American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Confirming what I reported earlier, Fox News national polls echo those of other pollsters showing Obama bests all of the top 2112 GOP candidates.

Fix News, oops, Fox News found that Obama has a substantial lead over all of the GOP's top candidates, which must be galling seeing as most of the GOP POTUS want to be gang are paid big bucks as on screen egos, oops, analysts for Fox.

Mitt Romney loses 41 to 48 to Obama.

Huckabee loses 41 to 49.

Obama wins a clear 55 percent majority against both Gingrich and Palin.

But take heart Jackson and company. Maybe you can deliver the expat monger vote and save the day. Or maybe not!

The idea that government can somehow reduce or eliminate poverty should be filed under 'ideas from a birdbrain'

If government could reduce poverty Cuba should have no poverty, Chavez's socialistic nightmare would be without poverty and of course North Korea would be poverty free.

Reagon had it right when he said that government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem.

I've enjoyed Esten's nonsense about as much as I can.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;415619]I've enjoyed Esten's nonsense about as much as I can.[/QUOTE]My early nomination for comment of the year right there. At first it's amusing, but it quickly becomes disgusting.

Watching the back and forth with him is like watching someone play chess while he's still playing checkers.

Let me do you a favor by changing the subject, since you didn't fare too well with the last one.

Jimmy Carter Part Deux?

-Unemployment: 10% (I know the govt says 9, but they are the only ones that believe that)

-Job growth: Nil.

-ridiculous energy 'policy' adding to cost of energy.

-inflation is looming.

-runaway govt spending.

-no fiscal restraint.

-Weak (nonexistent) US foreign policy facilitates deposing a US ally in middle east (Egypt)

-US diplomat (s) held hostage by Islamic nation (Pakistan)

-US weakness in the face of provocative military acts (Iran)

Where do the similarities stop? Should we bring back the misery index?

I guess one difference is that Jimmy wasn't an active supporter of the caliphate against the west. At least I don't think that he was when he was president. His recent comments regarding the Muslim Brotherhood may cast doubt on his current involvement.

Don't despair guys, Obama and I will be around for another six years to help shed light on the darkness.

The recent debate that Walleye lost badly is his claim of [i]"the high correlation between tax cuts and reducing poverty".[/i]

I haven't weighed in on the government's ability to reduce poverty, or made proposals to prevent rich people from making any money. So those comments will have to be placed in the "red herring" trashcan.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415621]Let me do you a favor by changing the subject, since you didn't fare too well with the last one.[/QUOTE]No no no, please don't change the subject! I love discussing the wonderful benefits of tax cuts with you.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415597]Excuse me Mr. Einstein, I can tell you unequivocally that the only way an individual rises out of poverty is for that individual to receive a stream of cash flows sufficient enough for him to support himself. In general there are two ways that can happen: he can earn it or someone can give it to him. [/QUOTE]Thank you for that brilliant analysis.

[QUOTE]Only one of these two is sustainable on a scale that includes millions of individuals living in poverty. I don't need to rely upon my many years of studying business, micro and macroeconomics in both university [/QUOTE]Apparently you flunked statistics, or never took it.

[QUOTE]and the real world to know that the only way one can earn his way out of poverty is to have a job. Therefore, the individual must find or create the job. Since, in general, we are not talking about the entrepreneur 'class, ' a disproportionate number of these individuals must find work as opposed to creating it. Therefore, in order for millions of people living in poverty to find work or to get better paying jobs, there must be economic growth in order to create jobs. Lacking economic growth and job creation, poverty can only be artificially reduced via the wholesale subsidization by the public sector. This latter approach has been proven to be a colossal failure in the US via the War on Poverty, food stamps and welfare, none of which has reduced poverty at all because not one of them provides the individual with a sustainable cash flow with which he can meet his recurring obligations. Rather, these programs increase the individual's dependence upon the government to survive, fostering a trans-generational enslavement to entitlements. It is a proven fact that tax cuts stimulate economic growth and create jobs. Increased taxes and regulation (which are taxes of another form) increase the cost of doing business, limit economic opportunity and restrict or eliminate growth thereby preventing the creation of jobs.[/QUOTE]Notice what you just wrote: A theory. I don't disagree with everything you wrote, but let's call it what it is, a theory. There is no data here.

