American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Walleye.

Dude, you must be smoking crack.

Did you bother to read the newspaper article? TEXAS now predicts a BUDGET DEFICIT of $27 Billion. Which means it's in the same league as California. Rick Perry has for years touted Texas and his administration to be fiscally conservative and always liked trampling, liberal California. Now it's deficit is a LOT HIGHER proportionally speaking. Per resident. With no income tax base to work with, that means education and all social services will be cut drastically.

The ones who will be hurt the most will be the Hispanic population. That is what I was referring to. (follow the chain) Anyway, the Tea Party does not care about the Hispanics. They will end up splintering the more moderate Republican party and without Immigration Reform and the Hispanic vote, the Republicans have little chance of winning the next Presidential election.

Glenn Beck is a conservative talk show host on FOX News. But what does the Constitution have to do with the misinformation provided by Glenn Beck?

The FDA is banning Avastin because of the harmful side effects. Come on, are you saying the FDA is part of Obama's "DEATH PANEL"???.

Mongers-

I just got off the phone with my good buddy B. Hussein Obama and he has informed me that "his" FDA is planning on banning Viagra, Levitra, Cialis and the like, officially for safety reasons but really because even taking all three of those drugs at the same time can't give him the "go-power" needed to get it up to fuck his wife Michelle. Time to cut your dick off and hang yourself with it WallyWildeye.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Moveon;415467]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.[/QUOTE]I haven't seen the Death Panels yet, but I am sure they are coming because Sarah Palin warned us about them.

BTW Palin provided some brilliant commentary on Obama's SOTU address. Check out the video interview with Fox News below. You can't make this stuff up!

[url]http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002802/[/url]

[QUOTE]GRETA: Governor, last night there was a lot of discussion about the Sputnik Moment the President wants us to have. Do you agree with him? Is this our moment?

PALIN: That was another one of those WTF moments, when he has so often repeated, the Sputnik Moment, that he would aspire Americans to celebrate, he needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory and that race to space, yeah, they won, but they also incured so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union so I listen to that Sputnik Moment talk over and over again and I think, no we don't need one of those. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415464]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.[/QUOTE]Republicans have [i]practiced[/i] class warfare since Reagan with their huge giveaways to the rich.

Doppel instead of spewing your drivel have a look at the data. Below are poverty rates for red states and your boy Bush. Tell me if you see any trends.

Highest state poverty rates, 2005 (Wikipedia) :

40 Kentucky 14.8%
41 Tennessee 15.0%
42 South Carolina 15.0%
43 Arizona 15.2%
44 West Virginia 15.4%
45 Oklahoma 15.6%
46 Texas 16.2%
47 Alabama 16.7%
48 New Mexico 17.9%
49 Louisiana 18.3%
50 Mississippi 20.1%

Poverty Rate under Clinton:

1993: 15.1%
1994: 14.5%
1995: 13.8%
1996: 13.7%
1997: 13.3%
1998: 12.7%
1999: 11.9%
2000: 11.3%

Poverty Rate under Bush:

2001: 11.7%
2002: 12.1%
2003: 12.5%
2004: 12.7%
2005: 12.6%
2006: 12.3%
2007: 12.5%
2008: 13.2%

[QUOTE=Esten; 415480]I haven't seen the Death Panels yet, but I am sure they are coming because Sarah Palin warned us about them.

You betcha!

Sarah should stop eating all that Moose meat and quit drinking it up with her Joe 6-pack.

Eye opening "WTF" video. I ended up looking at that video, over and over again. God, is she scary.

By the way, the only DEATH PANELS I am aware of are the health insurance companies that deny coverage.

[QUOTE=Esten;415482]Republicans have [i]practiced[/i] class warfare since Reagan with their huge giveaways to the rich.[/quote]I am Esten and I'm saying one thing and posting completely irrelevant statistics. More over, I won't even post the statistics to which I refer. Here I go again, republicans hate the color orange. Don't believe me? Look at the facts, since Eisenhower, attendance at MLB games has increased at an inexplicable rate.

Rank Team Games Total.

