American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten; 417093]A great day for all Americans.

After watching the news coverage the past couple hours, I am still awed by how this all went down. Scripted right out of an action movie, almost flawless execution, no US casualties, they got the body and seized hard drives, etc from the compound as well. In and out in less than an hour. Brilliant.

Far better dead than caught alive. Close the book on this chapter, it's done. Also impressive (and revealing) were no tip-offs to the Pakistanis. Pakistan cannot be trusted.

A credit to both the past and current administrations that laid the groundwork and completed the mission, and the Navy SEALs and all military who have worked towards this goal for almost a decade. The fight against terrorism will continue, but this is a big deal and a proud moment. [/QUOTE]Esten,

Very well said.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 417082]Technically, I think was 7-1/2 years of strong economic growth, followed by 6 months of "economic mess".

Of course, many liberals choose to focus on the final 6 months of the Bush presidency alone because it serves their political agenda, never mind that the Dems played a major roll in the events that caused the housing bubble / mortgage crisis, but that too is ignored by some individuals while chanting their mantra "[I]the economic mess created by the Bush administration[/I]".

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]With all due respect, the Bush administration played a big part, along with the Fed chiefs, in stroking the housing bubble. That took a bit more than 6 months to develop into a nasty recession. By the way, I don't consider myself a Dem or a Liberal. I am rather Libertarian leaning and I think both Dems and Republicans played a big role in the financial mess we're in.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;417096]And "el jefe" was on the record here from the start as believing the government shouldn't have wasted any of the taxpayers' hard earned money on this.[/QUOTE]I agree with that, but what would have been the consequences nationally and internationally? I'm no economist, but it's an interdependent world economy now. I hate to see the real criminals (none of which I think are on this board) get away with the biggest rip-off of our lifetime, if not in the history of the world. BTW, I don't know any "well off" government employees, e.g. teachers, fire-fighters, police, etc.

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky; 417094]"The extraordinary bailout of the financial sector was financed by ordinary tax-paying Americans – to the tune of almost $13 trillion, according to Bloomberg. That's $42, 000 for every man, woman and child in the United States: probably the single most egregious transfer of wealth from poor to rich in the history of the world. And the same bankers we bailed out are now back to business as usual, with the top four USA banks paying out $84 billion in bonuses last year."

This article is for you jefe:

[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/01/3590601/myths-about-state-workers-mask.html#storylink=misearch[/url]

Thanks,

Hgl[/QUOTE]HGL:

The author of your article doesn't even know what he is talking about, therefore, I'll give you a pass on repeating it. Just how did the taxpayer pay $13T? Last I checked the total US govt expenditures for FY 2010 were about $3. 6T. Total US govt outlays FY2009. EFY2011 are estimated at approximately $11. 2T. How could the tax payer have paid $42k each ($13T in the aggregate) during this period, just for the financial bail out? The taxpayer paid a lot (about $2. 5-$3T when you include deliberately wasteful stim-pork) but the other $10T didn't come via the tax system. It was taken from US citizens via the US Treasury printing more money and loose monetary policy. $10T was taken out of the cash value of every man, woman and child's US dollar denominated accounts. Every company, every person who held US dollars and dollar-denominated securities paid this stealth "tax." and yet you don't hear anything about it.

Worse yet, is how this ignorant author uses his misunderstanding of the above to weave a completely false story about transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. He is lying. Even if the $10T had been paid via income taxes, the poor in the US don't pay taxes, therefore they couldn't have had wealth taken away from them. The truth of the matter is that every dollar held lost the same amount of value. The more dollars you held, the more you lost. Last time I checked, the 'rich' tended to have more dollars than the 'poor. ' Where did the $13T go? $2-3T of it went to democrat loyalists (I. E. The money doled out by the govt). The rest of it was pissed away by the Fed essentially giving that money to investors who bet against the dollar, went long precious metals (gold, silver, etc) and sold US treasury securities. That's right. Your govt took $10T away from the collective assets of the citizenry with not even a whimper from the press. If they printed that money and put it in a closet, they could now payoff almost all of our accumulated national debt. Of course, they figure they can do that anytime so why not keep spending and spending and we'll print our way out of it in the future.

"The former heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac left with severance and retirement packages worth millions of dollars each; the former head of GM left with $20 million; the former head of Citigroup with $40 million; the former head of AIG with $47 million; the leader of Bank of America with almost $84 million; the head of Merrill Lynch with $160 million. And the list goes on. How come there's no resentment about those benefits?"

All of these are supporters of Obama and / or beholden to him because he bailed them out.

