American Politics during the Obama Presidency

All hail Esten and his liberal propaganda.

[QUOTE=Esten; 415650]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]

[/QUOTE]That is a brilliant analysis. The 'Income Gap' is what caused the great depression. After all this time, I thought that it was a normal, cyclical downward economic trend which metastasized into a global financial crisis, in large part due to the contraction of the US money supply by the Fed and increased US tax rates. Please note, on the lower chart, the severe increase in tax rates in the late 20s which resulted in DECREASED federal tax revenues (despite the enormous increase in the marginal rate). The combination of tight monetary policy and punitive tax policy resulted in a globally destructive drop in demand which triggered staggering asset deflation ('cause nobody wanted or could afford to by anything). In the year following Black Tuesday, the US government massively increased federal spending to pull us out of a potential downturn. That seems to have worked about as well as it has for Obama. Too bad there aren't any adults in the administration that a familiar with US history prior to the 60s.

Almost everything that that the US government did during the Great Depression exacerbated it. It was the resiliency of the human spirit, enabled by CAPITALISM, that brought the US out and the world out of the Great Depression.

To suggest that somehow income inequality triggered the Great Depression is folly so absurd, I'd even be surprised to hear Esten espouse such a laughable explanation.

However, the bottom chart does illustrate another interesting phenomenon. The trend of marginal tax rates from 1962 to the present is unmistakeably downward. Is it just a coincidence that this has been the period of man's greatest technical and industrial advancement since the Industrial Revolution? Further, it has seen the greatest strides in reducing global hunger and poverty than any previous period. Esten will probably say that it was a result of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and rail against the fact that some people made more money than others during that period.

Esten, when I was 24, I was destitute and were it not for friends and family, I would have been homeless. By the time I was 30, I had created and amassed considerable wealth and could have retired, never needing to work again and living a very comfortable lifestyle. So by the nature of excelling at certain things, I reduced the number living in poverty by 1 (not to mention the hundreds of people that I helped to employ) and increased the income gap because my formerly-destitute self had created massive opportunity. Seems to me that is consistent with the American Dream. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be punished for removing myself from the ranks of the poor and providing for myself, my family and my many, many employees?

Other than carp about the rich, what have you personally done to reduce the ranks of the poor?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 415660]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]

[/QUOTE]I was just looking at picking up a new Sig last night (that should really get Esten going)

Wow, what a selective memory from our friends on the right!

Didn't George W. And (Carl Rove) way back when, preached to us about the Administration´s ¨Freedon Agenda?" (invading Iraq)

And I quote,"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." (George W.)

Well, for all the these "patriots" out there, this is exactly what happened in Egypt. But wait, I know who so famously said,"He's a son of a *****, but at least he's our son of a *****."

Freedon rang and so be it. How on earth can we as a nation preach freedom and liberty for all, when at the same time we try to slant the elections in the direction of what we want? Brothers, we can't have it both ways.

Grant it, there are some risks. But this comes with the territory of preaching free elections. We will have to see how this turns out.

No one on the right talks about Qaddafi and Libya. We all know his involvement with the Pan Am airline bombing, Lockerbie.

I don'see anyone from our "patriot" nation complain since he is in our fight against terror organizations. (he is doing this to protect his iron rule, his survival, let's not forget) Again, he's a son of a *****, but at least he's our son of a *****. Right?

As for Wallyeye's ever apolyctic view of the world, I would not be surprised if he follows Glenn Beck's doctrine of: "Store food. Buy guns." What is this far right obsession with guns anyway?

And as for me, for all in this forum who might think I address my friends with the word "Comrade." Please note that I don't have to wear an American flag lapel pin on my suit jacket to know that I love my country, warts and all.

[QUOTE=Moveon; 415664]Wow, what a selective memory from our friends on the right!

Didn't George W. And (Carl Rove) way back when, preached to us about the Administration's ¨Freedon[sic] Agenda?" (invading Iraq) [/quote]Didn't Obama declare the Freedom Agenda dead, upon his arrival in Washington?

[quote=]And I quote,"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." (George W.)[/quote]I agree. Do you disagree? The bigger question is what are we as a nation prepared to do in support of liberty, beyond our shores?

