American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]One of my specialties.

It depends on what I am buying from them. I would not drop an insurance carrier or policy (life, car, home, health or medical evacuation) without first securing an alternative and understanding the pros and cons of switching. Years ago my car insurance went from 1,300 to 3,500 (two cars) virtually over night. I called and asked why and discovered that they no longer wanted to do business in my state and were going to jack up the rates on everyone until they left for other carriers. I got on the phone, found a broker and found a better deal and switched, without having any period of no coverage. Protecting oneself from the financial implications of health issues is not a right, just prudent risk management (in my opinion) While I don't like paying premiums, I don't like complete exposure to all the risks.

In the past 25 years I have been on probably a dozen different plans and don't recall more than one or two claims that were ever denied or challenged. Had I not had coverage, my aggregate, family healthcare bill would be several hundred thousand dollars. I can assure you that I have not come close to paying that in premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

Dying ain't cheap either but, if you are going to do it in the near future, I advise doing it before the end of 2010.

Stay thirsty my freind[/QUOTE]The most interesting man ever. If he punched you in the face, you would have a sudden urge to go thank him.

Well at least we can agree on something. I am also an independent but one who leans more conservative (since the GOP has been spending like drunken sailors and abandoned smaller government and more states rights) and never considered Bush was the devil incarnate while disagreeing with several of his policies.

As far as the wars, you seem to agree that Afghanistan was necessary but Iraq was not. If Bush's father had done the job right the first time while we had the troops there, the Iraqis decimated and on the run we would not have had to go back later to complete the job. Was it necessary, history and time will tell since rectal vision is always 20/20.

As far as the Stimulus I am speaking of both with the greater emphasis on Obama's bail out of Wall Street as well as the GM Chrysler take over.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Excuse me! Last time I checked Obama has been railing against the Bush Tax Cuts as a giveaway to the "rich" - a term he kept shifting downward with each speech during his campaign to what is now $250,000 annual income for married joint filers. I don't know anyone who considers $250K / year as "rich".

Get a grip Esten since your guy Obama is as slippery as an eel when it comes to economics and taxing the folks. Obama did not get on board until AFTER many Democrats saw this as a cheap trick to attempt to hold on to their seats in November.[/QUOTE]Obama was clear and consistent on his tax position in the months before the election. And he has remained so to the present. That being: allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the rich but not for families making less than 250K or individuals less than 200K. There is a ton of video and news articles to back this up, why would you even bother to argue? How does clear and consistent become "slippery as an eel"? You must be kidding me.

A few Dems have been mulling extending the tax cuts for the rich, but not the White House. Obama did not "get on board" with that. You are confused.

Earners above 250K represent just 2% of the population. Coincidentally, the percent of people surveyed in a Gallup poll who considered themselves "rich" was also 2%. That poll also found the public's median definition of "rich" was an income of $120,000. There is no hard and fast definition of "middle class" but all the economic assessments I have seen (vs. polls asking rich people what they think) put almost all if not all the middle class below the 250K level. Your suggestion that 250K is middle class is amusing to say the least. And regardless of the definition, the fact remains that Obama hasn't changed his position.

Your lame defense of that Fox News story is inaccurate on all counts. Do you work at Fox News?

[QUOTE]Your boy Obama spent more than $1 Trillion on one piece of legislation (Stimulus I) in his first months in office [/QUOTE]Recovery Act spending isn't even half that amount. Do you just make stuff up?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Well at least we can agree on something. I am also an independent but one who leans more conservative[/QUOTE]I consider myself to be an independent thinker, however, my political philosophy is conservative. Not in the "evil conservative" vein portrayed in the media but in the sense of limited government, personal responsibility and freedom (you might have guessed by now that I am not much of a holy roller)

[quote] (since the GOP has been spending like drunken sailors and abandoned smaller government and more states rights) [/QUOTE]Don't mistake Republicans candidates for true conservatives.

[quote]and never considered Bush was the devil incarnate while disagreeing with several of his policies. [/QUOTE]Bush was a train wreck on the spending he was willing to endorse. However, he kept us safe (a much bigger task and thinner line than most of you know)

[quote]As far as the wars, you seem to agree that Afghanistan was necessary but Iraq was not.[/QUOTE]Not sure you directed this to me but I jumped in. I was in favor of both wars and support them both today, in thought and deed.

[quote]If Bush's father had done the job right the first time while we had the troops there,[/QUOTE]George HW did what he could, while his hands were tied. There was no route to Baghdad, including the highway of death given constraints placed upon the US by the UN and international powers.

[quote]The Iraqis decimated and on the run we would not have had to go back later to complete the job.[/QUOTE]See above, we were not allowed to complete the job back then. The bigger concern was creating a power vacuum (remember that back then Republicans were not into 'nation building') that would tip the balance to Iran for control of Iraq (population 31 million and third largest oil reserves) which we were not willing to stomach. It is revolting that we would leave Saddam in power to wreak the havoc and evil head did during the interceding years, however, the alternative was worse.

