.Please name a single "Right Wing worker killing politician", because I don't know any, although I certainly know lots of "Left Wing job killing politicians".

I am trying to keep my working Union pension alive.How exactly is Rupert Murdoch trying to kill your pension?

It is Too Bad You Did Not Have Too Work hard for a Living!

It Must Feel great To have born With a Silver Spoon In Your Mouth?I don't know who you are talking about. I was born poor, and everything I've got I worked for and earned, and along the way I've NEVER asked for or received a single check for overtime, a single contribution to my health care or my future pension, or even so much as a single paid holiday, so you can stick that silver spoon up your ass.

Thanks,

Jackson

WorldTravel69

06-18-11, 15:22

Sorry.

Rupert Murdoch is an Australian billionaire with an interest in media. He publishes 175 newspapers and owns 35 TV stations.

Keith Rupert Murdoch, AC, KSG (English pronunciation: /ˈruːpɚt ˈmɚdɑk/; born 11 March 1931) is an Australian-American media mogul and the Chairman, and CEO of News Corporation.

Beginning with one newspaper in Adelaide, Murdoch acquired and started other publications in his native Australia before expanding News Corp. Into the United Kingdom, United States and Asian media markets. Although it was in Australia in the late 1950s that he first dabbled in television, he later sold these assets, and News Corp's Australian current media interests (still mainly in print) are restricted by cross-media ownership rules. Murdoch's first permanent foray into TV was in the USA, where he created Fox Broadcasting Company in 1986. In the 2000s, he became a leading investor in satellite television, the film industry and the Internet, and purchased a leading American newspaper, The Wall Street Journal.

WT,

You are wrong on so many levels.

The discussion was about the success of FOX News in reaching an otherwise un-served conservative audience, not about how many other media outlets one of it's owners may also own.

Really? How? I'd like to know, because when a union member says things like that, what they usually mean is that the employer stopped dancing to the union's tune.

Please name a single "Right Wing worker killing politician", because I don't know any, although I certainly know lots of "Left Wing job killing Politicians".

How exactly is Rupert Murdoch trying to kill your pension?

I don't know who you are talking about. I was born poor, and everything I've got I worked for and earned, and along the way I've NEVER asked for or received a single check for overtime, a single contribution to my health care or my future pension, or even so much as a single paid holiday, so you can stick that silver spoon up your ass.

Thanks,

Jackson

BlueFalcon

06-18-11, 16:24

Man, this is going to be fun!

I just love how the libtards get parochial (that means "Uppity" Esten) when they cannot defend their position with facts. But then again Esten, I'm sure you don't let the facts clutter your keppe."Big Boys". Really? Is that all you can come up with?

Let me help you stay on point here. You posted, and I paraphrase here, that "de-regulatory policies of the GWB administration were directly responsible for the economic meltdown", yet you offered no example of such policies either in your first post or in your second, MSNBC / HuffPo inspired diatribe.

I, on the other hand, gave two examples of government meddling, one regulatory (Community Reinvestment Act) , and one de-regulatory (Grahmm-Leach-Bliley) , both signed into law by liberal Democrat Presidents, which were directly responsible (the sown seeds) for the debacle that started mid October 2007.

The more the libs talk, or in this case post, the more they show their ass. Keep it comming bro. This is a hoot!

BF.

Looks like David Koch has upped his funding of internet trolls.

Sorry BlueFalcon, we have a higher caliber of discussion here. You're clearly not ready to debate with the Big Boys. Go back to Fox News or HotAir of whereever you came from and have them send over someone more qualified.

Dccpa

06-18-11, 21:24

It was also under Clinton that Brooksley Borne (sp?) was prevented from regulating derivatives.

JFKliberal12

06-18-11, 22:25

It was also under Clinton that Brooksley Borne (sp?) was prevented from regulating derivatives.I hope I don't get blasted for being combative and new to the site, but I can't pass up these political discussions.

First thing: why are both the liberals and conservatives on this site completely cheapening the political discourse when it comes to the recession by reflexively invoking partisanship. As much as it frustrates me, democrats are entirely complicit in the great scheme of de-regulation. The republicans may tout it rhetorically, but all the major players in both democrat and republican administrations are retreds of previous administrations.

To the lightweight conservatives who call liberals like Obama "neo-marxist" or argue modern liberals want to valut the country towards socialism, you just know absoulely nothing about politics, american history, or world history more generally. His top economic advisers and his entire staff in the treasury and fed, at least the big players like summers, geithner, and bernake were all doped up on the wealth created during the last 30 years and were supporting the economic status quo the entire time. Wall st. Loved that geithner got named to head the treasury. The same people have defined the economic consenus for politicians for years and years and its basically no different under Obama.

To the conservatives who criticise healthcare reform: do you seriously think this even remotely resembles socilaism? Does that mean medicare-with an approval rating among republican seniors of 75 percent-is socialism? Mind you, the public option which was ditched would have essentially been medicare-and this bill only adds consumers to the bloody private market. Honestly these words like marxism and socialism are thrown around so loosely by shallow conservatives it just ruins any substantive discussion. Whatevers most easily digestiable and makes your world view flow more easily I guess. Socialism=the government owns the means of production and private capital does not exist. Even if there was a damn public option that still wouldn't be socialism becuase the govt. Wouldn't be in the business of deciding who goes to medical school and wouldn't be taking over G. E. 's production of medical equipment-jeffery no taxes immult is one of the president's top economic adviders.

As for the semi-reasoanble claim that the individual mandate is socialistic. Its still not socialism-but it definitely a huge huge step in government activism. But most importantly its constitutional. It falls under the commerce clause-the govt. Has the right to regulate interstate commerce. This is literally a multi-trillion dollar industry that operates between states. How the hell could this not fall under the govts. Right to regulate. The commerce clause permits minimum wage-do you republicans really believe that things like minimum wage are unconstitutional or socialistic? Unemployment tax too? I would really like to hear, and I'm not being sarcastic, a philosophical position against the individual mandate and why its unconstitutional.

Member #4112

06-18-11, 23:01

JFKliberal12

06-18-11, 23:51

Welcome JFK to AP and to the political fray.

No the individual mandate is not constitutional and it is a fantastic stretch of the imagination that it falls under the commerce clause, IMHO as well as a couple of Federal Judges. The Supreme Court will make the final ruling, unless you happen to sit on the court it is only your opinion that it does as well.

Please refer to the original document containing the faulted commerce clause, see anything even remotely about the government's ability to force people to purchase anything, anywhere? No you don't, what you have is a liberal interpretation of the commerce clause to suit their purposes, in this case the private healthcare market. You mention Medicare, Medicaid and Social Socurity, now those are great success stories are they not.

You also addressed how they are popular entitlement programs, of course they are. I direct your attention to Greece, their social programs are popular as well, so much so the Greek people are rioting in the streets about cuts in those programs. Did you happen to notice Greece was bankrupted by these same popular programs?Fanny and Freddie were highly unfortunate, but Bush supported the same basic philosophy that drove them. That homeownership should be promoted at all costs. But why just blame fanny and freddie? No blame for banks creating absurdly risky products with other peoples money that they had a good idea would fail? No blame for the culture of wall st of wild short term speculation? Wall st really is what drove the economy off a cliff, and both parties are responsible for that-no more one than the other.

As for your understanding of the constitution-I guess your in the Scalia Thomas camp of radical "originalism". To say "where does it say this in the Constituion" is really a limited argument. Where does it say anything about a presidents right to buy territory like was done with the louisiana purchase. The idea of implied powers exists. Conservatives have this hyperlimited appraoch to the functionality and substance of the constitution. Where does it say anything about Congress being able to force businesses to pay a minimum amount to workers? Or where does it say anything about the federal govts right to makes laws regarding public education like no child left behind?

The basic problem with a "conservative" appraoch to the constituion in my opinion is that conservatives understand the law to be a restricting force whereas I see law as a means to liberate. I'm not some radical who wants to shred the essence of the document, but I just feel that conservatives want to smother it. This was a nation that was spiritually "conceived in liberty" and the maximization of liberty is the driving force behind the constituion. How we understand liberty surely evolves with time don't you agree? Therefore, shouldn't the substantive force proecting liberty (the constitution) evolve with the times too?

