American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Jackson;415409]It's George Bush's fault![/QUOTE]I need a little couch time in front of the big screen at the AP house so we can wax philosophically about all that ails this world. Cigar Eric will be kind enough not to point out how abrasive I am and we can discuss possible menu items for Thursday dinners. No doubt, in the end, we'll find that it is in fact, all George Bush's fault.

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415405]It is incredible to look at the destruction Obama has wreaked upon us in just two short years. He has destroyed our economy, attempted to destroy our healthcare industry, trampled the constitution, increased global fuel and food costs, and has helped to send the Middle East back to a circa-'78 complexion. Wow, how's that hope and change working for you?[/QUOTE]Conservative delusion at its best.

[QUOTE=Jackson;415396]Actually, they can start with entry level jobs (like the rest of us did), and then they can work their way up the ladder to the "[i]good paying jobs[/i]" after they've demonstrated some work ethic (like the rest of us did).[/QUOTE]History is being rewritten at breakneck speed these days!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for the TEA BAG "Texas Miracle."

[QUOTE=Moveon; 415448]Well, well, well, Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry.

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

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

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

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

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

So much for the TEA BAG "Texas Miracle."[/QUOTE]Right. Think again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wonder if this might catch on in Washington?

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

[QUOTE=Moveon; 415448]Well, well, well, Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry.

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

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

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

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

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

[/QUOTE]Very interesting article, thanks.

One line got my attention: [i]"People could stake me and Gov. Perry on the ground and torture us, and we still would not raise taxes."[/i] Ideology is strong.

Texas and California will both be interesting to watch. But the approach of combined spending cuts and tax increases is the superior approach. There is no sound moral or economic reason for not including revenue increases through somewhat higher taxation on those who can easily afford it.

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

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

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 415287]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. [/QUOTE]Tiny, sorry for the delay in getting back. Glad to see you took some time to look up the data. Here is my case on taxes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Esten,

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Esten;415459]Very interesting article, thanks.[/quote]Translation: I like propagandist materials that support my cockeyed view of the world.

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

[quote=]Texas and California will both be interesting to watch.[/quote]Comment, below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part of it goes like this:

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. '

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

[QUOTE=Esten; 415459]Very interesting article, thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks-

Moveon

[QUOTE=Moveon; 415467]Esten,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[quote=]or seen the Obama DEATH PANELS yet?[/quote]Check out Avastin.

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

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

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

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

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

Who suggested there would be FEMA CCs?

*GLENN BECK, FOX NEWS.

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

Check out Avastin.

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

[QUOTE=Moveon;415473]*That a Tea Bag Republican Governor politician will never allow a budget deficit to exist under his watch. A $27 BILLION budget deficit, that is.[/quote]Duh, what? Do you follow US politics?

[quote=]Sorry, the majority happen to be Hispanics in that state.[/quote]Thanks for removing all doubt.

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

[quote=]Who suggested there would be FEMA CCs?

*GLENN BECK, FOX NEWS.

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

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

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

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

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