[quote]Was it necessary, history and time will tell since rectal vision is always 20/20.[/QUOTE]As for "rectal" vision, I have that at privados sometimes.

[quote]As far as the Stimulus I am speaking of both with the greater emphasis on Obama's bail out of Wall Street as well as the GM Chrysler take over.[/QUOTE]History will not look kindly upon Obama's Wall Street connections (and payoffs) nor will the unconstitutional expropriation of private asset effectuated by Obama in nationalization of Chrysler and GM look so good in "rectal vision."

No WW the comments were not in response to you but to Maimipro.

First.

I know the UN refused to allow the US to finish the job and the media's whining about the Highway of Death was another reason (What did they expect we were doing playing on an X Box - it was war) We could have finished it then but were not permitted to do so and the Administration had won a stunning victory, in such a small amount of time with so few casualties they were not really eager to continue although the field commanders were. Had we been permitted to finish the job things probably would have been easier, but after allowing the Iraqis in the south and Kurds in the north to rise up expecting our assistance then letting them be slaughter by Saddam it made Gulf II more difficult.

During Bush's last term how could you tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats, they both expanded government programs and spent like drunken sailors.

WW, I think you are confusing rectal vision with Hershey Highway, but that is just IMHO.

Esten.

Are you really trying to tell me Obama did not spend over $1 Trillion dollars on Wall Street / AIG / et. Al. In his first year? Now who is making things up here! Hell even the CBO has been whining about his deficit spending.

No, your boy has not been consistent, your just trying to reinterpret his words on the campaign trail and after entering office to what you want to hear today. He was very clear; the Bush Tax Cuts were to be allowed to expire, period. There was no caveat in his statements about "except for joint filers earning less than $250K". There was certainly nothing about Capital Gains, in fact he vilified those who received Capital Gains for getting money they did not earn – go check the video. You are just trying to combine two pledges to make your case. Two pledges Obama never linked.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]You seem appalled by Bush spending less than a Trillion in 8 years on 2 wars.[/QUOTE]And also the billions needed to clean up after Katrina.

If you know this paper, calling them Liberal is an understatement. Yet, even they recognize change is in the wind.

[url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=71462[/url]

Sysco

Here's another one: The Cash for Clunkers program was a. Clunker.

Even NPR, that bastion of liberalism, concedes it: [url]http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/02/129608251/cash-for-clunkers[/url]

It accomplished two things:

1. It shifted car purchases forward, but did not impact total purchases, because once the program ended sales declined substantially. That's according to the study that the article linked above discusses. The net result: No greater car sales than would otherwise have occurred.

2. It boosted sales for Japanese car manufacturers. All of the top 10 clunkers traded in were American models. 6 of the top 10 cars purchased were Japanese or Korean models.

So, the program didn't increase auto sales. But, it did cause 60% of those trading in American cars to purchase a Japanese car. Stated another way, the Obama Administration succeeded in taking our tax dollars and giving it to Americans so that they could give 60% of it to Japanese auto makers. No doubt, American consumers have been trending toward Japanese cars for a long time. But, this program was billed as a boon to U. S. Auto manufacturers. It was anything but. Indeed, it obviously accelerated the trend of purchases to Japanese.

And these guys are supposed to be on our team. Their tax gimmicks don't work. Small wonder folks don't trust these guys on their stimulus efforts or the sham small business tax plan they're trying to deceive the public with now.

It's amazing even this morning to hear Obama talk about private sector jobs created even as he deliberately ignores the fact that the unemployment rate went up to 9.6%. Does he really think folks are that stupid? Apparently, he does. He'll get a rude awakening in two months.

The economy is a mystery. Our limited understanding of the economy suggested that an influx of money from the government would stimulate the economy.

Obviously, this is not working and something else is at play.

During the Great Depression the world made the mistake of initiating policies that restricted free trade and restricted the supply of money. This not only didn't work but probably weakened the economy.

We may be in for a world of hurt because we do not have a clue how the economy really functions.

A hundred years ago we had a different view of the economy. It was widely understood that every 10 years or so the economy would go through a correction. This happened like clockwork until 1929 when when the government thought it should intervene. The government intervened and we were dealt - gracias a Big Brother - the Great Depression.

Obama and the Dems are talking about "targeted" fed spending but are going out of their way to not call it "stimulus"

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]No, your boy has not been consistent, your just trying to reinterpret his words on the campaign trail and after entering office to what you want to hear today. He was very clear; the Bush Tax Cuts were to be allowed to expire, period. There was no caveat in his statements about "except for joint filers earning less than $250K". [/QUOTE]This is pointless semantics. Without action all the tax cuts expire. Whether there is action to (i) extend the cuts for a subgroup, or (ii) let all cuts expire and introduce the same cuts for that subgroup, it's the same result. You could be correct that in 2008 he never phrased it as an extension. And if now he is phrasing it as an extension, then you have a case he is inconsistent in choice of words. But such quibbling on words is pointless, his intention for middle class taxes not to increase has been constant.