BlueFalcon

06-19-11, 00:45

Doppelganger. Do you want me to jump into this? I'm just sayin. You know. Tag team.

JKFliberal12, I welcome your input. I appreciate you bringing substance to the debate, rather than regurgitated talking points.

I'm actually packing my bags for EZE right now so I won't delve too deep.

1. Medicare / Medicade / Social Security. 38 trillion dollars in debt. Last time I checked.

2. Greece is a preview of coming attractions. To a street near you. Without the good hummus or that grape leaf wrapped rice / olive thing.

3. Fanny and Freddie were "highly unfortunate". How about "Highly Fraudulent". In 2004 GWB called into question the management of Fannie and Freddie. Barney Frank repeatedly defended these two GSE's."Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound. They are not in danger of going under. I do think their prospects going foreward are very solid." Barney Frank. 14 July 2008. Wall Street, and unregulated mortgage brokers bear a lot of the blame, but individual buyers bear a good bit as well. Just ask MBS holding pensioners in Denmark, to whom we sold our crap. Yeah, real estate prices only go up. That was the mantra.

4."Banks creating risky products". See "Repeal of Glass-Stegall" (Grahamm Leach Bliley). It was a great idea in 1933. WTF happened in 1999?

5. As for use of terms like "neo-Marxist"? I call a spade a spade. The progressive, evolutionary socialist, movement in this country is Marxist. Not so much revolutionary (yet) , but evolutionary. Circa 1910.

6. The Constitution is a list of negative liberties. Things which the govt. Cannot do to you. Our current CINC knows this, but doesn't like it. He, as well as many other Marxists, want the Constitution to be a list of things the govt should do "FOR" you. Probably not unlike the Soviet Constitution of 1936.

Small government is good. Individual liberty should be protected at all cost. If the rights of the idividual cannot be guaranteed by law, that is enforced, then all society will collapse.

Got to go pack.

BF.

Welcome JFK to AP and to the political fray.

No the individual mandate is not constitutional and it is a fantastic stretch of the imagination that it falls under the commerce clause, IMHO as well as a couple of Federal Judges. The Supreme Court will make the final ruling, unless you happen to sit on the court it is only your opinion that it does as well.

Please refer to the original document containing the faulted commerce clause, see anything even remotely about the government's ability to force people to purchase anything, anywhere? No you don't, what you have is a liberal interpretation of the commerce clause to suit their purposes, in this case the private healthcare market. You mention Medicare, Medicaid and Social Socurity, now those are great success stories are they not.

You also addressed how they are popular entitlement programs, of course they are. I direct your attention to Greece, their social programs are popular as well, so much so the Greek people are rioting in the streets about cuts in those programs. Did you happen to notice Greece was bankrupted by these same popular programs?Fanny and Freddie were highly unfortunate, but Bush supported the same basic philosophy that drove them. That homeownership should be promoted at all costs. But why just blame fanny and freddie? No blame for banks creating absurdly risky products with other peoples money that they had a good idea would fail? No blame for the culture of wall st of wild short term speculation? Wall st really is what drove the economy off a cliff, and both parties are responsible for that-no more one than the other.

As for your understanding of the constitution-I guess your in the Scalia Thomas camp of radical "originalism". To say "where does it say this in the Constituion" is really a limited argument. Where does it say anything about a presidents right to buy territory like was done with the louisiana purchase. The idea of implied powers exists. Conservatives have this hyperlimited appraoch to the functionality and substance of the constitution. Where does it say anything about Congress being able to force businesses to pay a minimum amount to workers? Or where does it say anything about the federal govts right to makes laws regarding public education like no child left behind?

The basic problem with a "conservative" appraoch to the constituion in my opinion is that conservatives understand the law to be a restricting force whereas I see law as a means to liberate. I'm not some radical who wants to shred the essence of the document, but I just feel that conservatives want to smother it. This was a nation that was spiritually "conceived in liberty" and the maximization of liberty is the driving force behind the constituion. How we understand liberty surely evolves with time don't you agree? Therefore, shouldn't the substantive force proecting liberty (the constitution) evolve with the times too?

Esten

06-19-11, 02:22

Man, this is going to be fun! Yawn. I'm tired of you already.

The regulars here have been debating all the usual topics for years. My personal interest in the debate here comes and goes. I will post what I please, and won't recycle my arguments for every newbie that signs up.

I just love how the libtards get parochial (that means "Uppity" Esten) when they cannot defend their position with facts. But then again Esten, I'm sure you don't let the facts clutter your keppe. See Blue, usually when a newbie joins a board, certainly a board like this, one would expect they would show a little humility. You on the other hand, in just a few short posts come blazing on the scene with perhaps the most arrogant attitude I have seen in all the years I have been following AP. You've already established yourself as someone I'd be unlikely to associate with in BA, and you're one step away from going on my ignore list.

You posted, and I paraphrase here, that "de-regulatory policies of the GWB administration were directly responsible for the economic meltdown", yet you offered no example of such policies either in your first post or in your second, MSNBC / HuffPo inspired diatribe.Why paraphrase? I cited the "conservative philosophies that reigned under Bush". It is true that both Dems and Repubs were responsible for Gramm-Leach-Bliley. There was also CFMA in 2000. I do not hold Dems faultless. However deregulation / less government is far more a conservative philosophy than a liberal philosophy. That's my point. And you apparently agree that Gramm-Leach-Bliley was an important cause. Many people were fooled by the promise of "financial innovation" and "self-regulation", now we need to learn from past mistakes.

Citing the CRA is just another empty conservative talking point. Go pull up a Case Shiller from the eighties, you'll see the housing bubble began around the time of GLB/CFMA and almost perfectly overlaps the 6 years of Republican control of WH and Congress. Your attempt to pin blame on Carter is laughable. The CRA was around for a long time. But it was only over 2001-2007 that the giant financially-leveraged bubble occured. You trying to pin that on Carter? LMAO. Remember who said "Wall Street got drunk" ?

The more the libs talk, or in this case post, the more they show their ass. Keep it comming bro. Yep. Possibly the most arrogant newbie to ever appear on AP. Along with your poor arguments, it's hard to find a reason to take you seriously. I might indulge you some more. Or maybe not.

I'll look forward to reading your chica reviews.

TejanoLibre

06-19-11, 05:35

Who Cares!

As long as he has some hot CHICAS like FLOR to recommend on this site he's got my vote!

If I could vote that is!

And if I gave a shit about politics!

I seem to remember a little guy in Europe with a funny little mustache that had a vision of a UNIFIED EUROPE and a world free of COMMUNISIM!

Guess what?

Europe is ALMOST unified and the world is ALMOST free of communism!

The European Union is almost complete but that country is paying everyone's debt!

Guess which country will be the Head of State?

Best cars in the world too!

Volkswagon will be the number one car company in the world within 5 years too!

Bought Audi and Porche while the rest are falling down the drain!

But oh yeah, we were talking about the USA!

Like I said, who cares?

I live in BA and will always keep BA as my headquarters and base of operations!

TL.

P. S. This is why I NEVER post about Politics!

Not my specialty and and not what I give a SHIT ABOUT!

AND not what this site is about! Some day we will have a serious disagreement over this matter!

This fucking forum is about getting LAID you knumbskulls!

Nobody in BA gives a shit about who your President is or is going to be in Sex Prison!

Unite and Revolt!

Fuck me if I'm wrong!

But kiss me while you are doing it!

Let the EU take over the world!

TL.

PS- Obviously I know more about pussy than cents! Politics and horse shit!

Dccpa

06-19-11, 12:24

Rev BS

06-19-11, 16:33

Clinton mandated that banks loan to people who really couldn't afford. It was called the Community Act or something similar. Once the banks / mortgage companies were unleashed from normal lending standards, everything escalated to a level of massive fraud that the FBI warned about, but weren't given the manpower to do anything about.Perhaps, there have been government mandates, But on an american lifestylelevel, I know credit started loosening up in the 2nd half of the 1990s. And so everyone I know seem to be remorgaging their homes and using their equity line. It was astonishing to find out that households with good incomes had pretty big credit card debts. People with no write-offs were leasing cars or trading for new cars every 2 or 3 years. Even now, I am getting all kinds of credit card offers or 0% balance transfers. Let us just say, people are encourage to spent and spend big on a everyday basis, forget about the easy housing loans.