[quote=]Well, for all the these "patriots" out there, this is exactly what happened in Egypt.[/quote]What exactly happened in Egypt? I wasn't aware that whatever is happening in Egypt is over. If so, one might say what happened is that opportunist hijacked the original protests over food prices and turned them into anti-government demonstrations and riots. While there may have been an occasional mention of freedom or democracy, most of that came from the media covering the situation and not the 'leaders' of the demonstrations. The US government then threw our ally, albeit not an ideal ally, under the bus which resulted in a military coup. I don't recall too many liberals supporting military coups when they were in America's best interests so why do you support this coup?

[quote=]But wait, I know who so famously said,"He's a son of a *****, but at least he's our son of a *****." [/quote]Not sure why you quote this, clearly it isn't attributable to WW.

[quote=]Freedon rang and so be it.[/quote]For whom, exactly, has freedom rung?

[quote=]How on earth can we as a nation preach freedom and liberty for all, when at the same time we try to slant the elections in the direction of what we want?[/quote]Is that what Obama was doing, preaching? I wouldn't expect you to have too many historical facts at your finger tips (despite the appearance that you are somehow connected to the internet). Why would the US encourage elections the outcome of which will likely harm US interests at home and abroad? Like I have said, I would love for the Egyptian people to experience true, Jeffersonian freedom. However, America's involvement in said effort must be weighed in terms of the costs and benefits to American and her national security.

[quote=]Brothers, we can't have it both ways.[/quote]Because you say it, we shouldn't try?

[quote=]Grant it, there are some risks.[/quote]Just a few, small incidental risks like subjugating 80 million people and control of the Suez Canal to an Islamic theocracy?

[quote=]But this comes with the territory of preaching free elections.[/quote]I'm pretty sure Neville Chamberlain was preaching too. I guess you probably never knew that Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the democratically elected President, Paul Von Hindenburg.

[quote=]We will have to see how this turns out.[/quote]I don't recall the aforementioned ascension of the Third Reich working out too well for most folks.

Why should we stand by and allow others to effectuate change that is more than likely going to result in outcomes that are deleterious to US interests and security?

[quote=]No one on the right talks about Qaddafi and Libya. We all know his involvement with the Pan Am airline bombing, Lockerbie.[/quote]What about Muammar? I'd love to discuss him, his involvement in Pan Am 103 and Pan Am 73 (Karachi) which preceded Lockerbie. I am surprised that you aren't on Muammar's side. After all, Pan Am 73 and 103 were clearly attempts to strike back at the US or our intransigence in shooting down two Libyian fighter jets and sinking four or five Libyan navy vessels in the Gulf of Sidra, during the early 80s and of course Operation El Dorado Canyon.

[quote=]I don'see anyone from our "patriot" nation complain since he is in our fight against terror organizations. (he is doing this to protect his iron rule, his survival, let's not forget) Again, he's a son of a *****, but at least he's our son of a *****. Right?[/quote]What?

[quote=]As for Wallyeye's ever apolyctic view of the world, I would not be surprised if he follows Glenn Beck's doctrine of: "Store food. Buy guns."[/quote]When Armageddon does come, I'll be well armed and well fed. However, my current world view is anything but apocalyptic. That said, my outlook could change. What would your outlook be if the Muslim Brotherhood is successful in coalescing hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world to actively prosecute its caliphate against the West?

What do you think the Muslim Brotherhood has done thus far? Any idea which global terror groups are offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood? Anyone ever hear of Al Qaeda?

[quote=]What is this far right obsession with guns anyway?[/quote]Since when does legally possessing and operating a piece of machinery equate to obsession?

[quote=]And as for me, for all in this forum who might think I address my friends with the word "Comrade." Please note that I don't have to wear an American flag lapel pin on my suit jacket to know that I love my country, warts and all.[/QUOTE]You are exposing yourself and your own conscious or subconscious doubts with such an declarative narrative (hey, that rhymes) in a discussion where no one has doubted your love for country. I would have guessed, given your writing, that you picked up English as a second language, my error.

I for one don't own a lapel pin and a rarely wear jackets with lapels. When I do, I sure as shit am not going to put a pin through the fabric of a finely, custom-tailored jacket, in order to make others feel better.

