American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten; 415499]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]It's funnier when I do it. What negative effects did the Bush tax cuts have?

[quote=]Clinton was not the black president.[/quote]According to Toni Morrison, he was in fact the first black president.

[url]http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/clinton/morrison.html[/url]

From Wikipedia:

"In writing about the impeachment in 1998, Morrison wrote that, since Whitewater, Bill Clinton had been mistreated because of his "Blackness":

Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. [14]

The phrase "our first Black president" was adopted as a positive by Bill Clinton supporters such as on September 29, 2001, when the Congressional Black Caucus honored the former president at its dinner in Washington D. C, with the chair, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) , telling the audience that Clinton "took so many initiatives he made us think for a while we had elected the first black president.".

[quote=]If you are so mixed up, why should we take anything you write seriously?[/quote]If you are so poorly informed and know so little about US politics, why should we take anything you say seriously? Oh, wait, we don't.

[quote=]That was 1964-65. The poverty rate had a significant decline before those tax cuts. [/quote]I put the numbers right there for you and anyone else to see.

From '59 to the Kennedy tax cuts, poverty dropped from 22. 4% to 19. 0% (or a 15. 2% reduction) whereas during the tax-cutting period of '64 to '03 the rate dropped from 19% to 12. 5% (or 32. 2%). You are so blinded by your ideology, you think reducing the number of people below the poverty rates by 15% is better than reducing it by 32.

Why do you hate poor people so much? Or is it that you are only interested in the poor when they can be used to buttress your false ideological arguments?

[quote=]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)?[/quote]The fact that the poverty rate maintained that trading band is absolutely remarkable considering that the US population grew by 57% during that period.

[quote=]Why did poverty go down under Clinton's higher tax rates? [/quote]Momentum and continued economic expansion.

[quote=]Why did poverty go up under Bush's lower tax rates?[/quote]Momentum, economic contraction (you might recall two small events that occurred in the US around 2000, 911 and the dot-com bust).

[quote=]The only clear conclusion: There is no clear cut case that lower taxes reduce poverty.[/QUOTE]In addition to clearly demonstrating the high correlation between tax cuts and reducing poverty it also shows how little command you have of any of these subjects and how you hate the poor.

[quote]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.[/quote]Ask anyone who is receiving their monthly payments for social security if it was a failure. And imagine if George W. Bush had been able to privatize social security with the stock market? Don't make me laugh. They would all be homeless by now.

Same thing goes with Medicaire. It's not perfect but nothing ever is. (unless a Republican does it, naturally)

According to the Tea Party Republicans and many "mainstream" Republicans we should never have bailed out GM and Chrysler. GM is doing quite well, thank you and Chrysler is slowly improving. (Oh, wait a minute. Who bailed out Chrysler back the first time back in the "80's? A REPUBLICAN President. Ronald Reagan.)

As as for the banks, without the aid the US would have been in another great depression. Again, right-wing Teabaggers did not want any part of this either.

I could go on and on, ....

[QUOTE=Moveon;415505]Ask anyone who is receiving their monthly payments for social security if it was a failure.[/QUOTE]You want to do a survey of the people currently receiving free money from the government in which you would ask them if they approve of the government program giving them the free money?

That's as pointless as the results from Esten's survey asking people if they approve of "someone else" paying all of the country's tax burden.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415506]You want to do a survey of the people currently receiving free money from the government in which you would ask them if they approve of the government program giving them the free money?

That's as pointless as the results from Esten's survey asking people if they approve of "someone else" paying all of the country's tax burden.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]That's all they've got: An argument that those receiving free money like it, so it [u]must[/u] Be successful. What rubbish!

Liberals enact these entitlement programs as vote-getting measures."I got you medicare. I got you social security. Vote for me." Then, people get addicted to them and forget how to [b]do[/b] For themselves. The result? They rise no higher than the so-called safety net Democrats have erected.

