American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Looking at one part of the whole can lead to misleading conclusions.

On taxes, big numbers are cited to demonstrate how much taxes the rich are paying. Yes, the rich pay a very large amount and percentage of US taxes. But they also receive a very large amount and percentage of US income. What matters is the net effect. Some math for fun:

50000 income X (0.25 tax rate) = 12500 (37500 after-tax)
1000000 income X (0.35 tax rate) = 350000 (650000 after-tax)

Even if we say that's fair because both earned their income, let's look at what happens when income increases. Assume a 10% increase over a couple years from salary and investments - the latter playing a much larger role for the rich guy.

0.10(50000) = 5000 X (0.25 tax rate) = 1250 (3750 increase after-tax)
0.10(1000000) = 100000 X (0.35 tax rate) = 35000 (65000 increase after- tax)

Any way you look at it, wealth keeps funneling up to the wealthiest. Dems would be happy to leave the rich alone if there wasn't such tremendous wealth inequality with millions living in poverty. This is about making things a little fairer, not creating conditions so that people don't have to work (another false claim from the right).

On oil, big numbers are cited to demonstrate how much oil we have. Yes, we have billions of barrels. But we consume billions of barrels. What matters is the net difference. I've seen a couple estimates that the world has hundreds of years of oil left, but most estimates are less than 100 years. Let's say we have 100 years left. I hope it isn't true, but what if it is. Then what? And what if we find 10 years from now we only have 10 years left? There is no reason we shouldn't start getting aggressive on renewable energy today, and plenty of reasons we should.

BTW Walleye, I wouldn't trust that cnsnews website. It's a right wing propaganda website with a sly name meant to trick people into thinking it's another well-known established news source.

[QUOTE=Esten]BTW Walleye, I wouldn't trust that cnsnews website. It's a right wing propaganda website with a sly name meant to trick people into thinking it's another well-known established news source.[/QUOTE]Agreed that it is not trust worthy. See my second post on the subject. However, the POV of that article is anything but right (politically or in terms of correctness)

[QUOTE=Esten]Looking at one part of the whole can lead to misleading conclusions.

On taxes, big numbers are cited to demonstrate how much taxes the rich are paying. Yes, the rich pay a very large amount and percentage of US taxes. But they also receive a very large amount and percentage of US income. What matters is the net effect. Some math for fun:

50000 income X (0.25 tax rate) = 12500 (37500 after-tax)

1000000 income X (0.35 tax rate) = 350000 (650000 after-tax)

Even if we say that's fair because both earned their income, let's look at what happens when income increases. Assume a 10% increase over a couple years from salary and investments - the latter playing a much larger role for the rich guy.

0.10(50000) = 5000 X (0.25 tax rate) = 1250 (3750 increase after-tax)

0.10(1000000) = 100000 X (0.35 tax rate) = 35000 (65000 increase after- tax)

Any way you look at it, wealth keeps funneling up to the wealthiest. Dems would be happy to leave the rich alone if there wasn't such tremendous wealth inequality with millions living in poverty. This is about making things a little fairer, not creating conditions so that people don't have to work (another false claim from the right) [/QUOTE]Phew! Do you really believe this stuff?

That post says more about you than anything else you've posted here. It's hard for me to fathom that people actually fall for this drivel, but there's the proof in all it's splendor. I would respond substantively, but I can see now that it wouldn't do any good. Wow. Just, wow.

And it cracks me up how liberals can talk about "all the millions of poor" in our country, the majority of which live as good or BETTER lives than Buenos Aire's middle class.

I still KNOW that in the US poor people have the hope of making a better life for themselves, much better than many nations on Earth, and particularly a better chance than in countries like Argentina (and just about any other third-world [or supposedly "developing"] country)

However, as socialist "beat up on the rich" policies continue to grab hold of the US under progressives in the States, it will equalize things, alright, much like has been done in these third world countries. It will equalize downward and the people in POWER will become the rich, and they will maintain their riches much easier than the current rich who are rich because of their own hard work (or the hard work of their ancestors, sure, in some cases)

There ain't no such thing as guaranteed equality and anyone who tries to convince anyone that there is is either a dupe of those who would have you believe that, or are those very persons who would absolutely love to determine who is more equal than others instead of letting markets and personal drive and responsibility determine that.