Symbol and idol worship are often the manifestation of the detachment from the origins of said symbols. You need to look no further than the story of Jesus and the Money Changers to understand what I mean. That said, if you want to wear a lapel pin, I certainly won't cast you out of the temple.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415661]Esten, when I was 24, I was destitute and were it not for friends and family, I would have been homeless. By the time I was 30, I had created and amassed considerable wealth and could have retired, never needing to work again and living a very comfortable lifestyle. So by the nature of excelling at certain things, I reduced the number living in poverty by 1 (not to mention the hundreds of people that I helped to employ) and increased the income gap because my formerly-destitute self had created massive opportunity. Seems to me that is consistent with the American Dream. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be punished for removing myself from the ranks of the poor and providing for myself, my family and my many, many employees? [/QUOTE]It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too.

[QUOTE=Esten;415678]It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too.[/QUOTE]Clearly the chance was there for me. It is still there for me and everyone else who AVAILS themselves of it. The fact that I got ahead in no way harmed the chances for those 'behind' me. However, one has to actually do something to avail oneself of it.

The truth is something else. We are all friends here, feel free to let us know what it is.

The debate here has now progress into vulgar political theatre ala Washington D. C.

Has anybody stopped to consider that maybe, just maybe, the way our government is organized is just not working under current conditions? Never has so much been spent to misinform and corrupt. Fact, fiction, and tall tales are the standard political offerings to the American public who through their own selfishness and ignorance can only swallow instant gratifying diatribe that the media dole out. Americans are in chronic debt with little to show for it, yet, we are encouraged to buy even more. Some proclaim with ideological zeal, less Washington, more state and local government? They will do better? Sure.

We Americans like to characterize ourselves and our society as exceptional. But we can't live in the past, we are caught in a time warp. The Marlboro man is long gone and we are approaching the tipping point.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;

Just a few, small incidental risks like subjugating 80 million people and control of the Suez Canal to an Islamic. (blah, blah, blah)

Why should we stand by and allow others to effectuate change that is more than likely going to result in outcomes that are deleterious to US interests and security?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Obama might have called off Bush's Freedom agenda over in the MIddle East. But that just means he was not going be invading another country on that premise. The yearning for democracy in Egypt came from within. He was not about to discourage it. Just imagine if Obama was still oodling for Mubarack to stay??

If the Egyptian people have valid elections and they elect a pumpkin as a leader. Let it be. Does that mean we need to invade it? Walleye's obession with the Muslim brotherhood looks to me as a bit fanactical. What do you want to do about it? A military excursion in Egypt because of the possibility? Should we force in a despot who's under our thumb? (as if that would work.)

All this reminds me of Nicaragua in the'80's. Reagan was arming the contra's because the Republican's belief that a Cuban invasion of Latin America was forthcoming though the Sadinista's.

Guys, take a deep breath, get laid and stop watching FOX NEWS. (¨"We Report. We Decide.")

[QUOTE=Moveon;415701]Obama might have called off Bush's Freedom agenda over in the MIddle East. But that just means he was not going be invading another country on that premise.[/quote]Obama and his ilk scoffed at the idea of a democratic Iraq. While their reasoning was wrong (Iraqis can't handle freedom) , their knee-jerk opposition to all things Bush may have been right (nation building is a long road frought with obstacles).

[quote=]The yearning for democracy in Egypt came from within.[/quote]OK, so now you're an expert on what the people of Egypt think. As I mentioned above, Liberals were telling all of us that 'these people' weren't capable of existing in a Jeffersonian democracy.

[quote=]He was not about to discourage it.[/quote]No, he was busy encouraging a military coup.

[quote=]Just imagine if Obama was still oodling for Mubarack to stay??[/quote]Maybe there wouldn't have been a military coup in Egypt. Perhaps the unrest, driven by the Muslim Bortherhood, would not be spreading throughout the Muslim world.

[quote=]If the Egyptian people have valid elections and they elect a pumpkin as a leader. Let it be. Does that mean we need to invade it? [/quote]Depends what the pumpkin's intentions are visa vi the USA.

[quote=]Walleye's obession with the Muslim brotherhood looks to me as a bit fanactical.[/quote]Again with the 'obsession' terminology. People put CO and smoke detectors in their homes to protect against known threats. Are they fanatical?