But, ignore the fact that these programs aren't actually helping the people they are intended to serve. After all, that's the dirty little secret of all liberals and Democrats: As long as people [i]think[/i] They are benefiting from welfare, handouts and other free money, they'll vote Democrat. It doesn't matter whether they're actually worse off.

So, what are we left with to measure success? How about how the costs stack up in relation to what Democrats [b]said[/b] They would cost. Let's take medicare:

[i]In 1965, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance program of Medicare, the federal health care program for the elderly and disabled, would cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost that year was $67 billion.

In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion.

In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid. The joint federal-state health care program for the poor. Would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion. [/i]

[url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/18/health-programs-have-history-of-cost-overruns/print/[/url]

There are hundreds of examples like this. If these projections were put out by the evil, money-grubbing corporations, a swarm of lawyers would be on them alleging securities fraud. But, this is politics. And those happy left-wing warriors who committed this fraud have long since retired from office, and a new band of left wing thieves has taken their place.

Fortunately, the public is starting to catch on. Survey after survey show that the vast majority of American people do not believe projections that ObamaCare will reduce the defict, result in any savings whatsoever, or do anything more than become a colossal sinkhole for money. Even Democrats know this. But, the prospect of getting access to an entirely new dependency class has them salivating, so much so that they ignore all the carnage that this ill-advised program would cause. All that matters is the votes. And, distilled to its essence, that is Esten and Moreon's platform: If they like free money, then the program's a success. Crank up the printing presses!

Thanks goodness we have some adults in control of the House.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415506]You want to do a survey of the people currently receiving free money from the government in which you would ask them if they approve of the government program giving them the free money?

Jackson[/QUOTE]Jackson, with all due respect, I don't know how long you've been living in Argentina or if you have made your billions through a Ponzi scheme or an inheritance but wage earners like myself in the US contribute every paycheck to the Social Security System. It's been a safety net for millions of hardworking Americans. Later, at an ripe old age, I'll be entitled to some of the money back on a monthly basis.

Only right-wing Tea Party Republican extremists can call this "free money." Like many Tea Party lies, slogans like this one end up being repeated, over and over again.

Reminds me of what Adolf Hitler once said: 'Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it'

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 415508]

Thanks goodness we have some adults in control of the House. [/QUOTE]You bet, just like this one:

Congressman Christopher Lee (R-NY) resigns after Craigslist photos, flirting allegations with lobbyists emerge.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/10/AR2011021003020.html[/url]

Oh, this was the same R-Congressman that "Warned Teens About Dangers of the Internet."[ATTACH=CONFIG]27802[/ATTACH]"

[QUOTE=Jackson;415506]You want to do a survey of the people currently receiving free money from the government in which you would ask them if they approve of the government program giving them the free money? [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Stan the Man; 415508]That's all they've got: An argument that those receiving free money like it, so it [u]must[/u] Be successful. What rubbish!

Liberals enact these entitlement programs as vote-getting measures."I got you medicare. I got you social security. Vote for me." Then, people get addicted to them and forget how to [b]do[/b] For themselves. The result? They rise no higher than the so-called safety net Democrats have erected. [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Stan Da Man;415503]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.[/QUOTE]blah blah blah blah blah

Wouldn't you know it, when you actually look up what Americans think about Medicare and Social Security, they like these programs. Not polls of people receiving benefits. Polls of all Americans.

There are all sorts of polls out there showing little support for cutting these programs. One recent poll from Jan. 21 even showed that nearly two-thirds of Americans would rather pay higher Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes than have those benefits cut.

Poll: Medicare, SoSec worth higher taxes
[url]http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/21/Poll-Medicare-SoSec-worth-higher-taxes/UPI-11481295600400/[/url]

How could it be that these programs are so popular? Perhaps because they are just good, common-sense ideas. You pay into a program to receive benefits later when you need them.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 415501]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. [/QUOTE]Tell that to Jackson and Stan. They're the ones who just used the terms "free money" in response to Moveon's post about Medicare and Social Security.

