American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;415242]Exactly. The Bush years were a textbook lesson in the failures of conservative ideology.[/QUOTE]Esten,

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

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

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 415249]Esten, Are you doing what you accuse others of doing? I've pointed out data and facts until I'm blue in the face that show your ideology results in less wealth for the majority, not just less for the wealthy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bring on 2012!

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

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

That's about 2 percent of the projected enrollment. [/i]"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flame on.

Sysco

I believe I have unmasked 'Esten'.

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

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

Nope this Democrat has reduced it to a single issue.

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;415271]Mark my words: ObamaCare will go down as the most misguided piece of legislation ever passed. It will be the movie equivalent of Ishtar, Howard the Duck and Waterworld all rolled into one.[/QUOTE]Except he forgot Gigli...

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;415271]Mark my words: ObamaCare will go down as the most misguided piece of legislation ever passed. It will be the movie equivalent of Ishtar, Howard the Duck and Waterworld all rolled into one.[/QUOTE]Hey, I liked [I]Waterworld[/I].

[QUOTE=Sysco234; 415274]We have the attention span and tolerance of a 2 year old. Sometimes it takes times for things to work. Can't tell you how many product meetings I've been in where the first 2 quarters of sales numbers were "off forecast" and everyone was screaming at each other. 2 years later, the same products were the number one sellers for the companies. It takes time for things to be understood and catch on.

Flame on.

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

[QUOTE=Esten; 415265] So Tiny, I would challenge you to look at the effect of tax rates on measures of middle class prosperity. Look up charts going back 70 years for income tax rates vs measures of real income, wealth inequality, share of the pie, etc. You will find that while we have a generally steady history of per capita GDP and income growth over this period, the middle class (or bottom 80-90%) did not fare as well during periods where the wealthy paid lower taxes.

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

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

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

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

Iran. Fail.

Russia. Fail.

China. Fail.

S. Korea. Incomplete.

Egypt. So far, voting 'present'

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

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415298]"We will be tested" Joe Biden (formerly the dumbest member of the senate) commenting on Obama's glaring lack of experience for the presidency.[/QUOTE]I had almost forgotten all about that little gem. Cranking up the wayback machine, Biden said that Obama would be tested by a "major international crisis" within the first six months after being elected, and that it would not be immediately apparent that his chosen course of action would be the correct one, but that it was imperative that his supporters stand by him, despite their doubts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Sysco234;415248]What constitutes the "best period" and how is that measured? Also, I would be curious on your take as to how long the regulatory and fiscal policies of a presidency take to affect the country. Days, weeks, months, years? [/QUOTE]Good questions.

The metrics I follow include:

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415257]Technically, it was 7-1/2 years of strong economic growth, and 6 months of "management failures", not "[U]failures of conservative ideology[/U]", but failures to stop liberal ideology from meddling with the free market models of credit worthiness.

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

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

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

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