With all this, we have also seen an increase in banking and credit card fees. A double whammy, suck you in first and then turn on the heat. Just like the 1 way walk-in escalators into Ceasars Palace. A few times, I had to call them and use my charm and goodwill to wipe out the high late payment fees. So why is everyone calling out foul on some of the new banking regulations? Are we not only greedy, but pussy stupid, too?

Tiny12

06-19-11, 21:42

JFK, Those here who believe in liberal economics, the people who you're calling "conservatives", don't really believe Obama is a Marxist or a Socialist. We do believe he and most Congressional Democrats and some Congressional Republicans are intent on growing the size of government to ridiculous and unsustainable levels. The economy will become less efficient, and most Americans, rich and poor, will suffer as a result.

In 2009, total government spending as a % of GDP was 42%. It was 40% in 2010. And you ain't seen nothing yet. The General Accounting Office projects Medicare and Medicaid spending will increase from around 5% of GDP to 18% over the next 70 years. Look for government spending to account for over 50% of the economy if we continue on our current course.

At such time as government comes to account for the majority of the economy, maybe it would be comforting if we DID have Socialism. Because that 50%+ of GDP that the government will control isn't going to be used to pay the people and companies that produce things like cars, homes, energy, and food. It's not going to be used to pay those who actually produce things. Instead the majority of it is going to be spent on medical expenses for the elderly, defense, subsidies, etc.

History has shown that capitalism trumps socialism and Marxism. But arguably what USA politicians seem hell bent on pursuing, taking very large amounts of money away from the productive part of the economy and channeling it toward transfer payments and their pet projects, could be just as damaging or more damaging than socialism.

Wild Walleye

06-20-11, 12:29

JFK, Those here who believe in liberal economics, the people who you're calling "conservatives", don't really believe Obama is a Marxist or a Socialist. I do. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it. What would one call a hugely polarizing, dictatorial leader transforming (his own word) America, against the will of the people (see Obamacare) to transfer not only wealth from the productive portion of society to the nonproductive but also seizing your personal freedoms and rights for the benefit of larger government and more government control over individual choices? I sure as shit don't find that consistent with Jeffersonian democracy. Further, this cult of personality can't deny the deleterious effects of his policies upon the American economy and the American people yet, he will not reconsider the ideological path to which he has sworn allegiance.

In 2009, total government spending as a % of GDP was 42%. It was 40% in 2010. And you ain't seen nothing yet. The General Accounting Office projects Medicare and Medicaid spending will increase from around 5% of GDP to 18% over the next 70 years. Look for government spending to account for over 50% of the economy if we continue on our current course.
Agreed, this is already happening. I'd like to have one of the resident leftists articulate how the current level of government spending can be sustained, let alone the future rate of spending growth, to which we are already committed. Please don't just say raise taxes, include empirical data to support your argument that huge tax increases won't further crater the economy.

Don't forget that GDP measures the revenue of all goods and services and is not a net number expressing profits from economic activity. Therefore, actual, pre-tax, take-home pay is only a small fraction of GDP. Therefore, tax revenues, as we all know are significantly smaller than the amount of spending.

At such time as government comes to account for the majority of the economy, maybe it would be comforting if we DID have Socialism. Because that 50%+ of GDP that the government will control isn't going to be used to pay the people and companies that produce things like cars, homes, energy, and food. It's not going to be used to pay those who actually produce things. Instead the majority of it is going to be spent on medical expenses for the elderly, defense, subsidies, etc.It is not a leap to see the continuation of this administrations policies, unabated in light of the reality of their effects, as deliberate facilitation of the destruction of America's economy and the continuation of the Great Recession. Why would they do that? Perhaps it is aimed at pushing the country to point where it must consider reallocating huge amounts of our defense dollars to paying for social programs (a panacea of the left).

History has shown that capitalism trumps socialism and Marxism. But arguably what USA politicians seem hell bent on pursuing, taking very large amounts of money away from the productive part of the economy and channeling it toward transfer payments and their pet projects, could be just as damaging or more damaging than socialism.Whatever name you put on it, clear plurality of the American people reject it and will reject it next year in the presidential election. As happens every so often, American's loose sight of history and facts when heading to the polls and are susceptible to believing fairy tales built of pure BS. This is what happened in 2008 and barring a republican-like, third-party candidate (which would be horrible for the country) BHO and his job-killing agenda will be tossed out of office.

Stan Da Man

06-20-11, 17:02

Stan,

The LA Times was part of my daily diet until I started roaming the world a few years back. Since the Chandler family sold the paper, and with the downturn in print news, the Times has since suffered many cutbacks. It is now a shadow of what once was. But in it's prime, it had an excellent front page, accurate reporting and diverse articles that reflected it's multi-cultural readership. Every year, it has ganered a fair share of the reporting awards. Whilst the editorials were liberal, I never felt I was being set-up as when I was reading the NY Times. In addition, the sports, entertainment and living (food) sections were outstanding. Now, I scan it online for US and local news.

Subscription was high at one time because it was very reasonable, even if all they read was the sports page. At the work place, you would find the several copies of the paper laying around but no sports page. Were you one of those guys? It is going to be quite a different world when the papers go out of the print business. But at least, your fingers will be clean when you put the lox & bagel sandwich in your mouth! I couldn't agree more, both about the LA Times and the NY Times. An editorial by Tim Rutten this past weekend brought back all the memories of why I won't waste another cent on the LA Times.

I wasn't reading the LA paper when any of the Chandlers were involved day-to-day, but I have watched a few documentaries on the Chandlers. By all accounts, the paper was much better off when it was family run than since it got swallowed up by larger conglomerates. Today, I get the majority of my news online, but one of the brightest spots of my day is still sitting down with the Wall Street Journal when I get some time. I will concede that it's op / ed and editorial sections are conservative. But, if you set that aside, the rest of the paper is about the best there is in the USA, in my opinion. I am also a fan of the San Jose Mercury News, but even it has declined considerably in the last 10 years.

The print news media is fast fading, but I personally believe that some consolidation was in order. I also don't believe it's a coincidence that nearly all major print newspapers are liberal and left leaning to some degree, and these are the papers that are losing subscribers. Craigslist has had a greater impact. But, when you take your readers for granted and try to spoon feed them what you want them to believe, rather than the facts, you gradually lose readers. This also explains partially the rise of Fox News. Granted, it's a different medium. But, a paper with a liberal bent will offend half its readers on a consistent basis. Is it any wonder that some of the readers eventually gravitate to an outlet that offers more pleasing fare?

Stan Da Man

06-20-11, 17:22

Man, this is going to be fun!

I just love how the libtards get parochial (that means "Uppity" Esten) when they cannot defend their position with facts. But then again Esten, I'm sure you don't let the facts clutter your keppe."Big Boys". Really? Is that all you can come up with?

Let me help you stay on point here. You posted, and I paraphrase here, that "de-regulatory policies of the GWB administration were directly responsible for the economic meltdown", yet you offered no example of such policies either in your first post or in your second, MSNBC / HuffPo inspired diatribe.

I, on the other hand, gave two examples of government meddling, one regulatory (Community Reinvestment Act) , and one de-regulatory (Grahmm-Leach-Bliley) , both signed into law by liberal Democrat Presidents, which were directly responsible (the sown seeds) for the debacle that started mid October 2007.

The more the libs talk, or in this case post, the more they show their ass. Keep it comming bro. This is a hoot!

BF. You see that? Esten did reply. And, he treated you just like he treats everyone else.

By that, I mean that he pushed the "Submit Report" button and superficially addressed your post but still managed not to actually respond to anything. That's his specialty. But remember, Esten claims to do his own research on everything and have an informed opinion. Just ask him. He'll tell you.

I suspect you already know this, but here goes: Don't hold your breath waiting for a substantive response from him that actually makes any sense. That will never be forthcoming.

Welcome to the club! If Esten's already taken offense at your posts, you're okay in my book.

Esten

06-21-11, 01:17

And likewise here's some background on Stan for new readers.

Quite some time ago, he announced he wasn't going to respond to me, because he considered me a liar. Since then there have been a couple lapses. But for the most part he has been true to his word.