In their rabid eagerness to once again regurgitate their stories about free money and creating dependency classes, Jackson and Stan overlooked a few details about how these programs are funded and how widely popular they are.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 415501]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! [/QUOTE]Debating these separately is fair enough. I agree eliminating them would save a lot of money.

The simple fact is that many people have a value system in which it is wrong for a wealthy nation not to provide for their poorest.

That's pretty much what it comes down to. And as I said before, in a democracy, if that value is strong enough in enough people, such programs will exist. Not so the poor can be well-off, but so they can at least escape hunger, malnutrition and disease.

It is not the goal of people who support these programs to make the poor dependant on them. Dems and Repubs alike want to lower unemployment, increase jobs and pay and the standard of living (and thereby get people off these programs). But free market capitalism has been unable to eliminate poverty.

What you and Jackson always seem to forget is that there aren't enough jobs for everybody. Today there are 5 applicants for every job. In your world it seems if the unemployed would just stop being lazy and go find a job, they would find one. And if it didn't pay well to begin with, they could work their way up.

Well the market doesn't work that way. The market always excludes a certain percentage of the population from making a decent wage (enough to avoid poverty). No matter how hard they strive.

I'll also give you an economic argument for these programs (vs. just a moral / value based one). The money from these programs pretty much always gets spent and goes right back into the economy. The same cannot be said for tax breaks for the rich, who do not spend (or create jobs) with all or necessarily even most of their money. This is just another conservative fallacy.

As he has said many times.

So what does this site have to do with getting Laid?

This site and the movies can tell you how to talk to the chicas in English or Spanish.

What he tells you should be is how to get laid, and were has to get Laid.

This site Will Help.

[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050025/[/url]

G

An excellent discussion of the reasons private sector unions have been failing, and are destined to fail, can be found here: [url]http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/02/10/labor_unions_and_the_problem_with_more_98861.html[/url]

As for the wooly-headed Esten and Moreon, it's too much to expect that they'll ever get it. Some things simply will be beyond their grasp forever. This undoubtedly is obvious to the rest here, but apparently they need to have it spelled out: It's "free money" because those programs don't pay for themselves, as advertised. Apparently, you've both been living under rocks, because you haven't heard that the social security program is bankrupt. It's a Ponzi Scheme much larger than what Madoff perpetrated. Again, he's in jail for what he did. But, since this is the government, there are no consequences.

So, you can talk all you want about how people pay into Social Security or Medicare, but they don't pay nearly what they should be paying. They get back far more than what they contribute. The liberal calculators used to tally contributions apparently were missing a few digits. Either that, or the lefties working the calculators were math challenged. That's the free money. Ponzi schemes eventually collapse under their own weight. The only difference between the federal government and Madoff is that Madoff couldn't legally print money.

Social security is predicted to go bankrupt in the year 2041. (unless you ask a Republican) Plenty of time to fix it one way or another. In the meantime, it has served this nation for generations. It's so obvious that certain right-wing Militia members of this panel just can't deal with that fact.

Nor the fact that a Democrat began with the legislative process to begin with. Besides their obsession with tax cuts to the super rich of this country, do tell me what the Republicans have done for the "average" American on Main Street.

By looking at Texas and their potential of going BK as a state, it's time for the Republicans concede that conservative fiscal policies are not the cure as they pretend to be. Now that state faces a budget deficit which is 1/3rd of their total budget. For years, we have been hearing that the Unions, pension funds, and others were to blame for everything that went wrong in D-California. Well, R-Texas, what's your excuse?

Oh, yes, this was the same Republican Governor, mind you, who wanted to invade Mexico last year. (yeah, you guessed it, Governor Rick Perry is a Tea Party "Patriot."

Patriot? Not really, just anther war monger Republican hell-bent on invading another sovereign nation.

Thank God, you're not our President.

