American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten; 414663]Slogans and one-liners. That's all you got? That's what Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich do. C'mon man, you can do better than them!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Tiny12;414665]1. Gingrich, Jackson, and, on occasion, Palin are not fighting the battle with empirical evidence [/QUOTE]Kind of says it all, really.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you ready to buy a ticket?

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

[QUOTE=Esten;414667]I forgot to add, because they rely less on data, it's also no coincidence that conservatives tend to indulge more in feel-good slogans, fear-mongering and deception.[/quote]This coming from the side that gave us:

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

[quote=]Perhaps some of you saw the recent story about the "Lie of the Year" for 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BK6WC20101221[/url]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Esten; 414666]Kind of says it all, really.

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

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

1996-1998 13. 2%

1998-2000 11. 9%

2000-2002 11. 7%

2002-2004 12. 4%

2004-2006 12. 5%

2005-2007 12. 5%

2006-2008 12. 7%

2007-2009 13. 4%

Source:

[url]www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3/table2.htm[/url]

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

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

[QUOTE=Esten; 414667]Perhaps some of you saw the recent story about the "Lie of the Year" for 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;414673]The above is just more ignorant drivel from a partisan website. It's not too hard to find material to completely rebut this hogwash. [/QUOTE]It's a big fat lie to call PPACA a "takeover". Look up the definition. PPACA has strong regulation (as it should). Other industries have strong regulation as well (eg. aviation) but we don't say they have been taken over.

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

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;414668]Can you give us some real details on what the trip to India actually cost? I didn't think so. I'll stick with the previous estimate.[/QUOTE]I already gave you video evidence of the White House and Pentagon both saying the costs were wildly inflated. But you still choose to believe the source - some website in India that would have no way of knowing the real costs. Too funny !

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

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

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

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

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

Link:

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

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

Problem 1 with the Liberal point of view:

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

Problem 2 with the Liberal point of view:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's link:

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

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

So, the stingy left now wants to turn over one-sixth of the economy to incompetent government bureaucrats, and still claim to be morally superior and, in some cases, marginally intelligent.

This birdbrain idea of a strong partnership between government and the private sector is almost word for word what Juan Peron advocated for Argentina.

Under Peron`s frankenstein idea Argentina went from one of the wealthiest countries in the world to a country approaching third world status.

The only economic policies more inept would be those of Fidel "I'm an idiot" Castro or "I'm a clown" Chavez. Compared to these two imbeciles the idea of a strong partnership between government and the private sector almost, not quite, rises above idiot status to approach moron status.

Put another way - dancing with the government is equivalent to dancing with a tar baby.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 414744]This birdbrain idea of a strong partnership between government and the private sector is almost word for word what Juan Peron advocated for Argentina.

Under Peron`s frankenstein idea Argentina went from one of the wealthiest countries in the world to a country approaching third world status.

The only economic policies more inept would be those of Fidel "I'm an idiot" Castro or "I'm a clown" Chavez. Compared to these two imbeciles the idea of a strong partnership between government and the private sector almost, not quite, rises above idiot status to approach moron status.

Put another way. Dancing with the government is equivalent to dancing with a tar baby. [/QUOTE][b]Hear, Hear! [/b]

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 414744]This birdbrain idea of a strong partnership between government and the private sector is almost word for word what Juan Peron advocated for Argentina.

Under Peron`s frankenstein idea Argentina went from one of the wealthiest countries in the world to a country approaching third world status.

The only economic policies more inept would be those of Fidel "I'm an idiot" Castro or "I'm a clown" Chavez. Compared to these two imbeciles the idea of a strong partnership between government and the private sector almost, not quite, rises above idiot status to approach moron status.

Put another way. Dancing with the government is equivalent to dancing with a tar baby. [/QUOTE]In other words, China is sure to fail? Or Singapore?