However, he often takes a 'jab' at me. Such efforts include socialist labels, or trying to discredit my posts.

I find this all rather amusing, and really have little interest in debating him either way.

But his persistent efforts at discreditation are telling.

Why would someone be so persistent in trying to discredit another person? It seems to me the only explanation is that other person poses some kind of threat. In fact, Stan knows quite well I do my own research, which I often link to in my posts. No doubt it bothers him when I expose the flaws in conservative arguments. Although he has vowed not to respond to me, he is far from indifferent.

If you can't win debating your opponent, sling some mud. That is Stan's specialty.

Toymann

06-21-11, 01:52

Why would someone be so persistent in trying to discredit another person?.What other purpose do you serve on the political thread buddy! You certainly are totally out of touch with America. Tick! Tick! Tick! Get reaqdy for a morman president! Happy Mongering Esten. Toymann

PS: Are you ready for another bet buddy? You just escaped our last bet with you life intact! LOL. BARELY! May I suggest we put a madahos night on the next presidential election. We'll keep it easy. Democrat President you win! Republican President I win! Other? Call it a tie. LOL. The bet won't end in a tie! LOL

Esten

06-22-11, 01:38

What other purpose do you serve on the political thread buddy! You certainly are totally out of touch with America. Tick! Tick! Tick! Get reaqdy for a morman president! Happy Mongering Esten. Toymann.

Ps. Are you ready for another bet buddy? You just escaped our last bet with you life intact! LOLYou rooting for Romney? Can't help but notice the infighting going on with his refusal to sign the abortion pledge. Krauthammer and O'Reilly are saying it isn't fair that many people will simply read the headline and pass unfavorable judgement on Romney without understanding his reasons. Gee, sounds a lot like what conservatives do with Obama and Dems all the time. The GOP machinery working against itself.

Yes it appears Romney will emerge the nominee, but I'd love to see the "establishment" squirm if somehow a Tea Partier like Bachmann wins it. They don't decide for another year though. A full year of listening to all these candidates trash Obama. They'll provide media deflection from Repubs in DC working to stall the economy. Not a bad strategy.

We'll see if the full power of the GOP machine has what it takes to defeat Obama. I'm still betting on Obama but it will be close. Toymann we're on but let's wait and see who your nominee is before we establish terms.

Esten

06-22-11, 02:06

Michele Bachmann Signs Book Deal With Conservative Imprint Sentinel
http://www.newser.com/story/121255/michele-bachmann-signs-book-deal-with-conservative-imprint-sentinel.html

Another right-wing grifter jumping on the conservative gravy train.

Jackson

06-22-11, 02:10

...from Repubs in DC working to stall the economy.Esten,

Dude, what are you smoking?

I haven't heard anything as completely contradictory to reality since I heard Nancy Pelosi proclaiming how proud she was having reduced the country's budget deficit during her term as speaker.

Wait, I get it! It's one of those liberal "repeat the lie" campaigns, right?

Anyway, consistent with true Esten form, I doubt you'll respond to my comments directly.

Thanks,

Jackson

Toymann

06-22-11, 02:53

. Toymann we're on but let's wait and see who your nominee is before we establish terms.Lets keep it simple dude. Just like last time, the bet is a night at madahos (1000 peso max, no more than 700 for the chica). Dems win my tab, Republicans win your tab! No need to discuss terms (translation: you want to wait to get a feel for how bad the Dems take it in the shorts and then make the bet trivial). I am calling bullshit brother. Time to man up dude. Are you a true believer or NOt?

Furthermore, most republicans today could give a flying F*CK about abortion, stem cell research, church, gay marriage, etc. The country needs an experienced CEO to manage us out of this fiasco the current DEMI GOD has entrenched us in. This isn't your daddy's GOP brother, it's 2011, so stop hooting about abortion etc. Very few really care anymore.

Happy Mongering All, Toymann

Toymann

06-22-11, 03:14

We'll see if the full power of the GOP machine has what it takes to defeat Obama. .Obama has already defeated Obama dude! He lost the independents long ago. It was the hopefull independents that drank his cool-aid last time. Most are shaking their heads saying something like "this is just not working out the way I had hoped". Lose the independents plus low democrat voter turn out next november as many are just shaking their heads saying something like " what a wasted opportunity", will result in a serious GOP win in the Senate, fewer Democrats in the House, and a Republican president (most likely Romney). I am Not a great history buff but guessing it's been a while since all three started as one party and ended up the opposite party IN JUST FOUR YEARS. Don't be sad Esten, Ol buddy, I know at least one democrat who is really happy right now. Jimmy Carter is betting that next November he'll no longer have the title of WORST all-time US president. You're boy Obomanation should outdistance Carter by a length or two. LONG LIVE THE KING! LONG LIVE THE KING! IALOTFLMAO.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Jackson

06-22-11, 05:04

Michele Bachmann Signs Book Deal With Conservative Imprint Sentinel.

http://www.newser.com/story/121255/michele-bachmann-signs-book-deal-with-conservative-imprint-sentinel.html

Another right-wing grifter jumping on the conservative gravy train. THIS is what you're reduced to complaining about?

A politican signs a book deal?

So fucking what?

Yea, that'll save Obama.

ROTFLMAO!

Wild Walleye

06-22-11, 10:31

Michele Bachmann Signs Book Deal With Conservative Imprint Sentinel.

http://www.newser.com/story/121255/michele-bachmann-signs-book-deal-with-conservative-imprint-sentinel.html

Another right-wing grifter jumping on the conservative gravy train. I don't remember you getting upset about Obama's book deal signed just before getting into office (timing of political payoffs is important to keep the 'legal').

Wild Walleye

06-22-11, 11:46

It isn't so much what this headline says:

"Obama Gets 30% of Americans Certain to Support Re-Election in Economy Poll"

As it is the fact that state-sponsored media is actually allowing truthful information, which is negative in nature, to be published about the regime. The fact that state-run media will report unflattering information about the "Chosen One" is an early indication that the liberal establishment is finding it more and more difficult to support the apparition that they created in Obama. While they will never back a republican, they can't find anything substantive and positive to say about their guy.

No matter what Esten says and no matter what republican signs a book deal, Obama is rapidly becoming a lame duck. Obama has been a colossal failure at every aspect of the job of president from domestic policy to foreign policy. His ineptitude knows no limits. He's tried wagging the dog (Libya) which has been a political and foreign policy failure. He has tried giving "free healthcare" to the people (including illegal aliens). He has provided thousands of military weapons to Mexican drug cartels (guess he was courting the Latin vote). He will try to sell his base on "getting out of Afghanistan" which will be seen as the hollow gesture that it is (modest troop withdrawal with no end in sight). Even nailing Osama has had no appreciable effect on Obama's numbers.

Why is it that the guy who could do no wrong (up until mid 2009) can't seem to work his magic? Because he never had any to begin with."Barrack the Magic Negro" (to quote the LA Times) was and is a fraud, perpetrated upon America by the left, its union cronies and the media. He was and remains unqualified for the job, which becomes clearer and clearer ever day he is in the position. The reason the perceived 'magic' stopped is that once in office, the American people, despite the media's best efforts to hide his weakness, could see for themselves how poorly he executes the duties of the POTUS. He has effectively diminished both the economic and military stature of the nation and exacerbated the financial debacle of 2008 into the Great Recession. While didn't directly cause the financial mess of 2008 (indirectly he and his liberal brethren certainly had a hand in it) , Obama owns the Great Recession. Because he caused it. Had the US government done nothing, we'd be far better off. The greatest harm of all and the cause of the Great Recession (not the initial global financial meltdown) was Obama's domestic policies (including monetary policy) and the creation of new unmeasurable RISK for any and all corporations hiring new employees.

Obama lacks the desire, temperament and the skills necessary to spawn an economic recovery. It is abundantly clear to the American people the Obama is an elitist ruler who is completely devoid of any understanding of the suffering that is going on within the country. There is no more stark evidence of this than when he and his oligarchic cronies have a good belly laugh about "shovel-ready jobs." Obama has created unthinkable riches for his cronie-capitalist benefactors and sold out the nation for his ideology.