Now you did start with some data. But when it was exposed as cherry-picking, you've had to fall back on your ideology.

[QUOTE]It is that simple. You may believe and espouse whatever you like however, you can't alter the truth. [/QUOTE]A theory doesn't become truth without empirical evidence. Where's your evidence that tax cuts are highly correlated with reduced poverty? Whoops, you don't have any.

I will go by what the data says. Here is the Census Bureau data plotted:
[url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif[/url]

The steep decline from the 1950's to the 1960's occured mostly while top tax rates were 91%, and partly after Kennedy's tax cuts. We can call this no correlation followed by correlation. Now look at 1966-present. Is the line moving UP or is it moving DOWN? The answer is both. With periods of correlation and inverse correlation.

Here's a free statistics lesson for Walleye: Combining data points that demonstrate "no correlation, correlation, and inverse correlation" does not add up to "correlation" (let alone "high correlation"). Although, you don't have to be a statistician to recognize that the poverty rate plot from 1966-present is basically flat, meaning no correlation with the significant tax cuts that occured over this period.

All you got is theories. The numbers say otherwise. But please, keep banging that drum on how tax cuts have reduced poverty. It's amusing watching you try to defend such an obviously indefensible position.

The CPAC convention ended in DC last week and as usual, there were the normal cesspool of Presidential R's who are planning on running for the Presidency. Whether it was Newt Gingrich (former House Speaker) who announced that he would abolish the EPA in it's entirety or the consensus of other candidates for the new "Drill, frack, and lease¨oil drilling policy that would unleash the domestic oil companies in our country. God help our drinking water)

It was also interesting to see that the NRA was the primary sponsor of this neocon gathering but hardly surprising either.

Esten, we know by now, the rise in inequality in the US is largely in part of the ruinous banking system and the removal of many restrictions as possible. Huge amounts of wealth have been sucked out of the economy into the hand of the very few. Just what the Republicans like to see.

[QUOTE=Moveon;415637]Huge amounts of wealth have been sucked out of the economy into the hands of the very few.[/QUOTE]Really? So in where did these people with their "huge amounts of wealth" decide to invest their money? Savings accounts? Stuffed into a mattress? Buried in their back yard? Perhaps Cuban government bonds?

Anyway, it should be irrelevant to you where these people may have decided to put their "huge amounts of wealth", and here's why: [b]It's their fucking money! [/b]

Liberals generally see other people's money as their own, to be taken from them at gunpoint under the banner of government, but it's still theft because...

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.

Thanks,

Jackson

Moveon, you and Esten will be around for 6 more years I hope but Obama will be history in one year and ten months. His poll numbers are headed back to the cellar again and I doubt he can get reelected with poll numbers in the low 40's or high 30's.

His claims about his budgets effect on the debt was just plain dishonest. The debt still goes up regardless of the reason for the borrowing rather it is new spending or borrowing to meet the interest it still goes up. Folks are just not buying it anymore and become more disgusted with him as he ponies out these easily disprovable claims about debt reduction while trying to spend more.

Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not with tax rates.

The government per se, can't create economic growth because it creates nothing. Government policies can influence economic growth and contraction. There is ample evidence as to what policies increase growth and which inhibit it.

I don't believe that one can underestimate the harm done to the US and the free world by our current president. What is worse, I do not believe that his abject failure can be attributed solely to incompetence and hubris. While certain instances of stubbornness could possibly be explained away as the dogmatic embrace of liberal philosophy, I personally believe that the problem is much deeper.

Plodding ahead with record-breaking tax and spend policies (engineered to grow our national debt to some $25T) , in the face of vehement opposition from a vast plurality of the nation's citizens is much more indicative of a man bent on achieving an agenda than one acting in the best interest of those he is supposed to serve. The bigger question is what agenda is he following? It isn't just liberalism because despite the fact that it (liberalism) is built on lies, the intentional destruction of our way of life, while always a potential outcome of liberalism, has never been its primary target.

Given that I believe it isn't liberalism alone, one has to look further.

Some questions I have:

-Why is BHO doing to the US what we did to destroy the USSR, to end the cold war? That is to say, why is BHO bankrupting us from within?