I don't think you understand the reality of social security, but don't let that stop you from calling people Nazis.

[QUOTE=Moveon;415509]... but wage earners like myself in the US contribute every paycheck to the Social Security System.[/quote]'Contribute' is a code word for TAX. While your pay stub may call it something else, it is a tax and 'revenue' collected and spent (immediately, if not sooner) by the US govt. Social Security has no assets, no business and no revenues. There is no social security trust fund and there certainly isn't any sort of 'lock-box. ' What the fuck good is a lock-box if you don't have anything to put into it?

You and the rest of us are forced to pay into a gigantic ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is where one 'investors' contribution is used to repay a prior investor, rather than having an underlying revenue generator and paying investors back out of profits or legitimate recapitalizations.

Your funds are not put aside for your future benefit, they are immediately redistributed to those currently collecting social security.

Why don't you pop over to the SS Admin, next time you are in DC. Ask them if you can see the vault where they are keeping your contributions.

[quote=]It's been a safety net for millions of hardworking Americans.[/quote]"It" does not exist."It" is a current transfer from current workers to former workers. Payments to retirees under social security are not distributed from a Social Security trust fund or a lock-box, since neither exists.

[quote=]Later, at an ripe old age, I'll be entitled to some of the money back on a monthly basis.[/quote]What was that Aerosmith hit song, back in the 70's? Oh yea,"Dream On."

As the baby boomers retire in greater and greater numbers, the payments due to them under social security will far exceed the new payments coming in from current workers. That is the simple truth. When there are more people taking benefits out than there are making payments in, there will be a shortfall.

What do you call something with greater obligations than its receipts? Bankrupt.

[quote=]Only right-wing Tea Party Republican extremists can call this "free money." Like many Tea Party lies, slogans like this one end up being repeated, over and over again.[/quote]I don't see any tea party folks calling social security 'free money. ' They must be too busy being racist or feeding dog food to old people. I believe Jackson's point is valid, if you ask someone if they want to stop receiving a stream of cash flows, for which they currently have to do nothing (whether or not they may have done something to deserve it in the past) , they will elect to keep getting the cash.

As far as 'free money' anything you receive in the future from SS will be anything but free. You earn it today and give it to the government, they spend it. It does not earn interest or experience capital appreciation (the normal ways that investments grow) because it doesn't exist. When it comes time for you to get some back, you get money taken from someone else and paid out based upon an artificial formula, not actually the growth performance of an underlying investment portfolio. If your payout is based upon a simulated 4% appreciation from the time of your 'contribution' you have lost a theoretical 7% (based upon the historical equity returns for the last 100 plus years) on your investment. Worse yet, if you die, the cash stream goes away. You can't leave the assets of the underlying portfolio to your heirs.

If you contribute to social security for 45 years, with an average annual salary of 100K (in today's dollars) , you will have contributed nearly $600k to 'your' social security benefit. With investment income that you could have earned from that money, had you been able to keep it, you could have well over $1 million in your portfolio. If you die the day after you get your first SS check, you paid $1 million (contributions plus gains) for the privilege of receiving a check from the government for $1, 200. Nope, that sure ain't free and your family sure as shit ain't getting the remainder in the form of an inheritance.

[quote=]Reminds me of what Adolf Hitler once said: 'Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it'[/QUOTE]Typical liberal scum. Everyone who disagrees with you is racist and needs to be likened to Nazis.

What sounds more like a totalitarian regime, to me, is one that steals from its people like the above-cited ponzi scheme.

I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between illiquid and bankrupt nor the difference between a ponzi scheme and an ongoing operation with cash flow issues.

[QUOTE=Moveon;415520]Social security is predicted to go bankrupt in the year 2041. (unless you ask a Republican) Plenty of time to fix it one way or another.[/quote]Please see prior post. SS has no assets, no revenue and massive unfunded liabilities. It is bankrupt today and has been for some time. The future date, to which people often refer, is when current obligations to retirees will exceed current 'contributions' from workers.