Why haven't we heard about this? Why? Because this stealth tax does exactly what Obama and all the liberals, including the media, want. It redistributes wealth from the rich to the democrat-chosen special interest groups.

There has been a massive transfer of wealth. From US citizens, with the greatest burden on the wealthy, to the poor and to democrat pet causes and supporters and to institutional investors. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Benanke taking your money to payoff their friends. How do you like that?

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;417100]I agree with that, but what would have been the consequences nationally and internationally? I'm no economist, but it's an interdependent world economy now. I hate to see the real criminals (none of which I think are on this board) get away with the biggest rip-off of our lifetime, if not in the history of the world.[/quote]You are letting them get away. They are in Washington, NY, CA, NV and all around the us (congress primarily). Please read my previous post. I'd be happy to give you an econ101 primer.

[quote=]BTW, I don't know any "well off" government employees, e.g. teachers, fire-fighters, police, etc.[/QUOTE]Anybody who receives a defined benefit pension is immensely better off than his / her private sector counter part. End of story. If you don't know the difference between defined benefit (what union members get) and defined contribution (what private sector employees pay into) plans, I'd be happy to clarify it for you.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 417105]You are letting them get away. They are in Washington, NY, CA, NV and all around the us (congress primarily). Please read my previous post. I'd be happy to give you an econ101 primer.

Anybody who receives a defined benefit pension is immensely better off than his / her private sector counter part. End of story. If you don't know the difference between defined benefit (what union members get) and defined contribution (what private sector employees pay into) plans, I'd be happy to clarify it for you. [/QUOTE]Thanks Walleye for the offer to explain a defined benefit. I'm with the folks that believe government employees PAY for the defined benefit as a part of their total compensation package which generally translates to a lower salary than the private sector, (but then defined benefit pensions have gone the way of the dinosaur in that sector anyway). Nevertheless, while a defined benefit may be better than a lousy underperforming 401K, it still does not translate to "well-off" in my book.

Donald Trump (Jimmy Fallon) takes credit for killing Bin Laden; it's good: [url]http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video/donald-trump-i-killed-osama-bin-laden/1324298/[/url]

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 417073]If the Neo-Con War Criminals hadn't illegally and unnecessarily invaded Iraq this day would have probably happened many years ago.

[/QUOTE]Not really, that 'Dumb' War In Iraq Led Obama To Bin Laden.

[quote=IBD Editorial]Posted 05/03/2011 06:49 PM ET.

Leadership: If President Bush had not invaded Iraq, President Obama likely would not have found Osama bin Laden. The al-Qaida operative who fingered bin Laden's courier was caught in Iraq helping terrorists in 2004.

It was a line Obama never got tired of. Most infamously, he used it during an anti-war rally at Chicago's Federal Plaza in October 2002: "I don't oppose all wars," the state senator said as President Bush was preparing to attack Saddam Hussein."What I am opposed to is a dumb war."

Obama accused "political hacks like Karl Rove" of launching the Iraq War for the purpose of distracting Americans from their economic hardships.

A decade later we know Obama was dead wrong. The successful manhunt that delivered justice from the barrel of a gun to the elusive head of al-Qaida wouldn't have happened without an indispensable piece of the puzzle that the USA got because of its presence in Iraq.

In January 2004, Kurdish forces near the Iranian border apprehended Hassan Ghul, a top al-Qaida lieutenant once under the direct command of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. After quickly being handed over to USA forces, Ghul was sent to one of the CIA's foreign "black site" prisons. It wasn't long before this particular terrorist canary started singing.

Ghul told the CIA that "Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti" — determined years later to be Sheikh Abu Ahmed — was a high-value courier for al-Qaida and key associate of KSM successor Faraj al-Libi. When al-Libi was captured and interrogated the next year, USA intelligence began putting together the pieces, finally concluding that al-Kuwaiti was a courier to bin Laden himself.

This early key puzzle piece, without which other pieces might not have been found, came from an al-Qaida operative whose sole purpose for being in Iraq was to organize armed opposition to the USA presence there.

Iraq had indeed, as Bush frequently said, become "the central front in the global war on terror," and the Iraq War success of capturing Ghul led to the success of killing the central personage of global terror, at least symbolically, Osama bin Laden.

Had America not invaded, al-Kuwaiti and the valuable information inside his head would have been someplace else, probably where it was a lot easier to remain on the loose. He might never have been caught.

So we have another reason it was wise to go into Iraq. Not only did the Iraq invasion topple Saddam, who used chemical weapons to commit genocide against his own people, and sought nuclear weapons to slaughter others; not only did it give the Iraqi people their first opportunity for freedom and prosperity, providing a model of liberty for other Mideast Islamic nations. On top of all that, it led to the death of bin Laden.