[QUOTE=Esten]On oil, big numbers are cited to demonstrate how much oil we have. Yes, we have billions of barrels. But we consume billions of barrels. What matters is the net difference. I've seen a couple estimates that the world has hundreds of years of oil left, but most estimates are less than 100 years. Let's say we have 100 years left. I hope it isn't true, but what if it is. Then what? And what if we find 10 years from now we only have 10 years left? There is no reason we shouldn't start getting aggressive on renewable energy today, and plenty of reasons we should.[/QUOTE]Like many on the left, you want to keep ignoring facts that arise to demonstrate that the premise under which you and people who share your opinions on how the world works are untenable or downright false.

How do you explain that some oil reservoirs seem to refill themselves? How do you explain that we have never reached the point where we are producing less oil than in previous years as has been warned for decades by the "green" left? How do you explain that oil is being found deeper than biotic processes can possibly account for - more than twice as deep, actually?

The poor today live nearly like kings of 300-400 years ago. In the US at least. In the rest of the world (at least in undeveloped nations, I should say) they live like they always have - peasants with dirt floors, outhouses and wells for water. Sometimes without electricity and communications.

We're not running out of oil.

We're not affecting global climate with our relatively small emissions, compared to the much greater emissions the Earth itself puts out, in fact.

In fact, can you blame humanity for the large store of methane that exists in huge bubbles under the ocean floor and could be stirred up (with an earthquake, for example) and kill millions of people in one fell swoop?

You keep arguing the liberal, progressive talk points and such, but you never really seem to take into account the actual facts that show many of these stances to be false and untenable. I think if you stopped and did some research on your own on some of these issues, you would have a change of heart - you're obviously a pretty smart guy.

If we were not running out of oil, not affecting the global climate with our emissions, and the poor are getting richer (as has happened in the US since its inception) the liberals would have nothing to ***** about and use to try to gain power.

They would have no leverage with which to try to convince the masses of people that the world is about to end and only their stewardship can set things "aright."

I argued at one point with Wild Walleye about a year ago that Obama and his ilk were not evil and trying to bring down the US per se - they were just fighting for their beliefs, which were wrong, but that didn't make them bad people themselves.

Well, I was completely wrong.

They are lying, cheating and doing anything they can to ensure that their viewpoint prevails. At least the right is using tactics that exist within the law, but those on the left are twisting procedures and doing all mannaer of backroom deals to ensure that they get what THEY want, not what the people of the US want as a whole. It is an attempt at tyranny of the few over the masses.

It's the only way that in the US, once a proud nation that stood on the independence of its people and its workers, a minority of people can so twist things to convince others that the only way we can all get ahead is to let Big Brother control everything and decide what is fair and what is not, who deserves to have money and who does not.

Because liberals are so much smarter than us knuckle-dragging neanderthals, I have paid homage (liberals, go to dictionary.com to figure out what this big word means) to liberalism in the following ways:

- Make sure that the leather in my shoes comes from orphan, terminally-ill cows.

- Only use mercury-laden compact florescent bulbs in my house.

- Everyday, I pack my kid's lunch in disposable styrofoam.

- I removed the catalytic converter from my gas guzzling, CO-spewing SUV,

- Intentionally under-inflated my tires by 15%

- mix a quart of oil into my gas tank with every other fill up.

- Bring plastic, disposable bags to the grocery store (in the commie town that banned plastic and makes me use toilet-paper thin paper bags) and throw them away after every use.

- Had my vas deferens surgically rerouted to shoot out my ass so as to avoid depositing my DNA on intern's dresses or masseuses pants (guess old save-the-earth Al likes the maduritas)

And lastly, I had my sense of humor surgically removed.

One thing I've noticed repeatedly, is that folks on the right often seem to think they have some special appreciation of the truth, that is not evident in mainstream news/thinking. And when someone repeats an idea/position that has appeared many times in the media, that person is accused of blindly believing what they read and not understanding the real truth. Especially when the idea/position is simple and straightforward.

Sometimes this is true, but sometimes it isn't. Conventional wisdom is not always wrong. Simple explanations are not always wrong. To believe that these are always or even usually wrong is something I can only characterize as pathological. A psychological defect. I am sure there must be a name for this, but I can't find it.