[quote=]What do you want to do about it?[/quote]Discourage it. What do you want to do about it? Oh yeah, nothing.

[quote=]A military excursion in Egypt because of the possibility?[/quote]A military 'excursion? ' What are they going to do, book a Carnival Cruise? How about a military incursion, which would include boots on the ground? I propose neither, although if the Suez gets closed, I might vote for both.

[quote=]Should we force in a despot who's under our thumb? (as if that would work.) [/quote]Not that I am proposing it, but why wouldn't that work? Seems to me things went better for us with Iran while the Shah was still around. Jimmy Carter screwed the pooch and we've been paying for it for 32 years.

[quote=]All this reminds me of Nicaragua in the'80's. Reagan was arming the contra's because the Republican's belief that a Cuban invasion of Latin America was forthcoming though the Sadinista's.[/quote]You are totally clueless regarding past, present and likely future events.

[quote=]Guys, take a deep breath, get laid and stop watching FOX NEWS. (¨"We Report. We Decide.")[/QUOTE]Like I have stated many times before, I don't watch any TV news, not even Fox. There is very little happening in the world that can be synthesized, analyzed and articulated in 60 seconds or less. If you chose to get your news that way, particularly from the liberal mainstream media you will get it with their bias imbued into every nook and cranny.

No matter how you spin it the 'Military Care Taker' government is nothing more or less than a military coup and there is no democratic government in place at this time. Egypt is now ruled by a Military Junta.

Moveon, Esten, here is a question for you. Who assassinated Egyptian President Sadat for making peace with Israel? Give up? The Muslin Brotherhood. After the assassination all members of the Muslim Brotherhood were purged from the military. To this day the military takes a dim view of the Muslim Brotherhood and will hopefully suppress them during any election. In case you don't recall the Muslim Brotherhood is calling for a style of government similar to Iran and not a representative democracy.

Why should we be concerned about the government in Egypt? As WW points out the Suez Canal is controlled by Egypt. Now take out your maps boys and girls and trace where much of the world's oil comes from and what canal it transits. If the Suez is shut down the tankers will have to make the run around the end of Africa which will add both time and cost to current oil deliveries. Since we are getting well into the mid $3's for gas what do you think will happen. Of course the price goes up and when that happens everything that is delivered with the US price will rise as well.

This might be a good thing in it might get Obama off his ass and let the US recover our own petroleum resources here at home.

As a Post Script, since Moveon and Esten are such ardent admirers of democracy what about the other half of the Egyptian population which are still treated as second class property (not even citizens) who may be killed or maimed at the male family members whim. You guys know who I’m talking about, women. How about the American female report who was “assaulted”, can we all say raped, by those stalwarts of democracy and freedom in Egypt!

[QUOTE=Moveon;415701]Guys, take a deep breath, get laid and stop watching FOX NEWS. (¨"We Report. We Decide.")[/QUOTE]If we could get just that ONE news channel shut down, the world would be such a better place to live, with everyone living in harmony with each other and prosperity for all.

Sigh.

Jackson

Moveon, What makes you think the Bush administration would have reacted any differently than Obama to what's happening in Egypt? The positions of Obama and Hillary Clinton on democracy in the Middle East aren't any different from positions of Bush, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell, with one exception. Unfortunately, Bush was willing to go to war, in part to try to prod along this process.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;415730]Moveon, What makes you think the Bush administration would have reacted any differently than Obama to what's happening in Egypt? The positions of Obama and Hillary Clinton on democracy in the Middle East aren't any different from positions of Bush, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell, with one exception. Unfortunately, Bush was willing to go to war, in part to try to prod along this process.[/QUOTE]Maybe, who knows?

But in retrospect, let's be completely candid:

If IRAQ did not contain an ounce of oil reserves but held just squabbling tribesman would Bush have invaded Iraq? Remember, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda hated each other. There was no terrorist link what-so-ever.

Yeah, Saddam ws a ruthless dictator. But there were a lot of other ruthless dictators around the world as well, why not go after them?

So George W.´s real agenda was oil and the use of Halbitron thanks to Cheney. (no bid contracts, etc)

Democracy - one could say, was just a cover.