1 NY Yankees 81 3,765,807
2 Philadelphia 81 3,647,249
3 LA Dodgers 81 3,562,320
4 St. Louis 81 3,301,218
5 LA Angels 81 3,250,816
6 Minnesota 81 3,223,640
7 Chicago Cubs 81 3,062,973
8 Boston 81 3,046,443
9 San Francisco 81 3,037,443
10 Colorado 80 2,875,245

[quote=]Doppel instead of spewing your drivel have a look at the data. Below are poverty rates for red states and your boy Bush. Tell me if you see any trends.

Highest state poverty rates. 2005 (Wikipedia) :

40 Kentucky 14.8%
41 Tennessee 15.0%
42 South Carolina 15.0%
43 Arizona 15.2%
44 West Virginia 15.4%
45 Oklahoma 15.6%
46 Texas 16.2%
47 Alabama 16.7%
48 New Mexico 17.9%
49 Louisiana 18.3%
50 Mississippi 20.1%[/quote]Wow! Stats from one year, holy shit batman look at that trend!

Wait a minute, you can't have a chronology-based trend with data points from only one moment (unless were talking global warming). Now, I would never accuse Esten or Moveon of cherry-picking stats (I know that they would be confused trying to understand multiple data sets and relating causality).

Clearly, it is George Bush's fault for the sky rocketing poverty rate in Mississippi. Due to Bush's policies, that one-time bastion of technology and innovation has slid from 50th in poverty to 50th. Moreover, you deftly ignore the fact that 22 states have poverty rates equal to or above the national average. Clearly, these states suffer in poverty because republicans hate black people and Mexicans, 'cept the ones that make good house help. It has nothing to do with other issues such as population density, lack urban wealth centers, legacies of under education, entitlements and the like. All those states happen to have significant rural populations, suffer from brain drain and lack of opportunity. With the exception of TX (Dallas and Houston) there are few large cities as commercial and wealth centers. Similarly, we know there are no poor people in New York and that the stats for that state don't have rich people in Westchester County offsetting poor people in the Bronx.

[quote=]Poverty Rate under Clinton:

1993: 15.1%
1994: 14.5%
1995: 13.8%
1996: 13.7%
1997: 13.3%
1998: 12.7%
1999: 11.9%
2000: 11.3%

Poverty Rate under Bush:

2001: 11.7%
2002: 12.1%
2003: 12.5%
2004: 12.7%
2005: 12.6%
2006: 12.3%
2007: 12.5%
2008: 13.2%[/QUOTE]Once again, Esten is right, our first black president saved us from poverty and delivered us from evil, all the while managing to bust a nut on some fat chick's blue dress. Now I'm not a pointed-headed elite like these two geniuses but back in the one-room school house that I attended, they taught me readin', writin' (maybe right'and too) and 'rithmatic. I was even able to read this from that right-wing bastion of conservatism, the Institute for Research on Poverty:

"In the late 1950s, the overall poverty rate for individuals in the United States was 22 percent, representing 39.5 million poor persons. Between 1959 and 1969, the poverty rate declined dramatically and steadily to 12.1 percent."

Wow, didn't JFK cut taxes during this presidency? When was that again?

"As a result of a sluggish economy, the rate increased slightly to 12.5 percent by 1971. In 1972 and 1973, however, it began to decrease again. In 1973, the poverty rate was 11.1 percent. At that time roughly 23 million people were poor."

Wait, wait! Are you telling me that under Johnson and his great mutherf-ing society poverty increased? Say it ain't so! But he declared war on poverty so the stats must be wrong! Poverty decreased under Nixon? But he was the devil (before Reagan, Bush41 and Bush43).

"In 1975 the poverty rate increased to 12.3 percent. It then oscillated around 11.5 percent for the next few years. After 1978, however, the rate rose steadily, reaching 15. 2 percent in 1983."

Hang on a minute, poverty saw its biggest increase in recent history with Jimmy (I-was-better-than-Obama) Carter and the legacy of economic disaster he handed to Reagan?