What's important is critical thinking. No matter where the ideas come from or how simple or complex they are.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Phew! Do you really believe this stuff? That post says more about you than anything else you've posted here. It's hard for me to fathom that people actually fall for this drivel, but there's the proof in all it's splendor. I would respond substantively, but I can see now that it wouldn't do any good. Wow. Just, wow.[/QUOTE]I have that same reaction to things I read here on a regular basis! I guess I have a vague hope to get more critical thinking and sound reasoning from the other side here, though I have learned to keep my expectations low.

Now Stan you have said intelligent things here before, so I stopped to consider why you had this reaction to my post. You can't argue with the tax brackets or math, so I'm guessing you consider my example simplistic as a basis for my views on wealth inequality. If so, fair enough but I should have clarified I used that example only as an example. I'll agree there are innumerable examples of how income and taxes favor one group over another, and arguments can be made on both sides.

However I stand by my example as a simple yet accurate and illustrative example of how wealth grows faster in higher income brackets.

You should look up the Gini Coefficient. Here's the wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

It's a statistical parameter often used as a measure of inequality of income or wealth. In the plot you'll see the US has one of the highest Gini indices (highest income disparity) of all countries, and you'll see the trend has been going even higher over the last three decades.

I'd like to hear your argument why this is acceptable and should be left alone.

[QUOTE=El Queso]Like many on the left, you want to keep ignoring facts that arise to demonstrate that the premise under which you and people who share your opinions on how the world works are untenable or downright false.

How do you explain that some oil reservoirs seem to refill themselves? How do you explain that we have never reached the point where we are producing less oil than in previous years as has been warned for decades by the "green" left? How do you explain that oil is being found deeper than biotic processes can possibly account for - more than twice as deep, actually?

The poor today live nearly like kings of 300-400 years ago. In the US at least. In the rest of the world (at least in undeveloped nations, I should say) they live like they always have - peasants with dirt floors, outhouses and wells for water. Sometimes without electricity and communications.

We're not running out of oil.[/QUOTE]First let me get this out of the way: your suggestion that space travel would be a better investment than renewable energy is quite possibly the most ludicrous and foolhardy statement I have read yet. It is so ludicrous I am considering making it my first entry on a right wing hall of fame list.

Now at the same time you've made a very good point about oil. I'll agree we don't know everything about oil reserves and generation. I really hope there is some mechanism by which the earth can continue to provide significant oil resources for millenia. I believe this is possible. So I'll accept some criticism of the claim that we are running out of oil, and re-phrase my position as follows: "We don't have conclusive evidence that we are NOT running out of oil." This being the case, I still stand by everything I said about the importance of expanding renewable energy. If you believe your various points constitute some 'fact' I am ignoring about not running out of oil, obviously I disagree. I'm not some alarmist claiming the sky is falling. I just believe strongly given the information we have (and don't have) that significantly expanding renewable energy is the prudent thing to do for the world's future.

As far as Obama et al. Being bad people. Good grief! LOL. I do not agree with 100% of their views and actions. For example, you may be surprised to know (from what I know of it) I actually support Arizona's recent actions on immigration. But I agree with much of what Obama is doing and find it far superior to what the GOP has to offer. Obama et al. are showing some backbone against special interests, something this country needs more of.

[QUOTE=Esten]One thing I've noticed repeatedly, is that folks on the right often seem to think they have some special appreciation of the truth, that is not evident in mainstream news / thinking. And when someone repeats an idea / position that has appeared many times in the media, that person is accused of blindly believing what they read and not understanding the real truth.[/QUOTE]No one individual has exclusivity on the truth. However, when talking about political agendas, liberals rarely tell the truth. When was the last time you saw a straight-talking, honest liberal on the campaign trail or trying to push through legislation? If you did see one, they would be saying "you people are too stupid to make these choices yourselves. You need us (the Legislative Class) to make these decisions for you and for us to do that, you need to give us more of your money. It will be more inefficient for us to do it, but we will blow enough smoke up your collective asses to make you think that it is better this way." Further, "we need to raise your taxes again because you need more government."

