American Politics during the Obama Presidency

I think I may have misinterpreted what you wrote. If so please let me know. If not, I'm going to start calling you Red Shirt. To avoid any confusion, since you live in Bangkok, "Red Shirt" means a supporter of Karl Marx, not Thaksin Shinawatra.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433204] Congress has legalized bribery & corruption, so that it is out there in the open.[/QUOTE]So why do you favor a big federal government? Why not shrink the beast, and give power to individuals, and politicians at the local and state level who are more accountable to the people they govern? That's the best way to reduce the influence of corrupt Congressmen.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433204] Their median income is about $750,000, almost half are millionaires. [/QUOTE]That can't be correct. If half of Congressmen had incomes greater than $750,000/ year, many more than half would be millionaires.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433204] In the same vein that we walk around advertising for Gucci, Rolex, Apple, etc. All in the name of free expression & free speech. [/QUOTE]I agree Gucci and Rolex are a waste of money. These companies have many competitors, like Hugo Boss, Cartier, Motorola, and Dell Computer. So who is going to decide which of these are going to stay in business? Who is going to pass the regulations to clamp down on free expression and free speech to implement what you want? I guess it would have to be those corrupt Congressmen. Or maybe a dictator could be in charge of this command and control (socialist?) economy. Someone like Hugo Chavez, may he rest in peace.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433204]Their median income is about $750,000, almost half are millionaires.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;433223]That can't be correct. If half of Congressmen had incomes greater than $750,000/ year, many more than half would be millionaires.[/QUOTE]1. I agree with smaller government = best. But aside from politics and whether the demographic facts quoted by Black Shirt is right or wrong, assuming they are for a minute, his quote was "median", not average.

2. You are confusing median with average. The median is simply the exact middle number within a chronologically ordered set of numbers (or if no exact middle number exists, the average of the two straddling middle numbers).

Not getting into whether the income data is correct or not, but if "almost half are millionaires", you could indeed have the median be $750 k simply by having the exact middle congressman making $750 k.

E.g. In a set of $1, $50, $500 k, $750 k, $1 MM, $1 MM, 10 MM.

The median is simply $750 k, the middle number of the set.

The average is $1.9 MM, skewed by the top and low outliers.

And the mode is $1 MM, which is simply which number occurs most frequently in the set.

3. To get a real sense of how out of touch congress is with typical income families, you'd likely have to exclude from the set freshman and perhaps all first term congressman. I would suspect that the average would already be quite high, but if you exclude first term congressman that may rotate in / out of office more than the truly long term incumbents, the average and median would probably be staggeringly higher.

Fucking Chechens. Creating havoc in Russia wasn't good enough for 'em.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;433223]I think I may have misinterpreted what you wrote. If so please let me know. If not, I'm going to start calling you Red Shirt. To avoid any confusion, since you live in Bangkok, "Red Shirt" means a supporter of Karl Marx, not Thaksin Shinawatra.

So why do you favor a big federal government? Why not shrink the beast, and give power to individuals, and politicians at the local and state level who are more accountable to the people they govern? That's the best way to reduce the influence of corrupt Congressmen.

That can't be correct. If half of Congressmen had incomes greater than $750,000/ year, many more than half would be millionaires.

I agree Gucci and Rolex are a waste of money. These companies have many competitors, like Hugo Boss, Cartier, Motorola, and Dell Computer. So who is going to decide which of these are going to stay in business? Who is going to pass the regulations to clamp down on free expression and free speech to implement what you want? I guess it would have to be those corrupt Congressmen. Or maybe a dictator could be in charge of this command and control (socialist?) economy. Someone like Hugo Chavez, may he rest in peace.[/QUOTE]Actually, I don't believe I have a communist bone in my body, some socialist cartilage tissue perhaps. Marx was before my time. I like being a team player, and believe in "for the greater good". I detest the guy who says, you all have to quit playing because I am going home, and I'm taking my ball with me.

Sorry for the confusion. In my haste, I quoted numbers a few years back. January 17,2013 saw a report by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets. Org). All 535 members of Congress are worth an average of $966.001. 48% or 257 members of Congress are millionaires. I have failed math since freshman in high school. Thanks to Mxpey for his contribution, but it's Latin to me.