As a bonus, Ghul's role in the elimination of bin Laden is another validation of the wisdom of Bush's authorization for the CIA's black sites, where harsh interrogation methods against terrorists could be practiced.

Iraq a dumb war? That falsity is another thing for which President Obama owes President Bush an apology — and a thank you on behalf of the American people. [/quote]Perhaps you like Obama owe President Bush an apology.

Suerte. :D

Many studies from both the left and right have surfaced during the "union debates" over the myth governmental employees take less in salary for a better retirement package. Today the average government worker makes more than his private counterpart doing the same job and in many cases receives a defined benefit retirement package which is paid for by the taxpayers. According to Esten’s scale of “well off” to “rich” many governmental workers fall in the “well off” category and above.

Defined benefit plans were phased out of private industry years ago because they were financially unsupportable, just as our current 'entitlement' programs are equally financially unsupportable. In most cases governmental employees contribute very little or nothing to their defined benefit plans and if they do contribute it is much less than the benefits received.

Perhaps you missed it but in 2009 51% of the folks paid NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. That means only 49% of working American's paid for the benefits the others received. I am sure Moveon and Esten are proud of this fact and will continue to beat the 'tax the rich' drum, unless of course a segment of “rich” or “well off” happens to be an important Democratic demographic like governmental or union workers. Proof in the pudding, how about all the waivers granted to unions ect by the Obama administration when it comes to ObamaCare.

Not even 24 hrs have pass, and they are bickering over who should get credit for Osama bin Laden's demise. Just like kids when mom & dad comes home, they clamor to get their side of their stories told.

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;417120]Thanks Walleye for the offer to explain a defined benefit. I'm with the folks that believe government employees PAY for the defined benefit as a part of their total compensation package which generally translates to a lower salary than the private sector,[/quote]If govt jobs pay less than the private sector, people won't take them.

I agree with Dopple.

Govt sector jobs require fewer hours, provide higher benefits and overall more lucrative packages than their private sector counter parts, when comparing similar job functions and including the additional hours that private sector employees often work, without over time pay. If you look at the present value of a defined benefit plan, there is no comparison. Additionally, with the knowledge that a defined benefit plan is there for retirement, govt employees can consume more of their take home pay, since they don't have to save for retirement.

Police, fire fighters, EMTs and other safety professionals have very difficult jobs and provide important, critical services and should be appropriately compensated within their current benefits (I. E. What they get paid year in, year out). It is unsustainable to have large chunks of future municipal and state budgets paying benefits to individuals who no longer contribute to the system. With higher current income, they can save for their retirement just like the rest of us.

[quote=](but then defined benefit pensions have gone the way of the dinosaur in that sector anyway). [/quote]In the private sector, yes. They died out in the 80s. However, the practice is widespread for union jobs, particularly state and muni workers. I wonder why that is? Perhaps no one is at the table representing the taxpayers.

[quote=]Nevertheless, while a defined benefit may be better than a lousy underperforming 401K, it still does not translate to "well-off" in my book.[/quote]It translates to 'better off' in my book at taxpayers' expense.

HappyGoLucky, please at least make an effort to arm yourself with facts before making absurd arguments.

[i][b]Are Public Sector Workers Overcompensated? [/b]

Several analyses of average wages and benefits in the public and private sectors reveal that state and local government workers earn more than private sector workers. According to the most recent Employer Costs for Employee Compensation survey from the USA Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December 2009, state and local government employees earned total compensation of $39. 60 an hour, compared to $27. 42 an hour for private industry workers-a difference of over 44 percent. This includes 35 percent higher wages and nearly 69 percent greater benefits. [/i]

[url]http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary[/url]

These are hardly "new" facts. This information has been well-documented over the past year, including on this board. There simply is no credible argument that public sector employees are not over-compensated in relation to their private sector counterparts. You may [i]feel[/i] Differently. That's frequently how liberals claim to reason. But, it doesn't change the facts.

And, the real crime here is that pay disparities alone probably wouldn't get folks as riled up as they are about public sector employees, especially the unionized ones. Coupled with the higher pay are these facts. Public sector employees:

- Are less productive than workers in the private sector;

- File more fraudulent claims for disability and workers' compensation;

- Have more generous vacation, holidays, sick days and paid time off;

- Abuse the pension process through pension spiking, defined benefit pension plans, double dipping, etc.

- Get earlier retirement packages than private sector workers.