[quote=]You should look up the Gini Coefficient. Here's the wikipedia page: en. Wikipedia. Org / wiki / Gini_coefficient.

It's a statistical parameter often used as a measure of inequality of income or wealth. In the plot you'll see the US has one of the highest Gini indices (highest income disparity) of all countries, and you'll see the trend has been going even higher over the last three decades.

I'd like to hear your argument why this is acceptable and should be left alone.[/QUOTE]Great critical thinking on your part. Do you know who and what Gini was? Here is the short answer: Gini "was an Italian statistician, demographer and sociologist who developed the Gini coefficient, a measure of the income inequality in a society. Gini was also a leading fascist theorist and ideologue who wrote The Scientific Basis of Fascism in 1927. Gini was a proponent of the concept of organicism and applied it to nations."

While I may not have critical thinking capabilities comparable to yours, I would take a certain amount of skepticism into any review of concepts developed by a fascist propagandist. That said, you might also want to look into some of Hitler's positions on nationalized health care and income redistribution.

[quote=]As far as Obama et al. Being bad people.[/QUOTE]This is a pretty subjective realm, at least if you are talking about morals. If you are speaking in terms of legal and ethical, we'll need to wait until there has been some form of adjudication on his involvement in the Blago, Sestak and other cases, hinting of potential illegal activity. In Obama's world, morality is relative, therefore, he can't be immoral.

[quote=] But I agree with much of what Obama is doing and find it far superior to what the GOP has to offer. Obama et al. Are showing some backbone against special interests, something this country needs more of.[/QUOTE]My dear Esten, do you really think he has shown backbone regarding special interests? If so, which ones? In my opinion, the blood of this president is imbued with special interest money, he cannot separate himself from it.

Do you think that his refusal to accept assistance with the BP spill, from foreign nations, is not a gift to the unions and to the green movement? What about the attempted moratorium on deep water drilling? Health care reform? Immigration?

[QUOTE=Esten]However I stand by my example as a simple yet accurate and illustrative example of how wealth grows faster in higher income brackets.

You should look up the Gini Coefficient. Here's the wikipedia page: en. Wikipedia. Org / wiki / Gini_coefficient.

It's a statistical parameter often used as a measure of inequality of income or wealth. In the plot you'll see the US has one of the highest Gini indices (highest income disparity) of all countries, and you'll see the trend has been going even higher over the last three decades.

I'd like to hear your argument why this is acceptable and should be left alone.[/QUOTE]Look at MEDIAN (not average) measures of household income or GDP adjusted for purchasing power. By median I mean the 50th percentile level. Half the population is wealthier than the median and half is poorer. No large country comes anywhere close to the United States. Weeding out tiny places like Luxembourg and the Emirates, only Switzerland and Norway are better off. Switzerland isn't exactly a socialist paradise, and Norway is sitting on large oil and gas wealth. And they're both small, homogeneous countries.

Redistributionist, European-style policies would make the majority of Americans worse off. What you're espousing is cutting off your nose to spite your face -- it's a recipe to make the majority poorer, not just the rich.

The reason? In redistributing income, you're disproportionately taking money from successful businesses, and from individuals who save and invest. And channeling it toward personal consumption. As a result, you're taking away money the private sector needs to grow, to create new jobs, and to pay higher wages. In certain instances, but not all, you're taking money away from the people who work the hardest and the smartest. And you will encourage some people on the receiving end to not work as hard, or not work at all.

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Look at MEDIAN (not average) measures of household income or GDP adjusted for purchasing power. By median I mean the 50th percentile level. Half the population is wealthier than the median and half is poorer. No large country comes anywhere close to the United States. Weeding out tiny places like Luxembourg and the Emirates, only Switzerland and Norway are better off. Switzerland isn't exactly a socialist paradise, and Norway is sitting on large oil and gas wealth. And they're both small, homogeneous countries.

Redistributionist, European-style policies would make the majority of Americans worse off. What you're espousing is cutting off your nose to spite your face -- it's a recipe to make the majority poorer, not just the rich.

The reason? In redistributing income, you're disproportionately taking money from successful businesses, and from individuals who save and invest. And channeling it toward personal consumption. As a result, you're taking away money the private sector needs to grow, to create new jobs, and to pay higher wages. In certain instances, but not all, you're taking money away from the people who work the hardest and the smartest. And you will encourage some people on the receiving end to not work as hard, or not work at all.[/QUOTE]Great analysis, you hit a home run. Thanks.