-Why are we intentionally driving up food and energy prices during a time of economic hardship?

-Why, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that the stimulus spending and quantitative easing are not working are we still doing it?

-Why is the only response this WH gives is 'more spending, further exacerbating our race to insolvency? '

-Why is the US actively taking steps to cover up the true nature and agenda of the Muslim Botherhood?

-Why are our top intelligence officials downplaying the significance of the Muslim Brotherhood, when the MB has been at the forefront of the intelligence battle for more than 30 years?

-Why can't our top intelligence officials point out that the MB is a terrorist organization responsible for direct attacks on American assets in Beirut in the early 80s? Who is responsible for 'erasing' their memories? Why are they being prevented from stating the truth?

-Why isn't the WH demanding the release of an American citizen with diplomatic immunity, being detained illegally in Pakistan?

-Why are we abandoning our only true, democratic ally in the Middle East?

-Why are we turning a blind eye to the causes of the spreading turmoil in the Middle East? Is it really just Twitter and Facebook that are upsetting the apple carts?

-Why are we ignoring the common thread amongst all these countries that have recently descended into chaos?

-Why isn't the WH out in front of the issues related to unrest in the Middle East? Why aren't they stressing the importance of secular democracy? Why are they ignoring the likely outcomes that these nations will become Islamic theocracies like Iran?

When I stack all of the answers up, I certainly don't like what I see. How about you?

-What is the WH doing to prevent elements from deliberately scuttling / sinking a ship or ships (including subs) in the middle of the Suez?

[QUOTE=Moveon;415637]The CPAC convention ended in DC last week and as usual, there were the normal cesspool of Presidential R's who are planning on running for the Presidency. Whether it was Newt Gingrich (former House Speaker) who announced that he would abolish the EPA in it's entirety or the consensus of other candidates for the new "Drill, frack, and lease¨oil drilling policy that would unleash the domestic oil companies in our country. God help our drinking water) [/QUOTE]No wonder Christie (who did not attend CPAC) is getting hounded so much on running, many Repubs realize they are short on strong candidates. I didn't know much about Ron Paul before, but now I have learned he is a stark raving lunatic.

My GOP dream team for 2012 (Pres / VP) : Palin / Paul.

[QUOTE]It was also interesting to see that the NRA was the primary sponsor of this neocon gathering but hardly surprising either.[/QUOTE]No kidding? I didn't know that. Along with the USCoC, the NRA is one of the most harmful organizations in the country.

[QUOTE]Esten, we know by now, the rise in inequality in the US is largely in part of the ruinous banking system and the removal of many restrictions as possible. Huge amounts of wealth have been sucked out of the economy into the hand of the very few. Just what the Republicans like to see.[/QUOTE]It's all promoted by conservative ideology on lower taxes for the rich and de-regulation, the two foundations of Bush's epically disastrous presidency. It is likely these even worked in tandem by increasing the demand for MBS's (and the increasingly-risky loans required for them) which fueled the bubble. A double whammy.

Here is a great chart showing the rise of economic inequality since the Reagan tax cuts. It's a great example of [i]correlation[/i] (inverse) (pay attention Walleye), the downward-trending top marginal tax rate mirroring the upward-trending inequality metric.

[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/plutocracy-reborn[/url]

Be afraid Esten, BE VERY AFRAID! Tick Tick Tick. Go Mitt Romney in 2012! It's a done deal. Just remember who told ya first buddy. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. It doesn't matter who the VP nomination will be. VP's just pick the music for the dance on Saturday night. LOL!

[QUOTE=Esten; 415650]No kidding? I didn't know that. Along with the USCoC, the NRA is one of the most harmful organizations in the country.[/quote]Liberals know that if you take the firearms away from the citizens, you can then do whatever you want to them, and the NRA interferes with that objective.

"[i]An armed citizenry is the best defence against a tyrannical government. [/i]"

[QUOTE=Esten;415650]Bush's epically disastrous presidency.[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO! Esten, the only "[i]epically disastrous presidency[/i]" is the one we are witnessing now.

Thanks,

Jackson

I think this testimony before congress says it all about why the founding fathers included the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution, and it's not about hunting.

[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675[/url]