Here we stand $14 trillion in debt, nearly 20% unemployment and under-employment, stagflation is hitting our moribund economy and gas is over $4 / gallon (more than twice the price when dipshit took office). I can hear it now "Four more years!" "Four more years!" Other than Jeff Immelt and his ilk, I can't think of too many Americans that will be chanting this.

As I have said for a while, a Fudd / Simpson (Elmer & Homer) ticket could beat Obama in 2012.

El Alamo

06-22-11, 15:47

According to MSNBC Nancy Reagan has received a message from Ron.

Ronald Reagon says that a recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose your job and recovery is when Obama loses his job.

Obama appears to be a nice enough fellow but Obama made the mistake of listening to Esten's birdbrain ideas.

Rev BS

06-22-11, 17:45

Wild Walleye

06-22-11, 19:55

You forgot to include that Obama was responisble for your diarrhea this mornining.Too much chimichurri sauce.

Esten

06-23-11, 01:31

Toymann, the election is sixteen months away! I'm just not interested in setting the bet right now. Too long a wait, too boring. Don't assume I'll want to downgrade the bet, I might want to raise it too. Although I will bet on Obama, I am not going to be cocky about it and you shouldn't be either. It is very likely to be very close.

The last thing our country needs is a CEO in the White House. A CEO has a narrow focus on making his business profitable, and where applicable returning profits to shareholders. Where does the worker fall in that picture? The worker is simply an expense to achieve profits. If that expense can be reduced while maintaining or increasing profit, the CEO can and will do so. No, that is not the perspective we need in a President.

Toymann

06-23-11, 05:37

The company I speak of brother is the USA. We desparately need a president that wants to operate the business at hand. Deal with the issues that effect the day to day operations TODAY (unemplyment, deficit, immigration, economy). He can deal with all the peripheral issues (social agendas, healthcare, politics) once he turns the company around. Your BOY has shown absolutely NO interest in dealing with the pressing issues of the day since he took office. He needs to go, as like a tiger he can not change his stripes. Now was NOT the time for the great DEMIGOD experiment dude. Weighed, measured and found wanting!

It's over and like this past November (do you remember the midterms) , it's all done except for the liberal whining. It was close last time. It will NOT be close in 2012.

Let me know when you are ready to bet. YOU BIG SISSY! LMAO!

Happy Mongering Esten. Toymann

Wild Walleye

06-23-11, 11:54

The last thing our country needs is a CEO in the White House. A CEO has a narrow focus on making his business profitable, and where applicable returning profits to shareholders.In his land of unicorns and sparkles, companies don't have to turn a profit to last for ever.

Where does the worker fall in that picture?Which workers would those be? The 14 million that are currently out of work? Who is looking out for them? Clearly not Obama who has intentionally forced his jobs killing agenda on us despite knowing full well its likely consequences for the unemployed, under-employed and those about to join their ranks.

The worker is simply an expense to achieve profits.Very few successful companies actually take this view. It is ascribed to them by leftist activists who are looking to force them (the corporation) to lavish riches upon past an present workers, in magnitudes unrelated to the quantifiable value added. They do this with absolutely no concern about the fact that if they force the corporation to become unprofitable they will end up laying off some or all of their workers.

If that expense can be reduced while maintaining or increasing profit, the CEO can and will do so. No, that is not the perspective we need in a President.Obama seems to be increasing the nation's deficit (I. E. Making the US more unprofitable) while at the same time reducing the workforce by millions. Those facts would seem to contradict your poorly constructed comment.

Esten

06-24-11, 02:40

Jackson -

My post on Bachmann's book deal had nothing to do with complaining or saving Obama. LOL

Simply an observation of the least surprising book deal ever. Michele Bachmann is a complete opportunist. You remember when she gave her response to the SOTU Address? She couldn't just let one person (Paul Ryan) give the official GOP response. Nope. She had to go and give a second "Tea Party" response. You may also remember this woman for her interview on CNN where she totally ripped into Obama for an overseas trip that would cost taxpayers 200 Million a day. Turns out she went off a wildly inaccurate internet report without checking her facts. This woman is a chronic lying opportunist and her record on Politifact proves it. The worst of the bunch.

As far as Republicans stalling the economy, don't tell me you haven't heard this before. Prominent Republicans are on record saying their top priority is to defeat Obama. Republicans have also stated their best shot at defeating Obama is if the economy is bad in 2012. Put 2 and 2 together.

Case in point- Obama has suggested extending payroll-tax cuts for employees that set to expire at the end of the year, and initiating a payroll-tax reduction for employers. This would put more money back in the hands of individuals and businesses. Republicans previously supported such ideas, and the USCoC supports it. But now Republicans are opposed. Now they call it a gimmick. Why would Republicans not support an idea they previously supported that would help the economy?

Jackson

06-24-11, 14:48

Michele Bachmann is a complete opportunist.Esten, you attempted to negatively paint Michele Bachmann as a "complete opportunist" because she signed a book contract, and my point was that in this regard she is no different that every other politician in the world, including the Campaginer-in-Chief.

As far as Republicans stalling the economy, don't tell me you haven't heard this before. Prominent Republicans are on record saying their top priority is to defeat Obama. Republicans have also stated their best shot at defeating Obama is if the economy is bad in 2012. Put 2 and 2 together.Here you are attempting to insinuate that the Republicans would deliberately torpedo the country's economy if it meant that they could defeat Obama, which is nothing less than complete bullshit, along with your associated "Job Killing Republicans" liberal propaganda.

Case in point- Obama has suggested extending payroll-tax cuts for employees that set to expire at the end of the year, and initiating a payroll-tax reduction for employers. This would put more money back in the hands of individuals and businesses. Republicans previously supported such ideas, and the USCoC supports it. But now Republicans are opposed. Now they call it a gimmick. Why would Republicans not support an idea they previously supported that would help the economy?The size of the payroll-tax cuts in question are in fact so minuscule that they are meaningless except as liberal propaganda. If the Dems really wanted to use payroll-tax cuts to stimulate the economy, then they could have used the $800 billion in stimulas money to give every employee in the country an 8 month holiday from ALL payroll tax deductions. If anyone thought that the $3B Cash-for-Clunkers program was a success, imagine what kind of economic stimulus pumping $100B a month into consumers hands would have produced. Of course the Dems wouldn't have had the opportunity to dispense the the funds to state and local employee unions and other "friends", so that was never really an option.

Esten

06-28-11, 00:31

Esten, you attempted to negatively paint Michele Bachmann as a "complete opportunist" because she signed a book contract, and my point was that in this regard she is no different that every other politician in the world, including the Campaginer-in-Chief. Of course I get your point. I'm fully aware that politicians on both sides sell books. Let me put it this way. If it had been Cain or Pawlenty or any of the others announcing a book deal I wouldn't have bothered posting. Most of the GOP candidates are pretty harmless. Some are even likeable. Ron Paul seems like an affable guy, I like some of his views and commend him on his recent marijuana bill. Romney is OK, you can tell he is acting a bit and is not 100% authentic in his attacks on Obama, but he knows he has to be seen as on the offensive.

Michele Bachmann on the other hand is a very special case. I need to modify what I said earlier. She is not a complete opportunist. She is half opportunist and half batshit crazy.

That's a phrase from Matt Taibbi's article on her last week in Rolling Stone, but it succinctly captures what many on the left think of this woman. Not an attack, just an honest and accurate statement of how they see her. Anyone who follows politics quite a bit will have noticed this. An interesting coincidence, Taibbi wrote she looks like the T2 skeleton posing for a passport photo (a little over the top I'll agree), and she's been boasting recently she has a "Titanium Spine". She is certain to provide great material for the media and I hope she goes far.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622

Punter 127

06-28-11, 02:51

Esten as always you're blindly following you leaders.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/576642/201106271903/Belittling-Bachmann.htm?

Moveon

06-30-11, 16:47

Well, here we go again. The snake of the right has reared it's ugly head again.

Scumbag Republican Congressman Richard Cantor stormed out of US debt negotiations recently, as most of us in the US already know.

Why?

M_O_N_E_Y!

It was recently revealed that Republican Congressman Richard Cantor will gain financially if debt ceiling negotiations collapse.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/27/eric_cantor_conflict_of_interest/index.html

Not surprisingly, FOX NEWS has kept quiet about the Wall Street Journal report. ("We Report." We Decide.")