[QUOTE=Esten]First let me get this out of the way: your suggestion that space travel would be a better investment than renewable energy is quite possibly the most ludicrous and foolhardy statement I have read yet. It is so ludicrous I am considering making it my first entry on a right wing hall of fame list.[/QUOTE]Esten, first of all, I'm not a "right winger." You can put my "suggestion" related to space flight wherever you like, and I can assure you I actually have some suggestions related to that. :)

I'm a Libertarian who thinks even the Republicans spend too much and interfere too much in our lives. I just happen to be clinging to Republicans at the moment because they are absolutely digging in their heels and trying to stop Obama from completely destroying us with his idiocies.

My God, even socialistic-bent Europe is digging in its heels and saying "you have to stop spending" while Obama is saying "No! Spend More!"

Second, I was never suggesting that the government actually get involved in space flight - as a Libertarian the very idea is abhorrent. I would like to see the free market get to the point where business itself is putting us into space. The government would almost certainly screw things up completely if they got involved in space flight (look at NASA and the cost of the space shuttle per flight, etc)

What I WAS suggesting is that the 800 billion that Obama had intended to spend on idiocies like keeping civil workers employed (which contributes the very smallest amount to bettering our economy in the SHORT term and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the long term - worst of all of the things he could have done except give the money away overseas) would have been far better spent on ways to access space cheaply.

Of course, few seem to see the dual danger that allowing China and India to get into space represents. Few people seem to realize how being there first allows one to completely control access to space - that's just one thing. Any idea how easy it is to stop something that is trying to leave the Earth's surface - ANYWHERE on the Earth's surface - from orbit if you don't want someone coming up? Also, you don't need nuclear weapons and the attendant radiation dangers to create an explosion the size of an atomic bomb - just drop a large kinetic rock and it will do the same thing without all the "dirt."

Imagine our enemies getting there first - you think they will be all light and honey like the US almost certainly would (in relation) if it was there first?

But what REALLY cracks me up about your obviously ignorant comment about space being such a flight of fantasy (my words, but paraphrasing generously yours) is that you talk about pumping billions into IDIOTIC things like "renewable energy" which we don't even KNOW HOW TO DO (or believe me, we would already have done) Again, as though the government should just "take care of these things" because the government obviously knows better how to do things than private enterprise.

Of course, you miss the point that we could put huge solar collectors into orbit and beam the power down via tight microwave beams, equaling the output of any coal-burning plant or even nuclear plant. In tests, it has even been shown that cattle can graze among the collectors without harmful effects - we're talking no pollution even! We already KNOW HOW to do that, it's just very expensive to get into space, which is why private industry hasn't done it yet - it's not profitable yet.

But if we could beam down massive amounts of energy, easily convertible into electricity, would that not go a long way towards solving issues related to energy and pollution? Is that not better than spending money on crap that we really have no idea how to do "renewable energy?"

Just because Obama and the left say that we need renewable energy, it doesn't mean that we can just snap our fingers and have it - as competitive as companies are, if someone had an inkling of how to do it, believe me they would!

Unless you are a conspiracy theorist that honestly thinks that big oil is keeping all of that down.

You also miss the fact that if we had cheap access to space we (as in the US and whoever actually had cheap access to space) could actually re-establish manufacturing bases that have been lost over the last 70 years or so to other countries. High tech manufacturing, not stuff that's left over from the Industrial Revolution. Of course, you have no idea the kinds of things we could manufacture in space that would be cheaper, stronger, more pure, etc, because of the ability to manufacture in microgravity.

Imagine the actual JOBS (non-government, of course) that would be created by new industries! All the way from janitors, to teachers, to tradesmen, to scientists.

Why would you know something about any of this? No politician certainly ever talks about this stuff - it's over their heads! That goes for both Republicans and Democrats. Obama doesn't think about any of these things because he's not capable of being, for example, another John Kennedy who DID have some real visions of the future for the US.