"Thereafter it remained mostly higher than 13 percent. In 1993 it reached a new high of 15.1 percent, and then began to fall slowly."

So, the rise of poverty stopped under Reagan and remained in a band between 13-15% for 10 years. Not sure how the author sees 15.1% as a 'new high' when he stated the rate was 15.2% two sentences earlier, but I digress.

"In 2000, 31 million people were poor (11.3 percent of the population)."

So. 1994-2001 we saw an improvement that certainly had nothing to do with the 104th Congress lead by Newt Gingrich? I'm sure it was all Bill Clinton since his party controlled congress, wait, they only did for 2 years.

"In 2001 the number of poor and the poverty rate both rose as economic difficulties moved into recession, and the rate continued to rise; in 2003, 35.8 million people were poor by the official measure of poverty. By 2005, the number had risen to 37 million people (12.6 percent of the population)."

Again, all GWB's fault. Dot-com bubble never burst and 911 never happened.

"After a slight decline in 2006, in 2007, 37.3 million people were poor (12.5 percent of the population). In 2009, the number of people in poverty rose to 46.3 million, and the poverty rate (14.3 percent of the population) was the highest since 1994."

So, the Dems get control of Congress and Obama gets elected and 9 million people get added to the ranks of the poor. Bravo! Encore!

Thanks for enlightening us, Esten. Esten and Moveon are right. I have seen the light, hallelujah, amen, thank you lord, thank you Jebus!

Esten, Moreon,

You never answer the question.

If handing people money for doing nothing is a way to motivate them to become more productive and move up out of poverty then why are we in the 45th+ year of Welfare and other federal assistance programs?

If this were true then Johnson's "Great Society" would have been a resounding success and would have ended 25 or 30 years ago as all the "poor" would have been sufficiently motivated and moved up into the middle class.

The assumption is false now as it was then. People are not motivated in the same manner or to the same extent. You could give the "poor" a onetime lump sum distribution to raise them to the middle class and the majority of them would be poor again in a year or less.

Don't believe it? I can give you an example. Research the number of lottery / mega-milliions / powerball winners since these games were first offered. Look at the winners of $3 to $10 million dollars and the vast majority of these winners are now poor again.

Liberals / progressives never heard of "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink'.

Liberals / progressives believe you CAN lead a horse to water and CAN MAKE him drink – it only takes three to do this.

Two hold the horse's head in the water trough and the third one sucks on the horse's ass assuming if you draw enough vacuum at one end the horse will have to drink on the other.

Question – which one of you is the third guy?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 415489]If handing people money for doing nothing is a way to motivate them to become more productive and move up out of poverty then why are we in the 45th+ year of Welfare and other federal assistance programs?

If this were true then Johnson's "Great Society" would have been a resounding success and would have ended 25 or 30 years ago as all the "poor" would have been sufficiently motivated and moved up into the middle class.

The assumption is false now as it was then. People are not motivated in the same manner or to the same extent. You could give the "poor" a onetime lump sum distribution to raise them to the middle class and the majority of them would be poor again in a year or less.

Don't believe it? I can give you an example. Research the number of lottery / mega-milliions / powerball winners since these games were first offered. Look at the winners of $3 to $10 million dollars and the vast majority of these winners are now poor again.[/QUOTE][b][i]Liberal policies will always fail because they are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior. [/i][/b]

Thanks,

Jackson

Never let the truth get in the way of promoting your ideology. The truth is contrary to just about everything Esten and Moreon (thanks Dopple) post. This is particularly evident in Esten's blathering on the subject of poverty and taxes. Below you will find data showing the Top Marginal Tax Rate (TMTR) and the US National Poverty rate going back to 1959. There is no plausible argument that lowering marginal tax rates increases poverty. In fact, just the opposite is true. Lowering marginal tax rates and the resulting economic activity reduces poverty. End of story.

Year TMTR Poverty Rate.