So, it will be interesting to see R-Congressman Cantor's motivation before the August 2nd deadline.

Dccpa

06-30-11, 17:02

Yeah. I mean he couldn't have purchased TBT because he expected that the Bernanke couldn't hold interest rates down forever. So he might or might not, own a small position in an etf, that might or might not be a hedge to bond investments. Absolutely, crash the government over this. A smart investor would have purchased options and get more bang for their buck. That article was insultingly stupid.

Member #4112

06-30-11, 19:41

In his recent news conference Obama rails against private / corporate jet owners getting a tax break which should now be eliminated so children will not be denied healthcare. How horrible of those mean old Republicans to have granted such a tax break to the selfish rich owners of corporate jets.

UH. Mr. El Presidenta, if you would just check your facts the mean old Republicans did not provide that particular tax break, YOU AND YOU DEMOCRATIC COLLEGUES DID in the 2009 Stimulus Package.

Just for the record, if we eliminated that particular tax break and take the HIGHEST revenue figure it MIGHT bring in which is $60 billion (more realistic was between $10 to 6 Billion) , then it would only take 234 years to pay down the $14 Trillion debt.

Way to go Big Guy!

With nearly 50% of the population not paying income tax, the other 50% paying it all and of the 50% that do pay the top 5% is paying over 85% of the total tax burden.

We don't have a revenue problem we have a SPENDING problem.

Punter 127

07-01-11, 00:20

The former President said he is "not surprised" that the Tea Party favorite has quickly become a 2012 front-runner, during an exclusive interview that aired Thursday on ABC's "Good Morning America".

"I've been watching her speak at some of these conventions on ESPN, you know, she comes across as a real person," he told the network at the Clinton Global Initative America conference in Chicago."The story that they tell is pretty compelling, all those foster children she's taken in, and children she's raised and the work she's done."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/30/2011-06-30_bill_clinton_praises_michele_bachmann_and_other_gopers_but_says_president_obama_.html
Michele Bachmann on the other hand is a very special case. I need to modify what I said earlier. She is not a complete opportunist. She is half opportunist and half batshit crazy.

That's a phrase from Matt Taibbi's article on her last week in Rolling Stone, but it succinctly captures what many on the left think of this woman. Not an attack, just an honest and accurate statement of how they see her. Anyone who follows politics quite a bit will have noticed this. An interesting coincidence, Taibbi wrote she looks like the T2 skeleton posing for a passport photo (a little over the top I'll agree) , and she's been boasting recently she has a "Titanium Spine". She is certain to provide great material for the media and I hope she goes far.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622Hmmm, who to believe?

Esten

07-01-11, 01:44

So, it will be interesting to see R-Congressman Cantor's motivation before the August 2nd deadline.It is probably just a hedge. Unlikely to be a big story.

What is a big story though is Eric Cantor walking out of the debt negotiations. Like a little kid who didn't get his way.

Republicans are on the losing side in this struggle, certainly among independents. Cantor has only damaged his image by walking away.

Tiny12

07-01-11, 01:44

Moveon, I'm convinced you're either a politician or you work for one. As shown by polls that Esten has referenced here, your party and the 50% of American voters that don't pay income taxes and / or live off the government tit are going to control the federal government of the USA for the forseeable future. As a result, spending will grow faster than federal government receipts. Your party's attempts to finance the deficit from business, corporations and the "rich" will backfire. You'll tax them to the point that they won't have the money to reinvest or maintain their business and investments, and their taxable income will decrease as will the taxes they pay. The deficit will increase. Your people will continue to spend like drunken sailors. Bond investors, including foreign central banks, will rightfully worry about the ability of the US federal government to repay them. Bond yields will skyrocket. The value of Cantor's measly $5, 000 to $15, 000 investment will skyrocket. But don't blame it on Cantor, blame it on your party.

If you've got the discipline to roll your positions over every few months for a long time, sell T-note and T-bond futures. That's probably a better deal than an ETF.

Esten

07-01-11, 01:56

Hmmm, who to believe?Me! Of course!

Bill and I are not so far apart as you might think. Democrats like Michele Bachmann. We really do.

Seriously Punter, you need to realize something. America is a great nation, with great values. We are equal opportunity for all. And it's because we all came here and we came together as one. Out of many one. Multi-cultural diversity says out of one many. And if we go with tribalism we will not long be one nation united under God.

Punter 127

07-01-11, 07:48

Me! Of course!

Bill and I are not so far apart as you might think. Democrats like Michele Bachmann. We really do.

Seriously Punter, you need to realize something. America is a great nation, with great values. We are equal opportunity for all. And it's because we all came here and we came together as one. Out of many one. Multi-cultural diversity says out of one many. And if we go with tribalism we will not long be one nation united under God.You really should use quotation marks when you quote someone. A good example would be something like this;

"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon, over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."

Or how about this;

"Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S,"

IMHO you have now stooped to a new low, but if you're going to demonize every threat to Obama you better get started on Rick Perry, assuming Chris Christie is not running.

BTW if I support Herman Cain over Obama would the left still classify me as a racist?

Punter 127

07-01-11, 08:55

Rev BS

07-01-11, 12:07

Short term, job creation. Long term, reduce deficit. I think that is fair and logical strategy.

Our economy is base on CONSUMPTION. Is slash / slash / slash really the answer at the moment? It took a few decades for our spending culture to get to where it is at the moment. It will take a few years for the pendulum to swing back. Meanwhile, be prepare for some friends / relatives asking to come and live with you. Quite challenging to your sense of what kind of person you really are. Hope you are up to it. Obama has made mistakes, but McClain surely would not have done any better in terms of job creation. I can't remember when a modern president was given such bad cards to start his term. All the shouting and gesturing is just a drumbeat for the naive and the ideologues to keep themselves in a frenzy for the 2012 elections.

Toymann

07-01-11, 13:28

I can't remember when a modern president was given such bad cards to start his term.Guesse you were asleep on 9/11. And of course, you must have forgotten the economic ramifications of this insignificant event. All I can say is "thank god we didn't have obomanation at the helm back then". But again, it's all Bush's fault! Oh yes, some president managed his way out of that fiasco, but who was really paying attention anyway. LMAO! Tick! Tick! Tick! Time for you liberal free thinkers too pull your heads out of you're distal orifaces.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Moveon

07-01-11, 14:11

Moveon, I'm convinced you're either a politician or you work for one.Oh, please Teeny. I am as close to being a politician or working for one than you are becoming a moderate free-thinker.

The Administrator can easily check my name and see I have nothing to do with politics.

Actually, I was a life-long Republican until I switched parties recently. Eight dreadful years of George W, his Halliburton cronies, and John Ashcroft was enough for me to see the light.

Now I see the Tea Party as the middle-class destroyer of life who is hell-bent on giving tax subsidies to Big Oil & large corporations plus ending what is left of our social programs to help the needy in this great nation of ours.

Not to worry, without the Latino vote, the Republicans won't win the next election anyway.

Member #4112

07-01-11, 16:15

Hate to bust your bubble Moveon, but in case you have not been keeping up with the polls, nobody is very happy with your boy Obama. He is in the mid to upper 40's in popularity and under 40 in handling the economy, the liberals are mad at him because he has not been liberal enough and the independents are mad at him because he has been too liberal. When you couple that with unemployment over 9% and a stalling / staggering economy, Obama's chances for a second term are growing dim.

What all this translates into for his base on Election Day is not that they vote for the other guy but they don't bother to go to the polls at all. Since neither party has enough followers to win an election it is the independent voters who have decided the last few elections. Obama is losing independents in droves and as for the Latino vote, I don't think I would be counting to heavily on it as he has failed to do anything but pay lip service to immigration reform and flooding Mexico with guns is not much help either.

I think your boy is going to get his ass kicked in November 2012 unless something startling happens with unemployment and the economy which is not likely, they have used all their liberal tricks and they have failed to work.

If you are the President of the United States, you can not lead from the REAR. Point in fact he does not lead at all and everything that fails is someone else's fault not his.

You know Perry is looking pretty good. Balanced the budget in Texas without raising taxes but by cutting spending and Texas does not have a crippling state income tax as well as being a right to work state, ie few unions. Just a hard nosed Texas politician who gets the job done.