[QUOTE=Esten]Now at the same time you've made a very good point about oil. I'll agree we don't know everything about oil reserves and generation. I really hope there is some mechanism by which the earth can continue to provide significant oil resources for millenia. I believe this is possible. So I'll accept some criticism of the claim that we are running out of oil, and re-phrase my position as follows: "We don't have conclusive evidence that we are NOT running out of oil." This being the case, I still stand by everything I said about the importance of expanding renewable energy. If you believe your various points constitute some 'fact' I am ignoring about not running out of oil, obviously I disagree. I'm not some alarmist claiming the sky is falling. I just believe strongly given the information we have (and don't have) that significantly expanding renewable energy is the prudent thing to do for the world's future.[/QUOTE]Conclusive evidence that we are NOT running out of oil comes from people who are actually proving that WE ARE NOT RUNNING OUT OF OIL.

The oppoite (the FEAR) comes in the form of the alarmists who have been screaming this since the 70s and has never come to pass. It comes in the form of science that has been ignored since the 50s that oil doesn't seem to be made from compressed biotic matter from 65-100 million years ago.

In fact, this nonsense about us running our of oil and not having enough resources of our own seems very similar to me as the deliberate bending and twisting of data to make "facts" that are completely wrong about global warming. One of the biggest of those being Mann et al, who Gore loves to use, completely falsifying their data to come up with the Hocket Stick Hoax and trying to convince the entire world that 1999 was the hottest year ever known in the history of the world. Completely ignoring the fact that the same data he skewed and other data he ingored shows that between 1050 AD and 1350 AD was MUCH hotter than 1999 and the temperatures ahve started to recede since.

So your answer, JUST TO BE SAFE, is to get government involved and force private industry to come up with something they don't know how to do to combat a problem that doesn't exist except in the minds of those who stand to gain from the billions of dollars of money that the government would pump into something like that. That also, those industries that they want to start up, would never be able to move forward without government interference driving up the cost of how much we pay for oil and such now.

Go look at research on Tokamak fusion reactors and the controversy about how the government spends its money on that. Understand that for the last 40 or more years the government has continued to pump a few billion dollars a year into such idiotic research even though NO progress has been made because the government can't make the right decision about such things - they don't have the damned skills and knowledge to know how to make that decision.

They ahve also pretty much ensured that NO OTHER methods get any real money because they "know" that anything other than Tokamak research is a waste of money.

The Navy contracted a private company (run by a famous physisct named Robert Foward) to look into sustained fusion reaction and pumped a few tens of millions of dollars into it and got a fusion reaction that can actually be sustained more than a few microseconds! And yet the US government still gives grants to those working on Tokamak reactors instead of other technology because scientists who have a stake in the matter (via grants and reputation) have managed to convince the scientifically ignorant who hold the purse strings that we are still "very close" to a breakthrough using Tokamak reactors.

And also - I'm sure that many of the people in Europe in the mid-1400s laughed their asses off at Columbus when he wanted to find a route to India. But in reality, as they found out, you never really know what you're going to find until you do it, but even in his case, just finding a trade route to India would have been worth quite a deal.

To think that his pushing to get across the ocean lead to the European diaspora to the new world, the industrial revolution and the information revolution - yeah, what a short-sighted thinker with his flights of fancy.

And BTW - something you never responded to related to getting the poor lifted as well - more poor came to the new world for hope for a better way of life and did so WITH THEIR OWN WORK, not by the government "creating jobs" for them. As I mentioned previously, the poor int he US now live better in ways than the kings of Columbus' time as a direct result fo THEIR hard work and opportunity.

[QUOTE=Esten]As far as Obama et al. Being bad people. Good grief! LOL. I do not agree with 100% of their views and actions. For example, you may be surprised to know (from what I know of it) I actually support Arizona's recent actions on immigration. But I agree with much of what Obama is doing and find it far superior to what the GOP has to offer. Obama et al. Are showing some backbone against special interests, something this country needs more of.[/QUOTE]You think Obama's backroom politics and forcing the nation into spending and things the nation as a whole does not want is a good thing. That's where we differ. You could never agree that the GOPs desire to have a more open, free market (essentially doing nothing) could ever be good because you believe that the government is necessary to control things. Yes, I understand, and the fact that Obama wouldn't compromise the slightest bit on the health bill and rammed it down our throats whether the country as a whole wanted it nor not is why I think he's "bad people."