1959 91% 22.4%
1964 77% 19.0%
1965 70% 17.3%
1982 50% 15.0%
1987 32. 5% 13.4%
1988 28% 13.0%
1991 31% 14.2%
1993 39. 6% 15.1%
2001 39.1% 11.7%
2002 38.5% 12.1%
2003 35% 12.5%
2010 35% 14.3%

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415491]Never let the truth get in the way of promoting your ideology. Lowering marginal tax rates and the resulting economic activity reduces poverty. End of story.[/QUOTE]WW is to economics as Sarah Plain is to logic. The link between marginal tax rates and poverty is as strong as the link between the smile on the chicas face at the bar and her performance in the rack. All the university economics programs around the globe should close forthwith, WW will explain it all in his inimitable way. Too fucking funny!

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415490][b][i]Liberal policies will always fail because they are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior. [/i][/b]

Jackson[/QUOTE]

> Wasn't MEDICARE a liberal policy/legislation?

Yes, in 1945 by Harry Truman, DEMOCRAT (what a surprise)

Then there were two decades of debate by the Republicans over " socialized " medicine before it was signed into law.

By who? Lyndon B. Johnson, DEMOCRAT, 1965.

Imagine all our senior citizens without it now-

> What about SOCIAL SECURITY?

Yup, you betcha!

By- FDR (DEMOCRAT) - 1935.

Look at them scramble to defend their ideology in the face of Bush's pathetic record! Hilarious!!

Here's some conservative translation for Moveon and others:

[i]It's George Bush's fault. [/i]

means:

[i]I'm making a joke to deflect the discussion. I can't defend the record of conservative policies under Bush. I have no idea why the tax cuts didn't work. [/i]

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415488]Once again, Esten is right, our first black president saved us from poverty and delivered us from evil, all the while managing to bust a nut on some fat chick's blue dress. [/QUOTE]Clinton was not the black president. If you are so mixed up, why should we take anything you write seriously?

[QUOTE]"In the late 1950s, the overall poverty rate for individuals in the United States was 22 percent, representing 39. 5 million poor persons. Between 1959 and 1969, the poverty rate declined dramatically and steadily to 12. 1 percent."

Wow, didn't JFK cut taxes during this presidency? When was that again? [/QUOTE]That was 1964-65. The poverty rate had a significant decline before those tax cuts.

Another fact: The poverty rate has moved in a range between roughly 11-15% since 1966. How many tax cuts have we had since 1966 when the top tax rate was 70%? Why didn't they have much effect on poverty (while helping the rich enormously)?

Why did poverty go down under Clinton's higher tax rates?

Why did poverty go up under Bush's lower tax rates?

The only clear conclusion: There is no clear cut case that lower taxes reduce poverty.

This is what I always love about you guys, you want to lump all the programs together and cry foul.

MediCARE and Social Security are programs funded by PAYROLL TAX DEDUCTIONS from those who work and contribution to the system.

Welfare and MediCAID programs are totally UNFUNDED MANDATES by the Fed for those who do not contribute but depend on the Fed.

Look at the cost of MediCAID and Welfare programs. Eliminating these will go a long way to reducing our debt.

You are always going to have people who are poor in any system, unless you make everyone equal by making everyone poor!

Originally Posted by Jackson "Liberal policies will always fail because they are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior."

As if he has a clue about accurate models of human behavior!

Read his teachings on chica negotiation and try not to laugh!

Just too fucking funny for words!

Delusion central. You have a leader!

The best indication of muddled liberal thinking on these issues is this: They point to social security and medicare as evidence of [i]successful[/i] Liberal policies and programs.

Normally, one might say: If they consider these their successes, I would hate to see their [i]failures[/i].

Sadly, however, we've been forced to witness them. The so-called "stimulus", Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, welfare, the NEA, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, leading up to ObamaCare.

When you step back from it all, you realize that liberals are good at just one thing: [i]Spending other people's money. [/i]

Not wisely, mind you. More like a magician.

BHO: "I call this [i]the Stimulus Trick[/i]. Watch as I make $800 billion disappear."

"And for my next trick, watch as I f*ck up the entire country by nationalizing health care. No. Really. It will [u]save[/u] Money. I'm not fooling this time."