Smaller government, less bureaucracy, I like that concept but that was when horses was still a major mode of transportation. Today, the issues are a little bigger and more complicated, bigger government is a natural product. And we get the government that we deserve as a society, unfortunately, our society is in the Jerry Springer mode right now.

Brand names, luxury items. No problem, if you have the money. But Americans are told that they are failures, ugly or retards or they will catch a disease if they do not possess certain products. And they have to be replace every year or else, they will die. Funny, I just remember that we were actually talking about slavery the other day.

Ah yes, Bangkok where you can survive like a poor king for $25,000, you and your shadow. And you can look good, no matter what color of your shirt!

Mpexy, A millionaire is a person with a net worth of $1 million or more. There are very few people who consistently make around $750,000 per year who aren't millionaires. I have no problem with Black Shirt's statement / statistic that a little less than half of Congressmen are millionaires. That sounds reasonable. I highly doubt their median income is $750,000 though. It would be much lower.

These days a net worth of about a million dollars is required, IMHO, to have a comfortable retirement.* Remember that would include the equity in your house. A person who's worth $1 million in the USA isn't wealthy.

I don't think Congress is populated by a bunch of very wealthy people (although some are), or that the wealthy are inherently immoral. I may have misinterpreted Black Shirt's post, but I thought that was where he was going. I do agree that some Congressmen are corrupt, and most cater to special interests.


*That's in the USA. I agree with Black Shirt that $25,000 a year is enough in Bangkok, and "you handsome man" regardless of what brands of clothes you wear.

[B]The real reasons the Senate trounced the Obama agenda.[/B]

The link Below is a excellent article, "The Gun Rights Consensus".

[URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578430672176449846.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433181]Scum, cowards. To think that these people exist among the human race. [snip][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Doggboy;433226]Fucking Chechens. Creating havoc in Russia wasn't good enough for 'em.[/QUOTE]
I Agree!

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433181] So far, no radical islamic have claim credit. To me, it's pointing towards domestic terrorism.[snip][/QUOTE]
Sorry, (Mr Red Shirt) Media, No White Tea Partiers Were Involved.

[quote]Media Bias: There's palpable dismay at outlets such as MSNBC and Salon that the Boston Marathon bombers were radicalized young men from Chechnya and not angry white males from the vast right-wing conspiracy.

[url] http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/041913-652673-msnbc-salon-blamed-bombing-on-tea-party.htm#ixzz2QyApCoWY [/url][/quote]


Btw, I hate to burst you bubble, but I don't really think you look all that “good” in red. :D Just mho.

[QUOTE=Punter127;433247]I Agree!
Sorry, (Mr Red Shirt) Media, No White Tea Partiers Were Involved.
Btw, I hate to burst you bubble, but I don't really think you look all that “good” in red. :D Just mho.[/QUOTE]Remember Atlanta in 1996, I was scheduled to fly there the next day, and so I did. So beware of presumptions & jumping the gun.

You have not seen me in red underwear at midnight on Beach Road.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433251]Remember Atlanta in 1996, I was scheduled to fly there the next day, and so I did. So beware of presumptions & jumping the gun.
[/QUOTE]Yes, Atlanta was handled very poorly. BTW judging from some of the early reports the FBI may have ran a background check on one of the Boston Marathon bombers and declared him to not be a threat. They did the same thing with Carlos Bledsoe in Little Rock, before he shot up an Army recruiting station in 2009. So much for the effectiveness of background checks.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433251]
You have not seen me in red underwear at midnight on Beach Road.[/QUOTE]Proof positive that [B]God does exist[/B], and I'm very blessed!

I have to agree with the characterization of the Senate vote on background checks as "shameful".

Amazing but true, the vote maintains the loopholes that allow criminals and the mentally ill to purchase guns, without having to undergo a background check. Now such checks don't outright stop such people from getting guns, but they make it more difficult. Why allow a background check system with holes in it? It's like building a dam with leaks. It's a farce.