HappyGoLucky

07-01-11, 16:23

(Maybe this was mentioned before) , but notwithstanding this is a really good movie:

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

Moveon

07-01-11, 17:59

Hate to bust your bubble Moveon, but in case. You know now Perry is looking pretty good. Balanced the budget in Texas without raising taxes but by cutting spending and Texas does not have a crippling state income tax as well as being a right to work state, ie few unions. Just a hard nosed Texas politician who gets the job done.

Oh, really?

Balanced the Texas state budget?

How about the Texas $25 BILLION deficit?

As George W. would say, "Now that's what I'm talking about!"

http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1

Member #4112

07-01-11, 18:37

Moveon, you need to learn to read something other than those left wing rags and old ones at that, the article was written over 6 months ago! The special session ended yesterday, the budget was balanced, taxes were not raised, and spending was CUT. I know this is something you liberals hate, but Texas CUT spending and took some funds from the "Rainy Day" surplus of past years and BALANCED THE BUDGET.

As usual you are misinformed but I know how liberals never let facts get in the way of good story.

Perry looks better than Romney, no government healthcare in Texas as in Massachusetts and no flip-flopping. He is number 2 in the polls behind Romney and Perry has not even decided if he will even run.

By the way, regarding your disparaging remarks about the Tea Party folks, they have a legitimate right to complain, they are the 50% of the population who are paying the bills!

Rev BS

07-01-11, 21:05

Guesse you were asleep on 9/11. And of course, you must have forgotten the economic ramifications of this insignificant event. All I can say is "thank god we didn't have obomanation at the helm back then". But again, it's all Bush's fault! Oh yes, some president managed his way out of that fiasco, but who was really paying attention anyway. LMAO! Tick! Tick! Tick! Time for you liberal free thinkers too pull your heads out of you're distal orifaces.

Happy Mongering All. ToymannMost Americans were asleep, even if you were wide awake stroking your weenie. My take on 9/11 was that while it is one of the most infamous acts in American history, it also gave a very inexperienced president a chance to shine. At his right hand was Field Marshall Dick Cheney, and on his left hand was the American Military, the world's strongest military power with the world's biggest defense budget. 9/11 united Congress and the American people behind the priesidency and the ensuing invasion of Afganistan ensure that Bush was going to get his 2nd term. Unlike his unlucky father, Bush Senior, who was the most qualified man to become president in modern history, Junior got the 2nd luckiest break of his life with 9/11. The 1st lucky break being his victory over Gore by 1 vote (mine).

A liberal I am not, but most of all, I believe in fairness. Obama was dealt a bad hand and he will be kick out just like Bush Senior. No sentiments when it comes down to having money in your pockets.

Esten

07-02-11, 01:51

You really should use quotation marks when you quote someone.Nah, it was funnier without the quotation marks.

I liked your Obama and Biden quotes. You forgot the one about Obama mistaking his own daughter's age.

But here's the thing. There's a big difference between occasionally flubbing numbers, and being an extreme far-right evangelical conservative. Obviously she has quite a few followers, but also quite a few who think she does not have a firm grasp on reality.

IMHO you have now stooped to a new low,With your own quotes, and the almost endless stream of disparaging comments about me, Obama, Reid and Pelosi here, somehow your comment seems rather hollow.

Still, no need to worry. I prefer debating the issues. I won't be hammering into Bachmann too much, but she was overdue for some comment here.

but if you're going to demonize every threat to ObamaThere's no need to.

you better get started on Rick PerryI have nothing bad to say about him right now.

BTW if I support Herman Cain over Obama would the left still classify me as a racist?Of course not.

Tiny12

07-02-11, 01:57

Oh, please Teeny. I am as close to being a politician or working for one than you are becoming a moderate free-thinker.

The Administrator can easily check my name and see I have nothing to do with politics.

Actually, I was a life-long Republican until I switched parties recently. Eight dreadful years of George W, his Halliburton cronies, and John Ashcroft was enough for me to see the light.

Now I see the Tea Party as the middle-class destroyer of life who is hell-bent on giving tax subsidies to Big Oil & large corporations plus ending what is left of our social programs to help the needy in this great nation of ours.

Not to worry, without the Latino vote, the Republicans won't win the next election anyway.Moveon, You're the only poster here that ALWAYS takes the party line. Not even Esten falls in that category. Walleye, Doppel, Toymann, Jackson, Stan, etc. may believe in the same liberal economic policies as Tea Party Republicans, but they're social liberals. It's curious you're so in line with the Democrat manifesto if you really were a life-long Republican. Also, that's an interesting thought, that the administrator could check your identity. You provided him no information when you registered that would identity you. Why would you expect him to violate your privacy, especially given this is a monger forum?

You confuse tax deductions with subsidies. The Tea Party is hell bent on taking subsidies AWAY, like those for ethanol, renewable energy, wealthy farmers, etc. It's the mainstream pork barrel Democrats and Republicans that want to keep the subsidies.

On the separate topic of tax deductions, given that the USA has the highest tax rates on business in the world, deductions are the only thing that make certain companies competitive in the world arena. The Tea Party would like to remove preferential tax deductions, that is, what you're calling "subsidies", and lower tax rates.

The social programs you're referring to, being Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, are going to take up a ridiculous and unsustainable percentage of GDP if nothing is done, and Obama, you and every other intelligent Democrat knows that. But, unlike the Tea Party, most Democrat politicians prefer to kick the can down the road, as they put short term political gain over what's good for the country.

Your comments about Perry are interesting. I don't particularly like him, for reasons having to do with his personal character. And the lieutenant governor has more power than the governor in Texas anyway. But Texas' credit rating is higher than average, and the state has added 37% of total jobs added in the USA since the end of the recession. Chalk that up in part to policies of the Republican legislature.

I don't disagree with you about the next election, as I already said in my earlier post that you responded to.

Matt Psyche

07-02-11, 13:23

Although GW sent troops to Afghanistan against Al Qaeda, soon the operation was stalled as he began the war in Iraq, which he misleadingly called "War on Terror." Under the War on Terror propaganda, GW administration depicted the war in Iraq as a war for democracy against the allegedly global terrorism by muslim fundamentalists. As a result, many people, including Sarah Palin, thought that Iraq and Sadam Hussein were responsible for 9/11. GW's popular standing was helped by the "rally around the flag" patriotic movements after 9/11 and the war in Iraq (War on terror) , which were mixed up and confused for many Americans. Without the war in Iraq, he would not have won the second term.

Most Americans were asleep, even if you were wide awake stroking your weenie. My take on 9/11 was that while it is one of the most infamous acts in American history, it also gave a very inexperienced president a chance to shine. At his right hand was Field Marshall Dick Cheney, and on his left hand was the American Military, the world's strongest military power with the world's biggest defense budget. 9/11 united Congress and the American people behind the priesidency and the ensuing invasion of Afganistan ensure that Bush was going to get his 2nd term. Unlike his unlucky father, Bush Senior, who was the most qualified man to become president in modern history, Junior got the 2nd luckiest break of his life with 9/11. The 1st lucky break being his victory over Gore by 1 vote (mine).

A liberal I am not, but most of all, I believe in fairness. Obama was dealt a bad hand and he will be kick out just like Bush Senior. No sentiments when it comes down to having money in your pockets.

Punter 127

07-02-11, 21:26

Nah, it was funnier without the quotation marks.You may find it funny but I would call it being deceptive, you've pulled the same shit before.

I liked your Obama and Biden quotes. You forgot the one about Obama mistaking his own daughter's age.I didn't forget, I think families should be left out of politics. I also think this game of jumping on every little word that people speak or mis-speak is petty. I only posted those quotes to make a point to you, not for any value.

But here's the thing. There's a big difference between occasionally flubbing numbers, and being an extreme far-right evangelical conservative. Obviously she has quite a few followers, but also quite a few who think she does not have a firm grasp on reality.What's wrong with being an ' extreme far-right evangelical conservative? ' I think she has as much right to be a ' extreme far-right evangelical conservative' as you do to be an extreme far-left liberal, progressive, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, atheist or whatever else you want to be.