[quote=]In the meantime, it has served this nation for generations.[/quote]Yes it has. It has enabled the government to steal more of your hard-earned money under the guise that it is safe-keeping that money for when you retire and will allow it to confiscate any remainder, when you die.

[quote=]It's so obvious that certain right-wing Militia members of this panel just can't deal with that fact.[/quote]It is a bitter pill to swallow. If you contribute to your IRA and earn 11% over many years until you retire and when you retire the govt confiscates everything except for a stream of payments equal to a theoretical 4% return on your payments, which stops upon your death, you be upset. Why doesn't the social security scam upset you?

[quote=]Nor the fact that a Democrat began with the legislative process to begin with.[/quote]I am quite at peace with the fact that most all of our most egregious give-ways and take-aways have been foisted upon us by democrats.

[quote=]Besides their obsession with tax cuts to the super rich of this country, do tell me what the Republicans have done for the "average" American on Main Street.[/quote]Helped to make him above average in terms of quality of life and opportunity than his peers around the world. That ain't so bad.

[quote=]By looking at Texas and their potential of going BK as a state, it's time for the Republicans concede that conservative fiscal policies are not the cure as they pretend to be.[/quote]Of course. We need to spend our way out of these problems. We get it already.

[quote=]Now that state faces a budget deficit which is 1/3rd of their total budget.[/quote]Good thing Obama's manaed to balance the federal budget.

[quote=]For years, we have been hearing that the Unions, pension funds, and others were to blame for everything that went wrong in D-California. Well, R-Texas, what's your excuse?[/quote]Excellent point. Clearly there are no public employee unions in TX so it must be that Rick Perry was investing in some sort of satellite-based laser defence system.

[quote=]Oh, yes, this was the same Republican Governor, mind you, who wanted to invade Mexico last year. (yeah, you guessed it, Governor Rick Perry is a Tea Party "Patriot."

Patriot? Not really, just anther war monger Republican hell-bent on invading another sovereign nation.

Thank God, you're not our President. [/QUOTE]I know, it better having a devout marxist in office

[QUOTE=Esten;415514]The same cannot be said for tax breaks for the rich, who do not spend (or create jobs) with all or necessarily even most of their money.[/QUOTE]Esten,

I know that this is difficult for you to understand, but here it is: The money that "the rich" have is not your money that inadvertently happens to be in their pocket, it's [u]their[/u] money to spend or not spend as they choose, just as the money that you have in your pocket is your money to spend or not spend as you choose.

Anyone who believes that they have a right to forcibly take someone else's money to serve their own purposes is a THIEF, plain and simple. It is irrelevant whether or not the thieves are operating as individuals, or as an organized gang, or whether they can numerically outnumber (read "outvote") their targets.

Everyone should pay taxes at the same uniform rate to support a government that provides services that uniformly benefit everyone, aka "the common good".

It is not government's job to confiscate individual wealth and redistribute it among it's citizens.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

Wallyeye, it's good to know that you have finally emerged from your underground bunker! I know you must have been previously embarrassed with your babbling of Glenn Beck, the Constitution, and your complete disconnect between the so called DEATH PANELS and Avastin but that's ok.

However, it's surprising that you have such a spirited ring-wing American Militia Movement view of the world since apparently you weren't born in the US. I would not be surprised if you are actually some deposed Latin American dictator hiding deep in the outskirts of Cordoba with your Nazi drinking buddies.

Speaking of which, you may want to put down that bottle a bit. I sure hope you don't beat your wife at night or kick your dog. Maybe take an anger management course? How about therapy?

Anyway, it's all good fun plus I admit: It's nice to barge into this Republican frat party from time to time.

Perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me why we need to spend $120 billion on the replacement of the F18 fighter jet?

I know we have been experiencing some major dog fight's with the Taliban lately but perhaps you can straighten me out on this one.