[url]http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-5.pdf[/url]

All of this coincides with the rise of public sector unions, which is why they must be destroyed. The parasitic and symbiotic relationship between Democrats and public sector unions has been obvious for decades. Public sector unions steal from their members through mandatory membership and forced union dues automatically sucked out of workers' pay checks. They then take this money and funnel it back to the Democrat party. 96% to 98% of their contributions go to Dems. Dems then ensure that union-only public sector requirements are preserved. Quite tidy.

Except, now the system is broke, and you hear folks like Esten and the Democrat party claiming that we "have a revenue [u]and[/u] A spending problem." It's a fiction built largely on the house of cards outlined above. Throw in other vote getting entitlements, such as social security, medicare and now ObamaCare, and you start to get the big picture. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

And, when these facts are laid bare, these same folks cling to the "fairness" argument for taxation. In other words, whatever they think is fair should be the rule. But, under the "fair" tax system we have now, a majority of US households pay $0 taxes. None. Nada. Zip. These same folks argue that the "rich" should pay still more, even though the rich share of taxes here is [i]higher[/i] Than the "rich" in Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Japan, etc.

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703703304576299560728821804.html?KEYWORDS=High-Earning[/url]

+Households+Pay+Growing+Share+of+Taxes.

Again, we don't have a revenue problem, except to the extent the rich pay too much in taxes. We have a spending problem, and it was created largely by Democrats, and it is being perpetuated by them. They have to. They can't win elections without buying votes. That's the bottom line, but it still doesn't make it right.

Consider this. A man buys a house within his means, mortgage payments easily affordable, and pays the mortgage on time for many years. Then one day he loses his job. He manages to keep up with payments for awhile. But his job search is unsuccessful for too long, his payments lapse and the house goes into foreclosure.

Now is it correct to say the foreclosure occured due to a [i]spending[/i] problem?

Or is it more accurate to say the foreclosure occured due to a [i]revenue[/i] problem?

A conservative will argue that the man has a spending problem, and conveniently ignore the fact that the man previously could pay his mortgage with ease, until he lost his job and his revenue.

While not identical it is similar with the government. We had a balanced budget under Clinton. Then a combination of increased spending AND lower revenues contributed to deficits under Bush and then Obama.

Trillions in revenue losses from:
- Bush Tax Cuts
- Great Recession loss of millions of jobs
- Obama tax cut extensions and new cuts

Anyone with half a brain knows the problem is two-fold: spending and revenue. Fortunately most Americans realize this, reflected in polls such as the recent April 20-23 Gallup poll showing near 80% support for some degree of tax increases.

However, through Goebbels-like repetition of "we don't have a revenue problem" from right wing media and propagandists, there is an effort to lead people into believing it. Some of the propaganda comes from businessmen who are motivated by self-interest to protect their profits at the expense of others.

The claim that we don't have a revenue problem is just another GOP fiction. It will probably be in the running for the PolitiFact "Biggest Lie" this year, just like the GOP won it last year.

[QUOTE=Esten;417162]...comes from businessmen who are motivated by self-interest to protect their profits at the expense of others.[/QUOTE]OMG! Imagine that! A individual who would believe that they are entitled to keep the earnings from their own endeavors, although I'm not sure how this is related to "the expense of others", given that they're earning money for themselves, not taking money from "others".

Still, it's interesting how easily one can redirect the target of this hyperbole, to wit: "[I]Some of the propaganda comes from [strike]businessmen[/strike] parasites who are motivated by self-interest to protect their [strike]profits[/strike] benefits at the expense of others.[/I]"

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Esten; 417162]Consider this. A man buys a house within his means, mortgage payments easily affordable, and pays the mortgage on time for many years. Then one day he loses his job. He manages to keep up with payments for awhile. But his job search is unsuccessful for too long, his payments lapse and the house goes into foreclosure.

Now is it correct to say the foreclosure occured due to a [i]spending[/i] Problem?

Or is it more accurate to say the foreclosure occured due to a [i]revenue[/i] Problem? [/quote]Consider how irrelevant this hypothetical scenario is to the discussion of federal tax revenues and spending. The fallacy of your bullshit story is revenue being cut or disappearing altogether. While tax receipts may have dipped following the global financial meltdown and during Obama's Great Recession, US tax receipts only dipped 1. 7% from FY2007 to FY2008. Meanwhile, federal tax spending FY2008 to FY2009 jumped 34%.

There is NO REVENUE PROBLEM. From 1990 through 2008, federal tax revenue grew 145%, which clearly outpaced inflation and the rise of the cost of living. Interestingly, during this same period, GDP grew 148%. Meanwhile, the US population only grew 23, during the same period. Meanwhile, TAX revenue increased by 63% per capita while spending increase 175% per capita.