With your own quotes, and the almost endless stream of disparaging comments about me, Obama, Reid and Pelosi here, somehow your comment seems rather hollow.True I have made disparaging remarks, but not as part of an organized effort to demonize someone. I don't believe you can honestly make the same claim.

I offer your link to Rolling Stone as a prime example of you following your leaders. If I'm wrong and you're not following the lead of the far left and you really are giving us your honest opinion then I apologize. However that leads me to question why you are so down on Bachmann and Palin are you misogynistic or do they just scare you that bad?

Still, no need to worry. I prefer debating the issues. I won't be hammering into Bachmann too much, but she was overdue for some comment here.I hope we can keep that to her position on the issues.

There's no need to.

I have nothing bad to say about him right now.I'm sure you'll be getting the memo on Perry very soon.

Now can we get back to the issues?

WorldTravel69

07-03-11, 05:49

This many posts for no sex.

You guys are really fucked up.

I thought AP was about where to get a Piece of Ass.

You guys really need to come to BsAs.

At least I can get a massage with a Happy Ending.

You guys must be really bad, if the only way you can get stimulated is with your Fingers.

Punter 127

07-03-11, 11:04

This many posts for no sex.

You guys are really fucked up.

I thought AP was about where to get a Piece of Ass.

You guys are really need to come to BsAs.

At least I can get a massage with a Happy Ending.

You guys must be really bad, if the only way you can get stimulated is with your Fingers.Probably the most active thread on the forum, does that tell you anything?

Matt Psyche

07-03-11, 11:35

Everything you said is true. You are totally right.

This many posts for no sex.

You guys are really fucked up.

I thought AP was about where to get a Piece of Ass.

You guys are really need to come to BsAs.

At least I can get a massage with a Happy Ending.

You guys must be really bad, if the only way you can get stimulated is with your Fingers.

Esten

07-03-11, 15:00

You guys must be really bad, if the only way you can get stimulated is with your Fingers.WT- This thread is busy because most of us are stuck in Sex Prison! We know where to go in BA, we just can't get down there often.

Of course there is action here in SP, but it doesn't hold a candle to the scene in BA. Too expensive, limited options, travelling time, all not to mention the legal aspect. We can thank the family values climate here, driven in large part by one political party.

WT here's an example to make you laugh. Aside from a trip to Europe earlier in the year, I haven't done any hobbying in 2011. So this weekend, being a long weekend here I decided to splurge a little. I went to two strip clubs where I knew I could get some high mileage lap dances. Between the two clubs I spent about 1 hour in private VIP rooms, 2 HIP happy endings, 3 dancers, $500 total costs and 5 hours of driving! LOL!! Yes I could have done something closer and cheaper, but I wanted to go to those clubs.

So WT, this thread helps keep us distracted a little bit, while AP gives us a lifeline to one of our favorite places through the posts of others.

Tiny12

07-04-11, 17:33

Writing about politics is completely fucked up? Most people, unfortunately, would think the other things we write about here are a lot more fucked up. Relax. This is the "Chit Chat" section of an internet site. It's like grade school. If you don't want to stand around talking at recess you're free to go do something else.

Now, excuse me. I need to go to the bathroom and whack off to photos of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton while reading some of Esten's posts. I get so aroused when I'm pissed off.

Punter 127

07-05-11, 10:23

Of course there is action here in SP, but it doesn't hold a candle to the scene in BA. Too expensive, limited options, travelling time, all not to mention the legal aspect. We can thank the family values climate here, driven in large part by one political party.Whoa, would you have us believe that leftwing Democrats supports legalized prostitution, did you forget about the male bashing feminist groups that oppose prostitution?

Take a look at the San Francisco protest to end Craigs List "Adult Services" Section, which was sponsored by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW) , if you look at the co-sponsors you will see names like Gloria Steinem, and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, and Congresswoman Jackie Speier, (both Democrats) of course it's all under the guise of anti-trafficking. By linking trafficking and prostitution they can abuse the Mann Act to combat prostitution in the USA.

So tell us Esten is your statement a half truth, a misconception, or just an attempt to mislead?

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

http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/advocacy/000276.html

BTW the 'Coalition Against Trafficking in Women' is international and on their web page they state 'CATW has been an effective NGO presence internationally and has changed the terms of the debate over prostitution and trafficking in many regions of the globe and at the United Nations level. '

http://www.catwinternational.org/about/index.php

Most of these feminist groups favor Swedish style prostitution laws that make it legal to sell sex but illegal to buy it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03-16-sweden-prostitution_N.htm

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

Moveon

07-05-11, 14:13

Moveon, . that's an interesting thought, that the administrator could check your identity. You provided him no information when you registered that would identity you. Why would you expect him to violate your privacy, especially given this is a monger forum?Tiny, you remind me of Donald Trump and Sean Hannity of Fox News. Those who did not believe Obama was born in Hawaii. If Jackson would like to, he can PM and I will give him my email address. Jackson can send me a (non-monger) email and I will reply to confirm. At this point he can Google my name and email address to see if I have anything to do with politics. (I trust that the Administrator would then withhold my identity infinitely.)

Now stop with your conspiracy theories.

Tiny12

07-05-11, 20:44

Now stop with your conspiracy theories.You're Bill Clinton. I know you are, don't deny it.

Esten

07-06-11, 01:11

True I have made disparaging remarks, but not as part of an organized effort to demonize someone. I don't believe you can honestly make the same claim.I should clarify something. On your quotes I referred to you. But on the disparaging remarks, that was not about you specifically, rather the collective right-wing posting history in this thread. In which you are certainly not among the worst offenders.

Surely you realize that often our posts are driven by the news cycle, what is current. Possibly, just possibly, I posted about Bachmann because she was getting a lot of media attention for something, oh, perhaps announcing her run for President? That you think I was simply following some liberal directive or effort ala "today post about Bachmann" is seriously funny! My opinions are 100% my own. Think what you will, I cannot control that. FWIW, it never, ever occured to me any right wing poster here was part of some organized effort either.

Whoa, would you have us believe that leftwing Democrats supports legalized prostitution, did you forget about the male bashing feminist groups that oppose prostitution?Read what I said. I said nothing about the extent of support for legalizing prostitution among Democrats. BTW there is a very important difference between trafficking and prostitution.

If prostitution were the only issue I would vote Libertarian. Between Dems and Repubs, I'd say the party that supports gay marriage is more likely to support legalizing prostitution.

It is my opinion that the single biggest obstacle to legalizing prostitution is the religious right and their efforts to maintain and promote a family values culture in the US. This does not mean there would be no other obstacles without them. Only that the religious right is the biggest obstacle, or drag, on moving in the direction of legalization. I'm quite sure many if not most people would agree with this. Care to disagree?

Esten

07-06-11, 01:46

The social programs you're referring to, being Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, are going to take up a ridiculous and unsustainable percentage of GDP if nothing is done, and Obama, you and every other intelligent Democrat knows that. But, unlike the Tea Party, most Democrat politicians prefer to kick the can down the road, as they put short term political gain over what's good for the country.Yes we all know Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are big and growing components of federal spending. But saying the Tea Party has a serious approach and Dems want to kick the can down the road is bullshit. First off, Ryan's budget was never serious to begin with because everybody knew it would go nowhere. It was a statement, for discussion purposes, not a serious proposal. If they were serious they would have submitted something that actually had a chance of passing. And only a fool would believe that Dems would support a plan to eliminate Medicare AND give more tax cuts to the wealthy at the same time. The Tea Party is an ignorant and dangerous ideological movement. Repubs think the Tea Party will help them in 2012, but it could prove just the opposite.

Second, Dems are very willing to make serious cuts. They've already agreed to $1 Trillion or so cuts in the current debt ceiling discussions. Neither party can take the high road in being deficit hawks. But we could have a deal tomorrow if it weren't for, you guessed it, conservative ideology. In fact the Democratic compromise would lower deficits more than the one-sided Republican plan. The Republican position has the weight of economic and popular opinion against it. It is getting close to crunch time and this one will be very interesting to watch. There is short-term and long-term strategy here on both sides. My feeling is there needs to be some real pain, though not too much. Once Americans start understanding the real vs. abstract consequences of deep spending cuts, they will be even more in favor of including revenue increases in 2012.