Look at the polling numbers (Quinnipiac 4/4/2013):
Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?
Total 91% Support
Republican 88% Support
Democrat 96% Support
Independent 90% Support
Northeast 92% Support
Midwest 91% Support
South 90% Support
West 91% Support
GunHsHld 88% Support

All political affiliations, geographic regions and even gun owners had overwhelming support for universal background checks. But 45 Senators defied the will of the American people. Instead, these Senators listened to the gun lobby. The NRA scored the vote, meaning they threatened to support or defeat Senators based on their vote. If the Founding Fathers were here today, I think they would be aghast at this perversion of our system of governance.

I think is a waste of resources, nothing but trying to rewrite history & paint brush inadequacies, miscalculations and bad policies. Pimping to the egos of the super rich donors for what? I guess legacy or in other words, saving face. Well, perhaps, we are fools.

Not just directed at the Bush Presidential Library.

[QUOTE=Esten;433253]I have to agree with the characterization of the Senate vote on background checks as "shameful".

Amazing but true, the vote maintains the loopholes that allow criminals and the mentally ill to purchase guns, without having to undergo a background check. Now such checks don't outright stop such people from getting guns, but they make it more difficult. Why allow a background check system with holes in it? It's like building a dam with leaks. It's a farce.

Look at the polling numbers (Quinnipiac 4/4/2013):
Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?
Total 91% Support
Republican 88% Support
Democrat 96% Support
Independent 90% Support
Northeast 92% Support
Midwest 91% Support
South 90% Support
West 91% Support
GunHsHld 88% Support

All political affiliations, geographic regions and even gun owners had overwhelming support for universal background checks. But 45 Senators defied the will of the American people. Instead, these Senators listened to the gun lobby. The NRA scored the vote, meaning they threatened to support or defeat Senators based on their vote. If the Founding Fathers were here today, I think they would be aghast at this perversion of our system of governance.[/QUOTE]Quoting large majority support as a fundamental reason why Americans ought or should not pass / keep a law is a losing proposition.

For good or bad, and admittedly there is number of bad situations that occur because of this, America has never been about simple majority rule. Most of the fundamental changes in our history has come about because of the push from what was at that point the small minority. E.g. Women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, etc.

There's also quite a difference between a Republic vs. A straight Democracy. Seems you are confusing which form of government we really have.

Esten, your claim of 90% support for gun registration / gun control is a fluke at best. Every poll taken through March and into April clearly indicates a steady decline in support since the pinnacle occurred just after the Sandy Hook tragedy December 20th. Assuming your 90% figure is correct, this "overwhelming support" in 90 days has dropped to less than 45% in the polls. This notwithstanding the nearly 24/7 drum beat of the liberal press on the issue.

A point lost in the hyperbole of the liberals is the fact that nothing being discussed for "gun control" would have prevented either the Aurora or Sandy Hook shootings.

Perhaps we should put this issue in perspective. The latest poll by Gallop asking Americans to list "the most important problem facing the country today", conducted from April 4 through April 7, provides us with very interesting data which is contrary to what the liberals and their allies in the press would like for us to believe. Granted, the website is conservative but the poll is what it is.

[URL]http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/17/poll-americans-dont-think-gun-control-is-important/[/URL]

Of the 16 issues listed which garnered greater than a 1% response, guns / gun control was 9th. Immigration fared better at 7th. Both issues only archived a 4% rating, interesting. With all the sound and fury from the liberals and the press you would think these two issues would be in at least the top 4.

Actually the top 4 problems were:

1. Economy in General 24%.

2. Unemployment / Jobs 18%.

3. Dissatisfaction with Government 16%.

4. Federal budget deficit / Federal debt 11% (I thought Obama told us not to worry about this?

Heck, even Ethical / Moral / Family decline came in at 5%, one point ahead of Immigration or guns.

Getting back to the gun control debate, anyone who does not agree with the liberals is now demonized, accused of not wishing to protect the children, are no longer considered Americans and their opinion no longer counts. Obama calls it a sad day because those who disagree with him prevailed. Is he not the president of ALL Americans or has the subset of American come to mean only Liberal Americans and those who do not fall in that subset are no longer his concern?

The gun control issue is moot on its face, should the Senate with its Democratic majority manage to cobble together something, to use Harry Reid's words, it is "dead on arrival" in the House.