George Bush NEVER did anything like what Obama has done to get passed far-sweeping legislation that a majority of the country didn't like. I don't like the way Bush managed the country under his leadership, but his was a far better manner than Obama's. He always worked to get a coalition, a compromise, whatever. Obama had NO INTENTION of listening to anything the GOP had to say because he knew he didn't have to. He wants to be another FDR - thinking FDR actually did us some favors. He wants his name to be remembered through the ages, not to do what the country itself thinks is the right thing - which in many cases is nothing.

If you like Chicago thugs and the way they do business - well, yes. There is a huge difference between us and the way we look at the world, and it's that very difference that is going to lead to another Civil War in the future of the US if it keeps going this way.

El Queso,

Obama doesn't advocate spending based on just his own ideas, guidance on economic policy comes from economic advisers and experts. And it's all in the context of what is best for the country at this point in time - being which the longest recession in decades. Detractors seem to conveniently omit these significant points in their attacks. And while spending less than half of the $787 billion stimulus, including significant tax breaks, there is a lot of good that has come out of this spending. That being said, the signals we are getting are that stimulus spending will wind down this year with more austerity kicking in next year. This all sounds reasonable to me. Of course the administration recognizes the need to switch gears as the recovery kicks in.

To a point you are correct we can't just snap our fingers and have renewable energy, which is why we should invest in research. But there are technologies available now (eg. wind turbines) that can and should be expanded (and this country is in the very early stages of doing so). No I don't think big oil is keeping this down, just a lack of vision in the past from our leaders.

I would think if we had conclusive evidence we are not running out of oil, this would be well-known. This must be the world's best kept secret! Until it's proven, yes we should act to expand renewable energy based on what we do know (proven technologies) and what we don't (research). History provides many examples of how complacency preceeded disaster. I am not familiar with the Tokamak research but I agree we need to apply due diligence in allocating our research dollars.

You are demonstrating 2 important misconceptions:

1. The misconception or implication that Dems don't value individual effort and think the government should create most jobs. This is totally false. Both parties recognize the private sector as the main driver of growth and jobs. The difference is that Dems simply put a greater value on addressing injustices and inequalities in a system that creates tremendous wealth (and thereby the means to address such issues). We see the role of the government here because the private sector cannot or has failed to address these issues.

2. The misconception that Obama is pursuing an agenda that the country 'as a whole' doesn't want. The fact is the country is split into three groups: those who think we are going in the wrong direction, those who think we are going in the right direction but not far enough, and the rest in the middle who are generally in agreement. Don't be misled by those who try to lump the discontent in the first two groups together.

There are many right wing talking heads like Sarah Palin who love to get on TV and say "Americans don't want blah blah blah..." like they are speaking for everyone. LMAO!

[QUOTE=Esten]There are many right wing talking heads like Sarah Palin who love to get on TV and say "Americans don't want blah blah blah." like they are speaking for everyone. LMAO![/QUOTE]And we all know that no Liberal / Democrat would EVER employ such a disingenuous interview strategy themselves.

Now I'm ROTFLMAO!

[QUOTE=Jackson]And we all know that no Liberal / Democrat would EVER employ such a disingenuous interview strategy themselves.

Now I'm ROTFLMAO![/QUOTE]I request an official count of how often each side does this!

My tax example actually underestimates the rate at which wealth grows faster in higher income brackets, because it doesn't factor in the lower tax rates (15%) on capital gains and dividends. When you factor these in, with the wealthy having a much larger amount and percentage of their income taxed at lower rates, the upward concentration of wealth only accelerates further. No wonder the Bush tax cuts were widely criticized as a massive transfer of wealth to the rich.

Back in 2007, Warren Buffett said he pays less tax, as a percentage of his taxable income, than the people working in his office. To make his point, he said he would bet any Forbes 400 member $1 million (to charity) that the average federal tax rate paid by the Forbes 400 is less than the average rate of their secretaries.

Buffett also said that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation. And he explained he was a Democrat because Republicans are more likely to think: "I'm making $80 million a year – God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate."

That says something when even ultra wealthy people (Buffett's not the only one) disagree with the wealth inequality created by Republican taxation policies.