[QUOTE=Moveon; 415743]Maybe, who knows?

But in retrospect, let's be completely candid:

If IRAQ did not contain an ounce of oil reserves but held just squabbling tribesman would Bush have invaded Iraq? [/quote]Probably not. If Iraq didn't have oil, I would have a hard time seeing how Iraq alone would be a material variable in calculating our national best interests and security. That said, Iraq has abundant oil and is a key strategic element of the Muslim world which had the proper elements for US to tee up for an invasion. That said, Bush took the Rice / Powell advice on post-invasion Iraq (nation building) rather than listening to Rummy (go kill a bunch of people, break a few things and get the F out). Irrespective of the foregoing, the invasion of Iraq projected immense strength to the Muslim world. Strength is the only thing that they respect (in a nation, that is). We are currently projecting national pussy-ness. The fact that the Muslim world sees us currently as 'weak' is exacerbating the unrest, which again, has little or nothing to do with what we consider to be democracy and freedom.

[quote=]Remember, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda hated each other. [/quote]Who cares?

[quote=]There was no terrorist link what-so-ever.[/quote]You are a blind idiot. To state that Iraq had no terrorist connections and was not a sponsor of terror is one of the most ignorant things you have said.

[quote=]Yeah, Saddam ws a ruthless dictator. But there were a lot of other ruthless dictators around the world as well, why not go after them?[/quote]'cause they aren't: in our strategic interests, they aren't tee'd up just right and our president is a pussy.

[quote=]So George W.´s real agenda was oil and the use of Halbitron thanks to Cheney. (no bid contracts, etc)[/quote]Pull your head out of your ass. How many no bid contracts do you thing BHO's govt has handed out? Lots, it is often how our govt does business. Don't like it? Go vote for someone who will do it differently. Clearly, that ain't Barry.

[quote=]Democracy - one could say, was just a cover.[/QUOTE]Not for me. We should engage the enemy wherever they are and whenever it suits us best. Kill all the bad guys and it'll be just us good guys left to nail all the chicas.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 415747]Probably not. If Iraq didn't have oil, I would have a hard time seeing how Iraq alone would be a material variable in calculating our national best interests and security. That said, Iraq has abundant oil and is a key strategic element of the Muslim world which had the proper elements for US to tee up for an invasion. That said, Bush took the Rice / Powell advice on post-invasion Iraq (nation building) rather than listening to Rummy (go kill a bunch of people, break a few things and get the F out). Irrespective of the foregoing, the invasion of Iraq projected immense strength to the Muslim world. Strength is the only thing that they respect (in a nation, that is). We are currently projecting national pussy-ness. The fact that the Muslim world sees us currently as 'weak' is exacerbating the unrest, which again, has little or nothing to do with what we consider to be democracy and freedom.

Who cares?

You are a blind idiot. To state that Iraq had no terrorist connections and was not a sponsor of terror is one of the most ignorant things you have said.

'cause they aren't: in our strategic interests, they aren't tee'd up just right and our president is a pussy.

Pull your head out of your ass. How many no bid contracts do you thing BHO's govt has handed out? Lots, it is often how our govt does business. Don't like it? Go vote for someone who will do it differently. Clearly, that ain't Barry.

Not for me. We should engage the enemy wherever they are and whenever it suits us best. Kill all the bad guys and it'll be .....yadi,yah, yah-[/quote]"Who cares?" How funny. Well, if you listened to Cheney and Rumsfeld, there was indeed a connection. Therefore, by invading iraq we were fighting Al Qaeda. Don't believe me? - look it up, clueless.

"Kill all the bad guys?" You are so naive to think that we as a country can invade or ¨put boots on the ground¨whenever, wherever, we please without looking into the consequences both diplomatically and from a practical standpoint.

Are you stating all Defense Contracts of that magnitude are "no bid?"

Lastly, your obsession with the Muslim Brotherhood is typical of some so many neocons that led us to a disastrous war in Iraq. What thappened in Indonesia way back when with this organization? When the dictator Suharto at the time got overthrown, how did that party do in the election? Not too well, did it? It's a secular country just like Egypt or Turkey.

So put your John Wayne costume back in the closet. Halloween is in October, jerk.