[quote=]A conservative will argue that the man has a spending problem, and conveniently ignore the fact that the man previously could pay his mortgage with ease, until he lost his job and his revenue.[/quote]His predicament is an unpleasant part of life with which I have had first hand experience. It is in no way a corollary for government taxation and spending.

[quote=]While not identical it is similar with the government.[/quote]The fact that both are denominated in US dollars is where the similarities run out.

[quote=]We had a balanced budget under Clinton.[/quote]Who forced the fiscal restraint upon him? Where were the roots that drove this (hint: he beat the guy Obama is mirroring, Carter).

[quote=]Then a combination of increased spending AND lower revenues contributed to deficits under Bush and then Obama.[/quote]You are either lying or you are ignorant of the facts, or both. The above numbers came from the Treasury. During the above cited 19 fiscal years, revenues only dipped slightly in 4 of them (-1. 7% in '01,.6. 9% in '02,.3. 8% in 03 and. 1.7% in '08). Before you jump on the '01 to '03 dips in revenue, you should know that by the end of '05, revenues exceeded '00 levels by 2% and '06 revenues were 22% higher than '00 levels.

[quote=]Trillions in revenue losses from:

- Bush Tax Cuts[/quote]Even if you attribute 100% of the '01 to '03 decreases in revenue to Bush's tax cuts, it would be $242 million, in the aggregate for all three years. This would be a mistake to believe because these years were immediately following the bursting of the dot-com bubble and many, many companies folded, people lost trillions of personal wealth and jobs and had lots of write-offs, all of which contributed to lower federal receipts.

[quote=]- Great Recession loss of millions of jobs[/quote]Fewer people working means fewer people paying taxes.

[quote=]- Obama tax cut extensions and new cuts[/quote]Complete bullshit. Any potential decrease in revenue from Bush's tax cuts would have been experienced in the first few years of the policy. As I clearly pointed out above, if there was any initial negative effect on receipts due to implementation, it was minimal and more than compensated for by high revenues shortly thereafter. By extending them, there would be no similar effect because the tax law didn't change. As far as 'new tax cuts' there can be absolutely no reduction in revenue associated with Obama's 'new tax cuts' because there haven't been any.

[quote=]Anyone with half a brain knows the problem is two-fold: spending and revenue.[/quote]I guess that confirms that you have less than half a brain while most Americans have more than half a brain.

[quote=]Fortunately most Americans realize this, reflected in polls such as the recent April 20-23 Gallup poll showing near 80% support for some degree of tax increases.[/quote]You can get whatever result you want out of a poll by simply constructing the question to get the desired result. Wow. I'd look at the results of the '10 midterm election to see that a clear plurality believe that spending is the problem.

[quote=]However, through Goebbels-like repetition of "we don't have a revenue problem" from right wing media and propagandists, there is an effort to lead people into believing it. Some of the propaganda comes from businessmen who are motivated by self-interest to protect their profits at the expense of others.[/quote]The Democrats owe a great debt to Hitler for creating something so awful that they can use it to vilify those that oppose their policies and ideas. You can try all you like to likening us to Nazis, but 'we' are more than half the country and 'we' ain't buying it.

[quote=]The claim that we don't have a revenue problem is just another GOP fiction. It will probably be in the running for the PolitiFact "Biggest Lie" this year, just like the GOP won it last year.[/QUOTE]Please, for once, get into the true facts of US federal revenue growth and tell me, based on facts, not your Lenin-marxist biases, how we have a revenue problem.

Your analogy would be more appropriate it is went like this:

A guy with a decent salary buys a house with zero down with a no-verification. 5yr, interest-only ARM mortgage with monthly payments equal to 50% of his take-home pay. He then gets a sweet, new car with a loan, pulls out 20% of the value of the home with a home equity loan, the proceeds of which he spends on consumables, and racks up $150K in credit cards bills.

Now his salary stays the same but he when he adds in his living expenses, his expenditures are 150% of his take-home pay.

There's a blog out there cataloging all of the many inconsistencies of the Obama Administration regarding Osama bin Laden's killing. Obama was armed; then he wasn't; he used his wife as a shield; no he didn't; his wife died; no, just shot in the leg and it wasn't his wife; etc, etc.

[url]http://www.bookwormroom.com/2011/05/04/the-obama-administrations-cloud-of-confusion-explained/[/url]

Most of it is pretty mundane, but I thought the following was priceless and wanted to share:

[i]The idiot Carney — they actually managed to find someone who makes Gibbs look good — is currently twisting himself into knots trying to explain why the photograph that the whole world was expecting isn't going to be released. (Obviously the thing to do is get Trump on the case, he'll force Obama to release it.) [/i]

LOL. Thing is, I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump take up the cudgel.