That Fox News story implied Obama was changing his position on middle class taxes for election purposes. At best you've made a possible case that the Fox News story is merely a huge deception, rather than a huge lie.

[QUOTE]Are you really trying to tell me Obama did not spend over $1 Trillion dollars on Wall Street / AIG / et. Al. In his first year? Now who is making things up here! [/QUOTE][QUOTE]As far as the Stimulus I am speaking of both with the greater emphasis on Obama's bail out of Wall Street as well as the GM Chrysler take over. [/QUOTE]Are you kidding me??? The Wall Street / AIG bailout was TARP, not Stimulus. TARP was signed into law in October 2008 by Bush. This made it part of FY09, but it wasn't spending approved by Obama. Obama didn't bail out Wall Street.

Why should I take you even slightly seriously when you don't have basic facts like this straight?

[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]: [/b] [blue]This report was deleted because it consisted solely of an [u]unannotated link to another website[/u]. Please do not post links to other websites without some explanation as to what may be found at the linked webpage. In other words, if you want to post a link to another website, please include some commentary describing what the link is to. [/blue]

[QUOTE=Miamipro]I hope they let the bush tax cuts expire. It will help pay the deficit. And I find it hilarious how not one Republican when asked if the the Bush Tax Cuts where to continue how they would be paid for. Not one could give a straight answer they just tried to politicize it. Its to bad we can't post Video up here. Some of its priceless.

BTW someone who refers to Healthcare reform as Obamacare has been watching to much FOX NEWS other wise known as FAUX NEWS. Unfair and extremely Unbalanced.

I can't afford Healthcare at its current prices and as a middle class American. I am glad Obama took a baby step to address this problem. I say baby step because it should have been a single payer program like the rest of the sane world has. Case in point. I have gone to Medellin Colombia to get all my dental work done and had some other medical things done at a FRACTION of the cost. Why? Because they don't think health care is a privilege. Its a necessity. But at the end of the day its not the politicians running this country into the ground its the corporations.[/QUOTE]Goodness, Where to start. Certain components of the tax increase on the wealthy that are coming down the pike are going to increase the deficit. As candidate Obama said in an interview with Charles Gibson some years ago, even though a higher capital gains tax rate likely would DECREASE the amount of tax paid by the wealthy, we should do it in the name of fairness. This is the same argument used by Citizens for Tax Justice. On their web site, they mention a Congressional Budget Office study showing that the percentage of income taxes paid by the wealthy would be higher with the Bush tax cuts in place than they would be without the tax cuts. But the tax cuts should go anyway, in the name of justice and fairness.

In other words, it's fine if everyone is poorer, as long as the rich become poorer faster.

While a lot of Republicans are cut from the same mold as most Democrats, there are those who have come out and said exactly how the government could cut spending -- Mike Pence, Jeff Flake, John Shadegg to name a few.

I don't know much about the new healthcare laws, but apparently the politicians are doing exactly what you want them to do -- throw more money at the problem without fixing it. We already spend 16% of GDP on healthcare, much more than any other country in the world. Medicare is probably going to bankrupt this country.

[QUOTE=Exon123][b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]: [/b] [blue]This report was deleted because it consisted solely of an [u]unannotated link to another website[/u]. Please do not post links to other websites without some explanation as to what may be found at the linked webpage. In other words, if you want to post a link to another website, please include some commentary describing what the link is to. [/blue][/QUOTE]This is a MUST SEE video for anyone interested in the immigration debate, whether you are a citizen, an illegal alien or a Congressman. All » This clip from the longer video, Immigration by the Numbers, features Roy Beck demonstrating the catastrophe of the huge numbers of both legal and illegal immigration by Third World people into the modern nations. He uses standard statistics and simple gumballs to show this disaster in the making.

Video was done by roy beck:

On you tube.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ&feature=player_embedded[/url]


[url]http://www.answers.com/topic/roy-beck[/url]

Full video on google:

[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc[/url].

Yes Esten TARP was passed before Obama took office, but last time I checked his administration has been in charge of the majority of the funds and most of the oversite of the program but let's not leave out the Stimulus which may yet result in a double dip recession. I guess you believe TARP was passed, all the fund distributed and oversite completed in 2 months? About the only thing Obama has not fxxk up is his vacations.

I know - Its all Bush's fault. I don't think anyone is buying that anymore

Whichever way you look, there is plenty of fault to pass around. But what is more crucial is the health of the American value system, a subject that everyone is keen to ignore. And I am not going to be the one to lay it naked on the table here.

So regardless of Bush & Obama, the road has been carved, and it is a road that lead to? But not to worry, life will be great for you and me.

[quote=The Constitution of the United States]Article 1, Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives; but the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.[/quote] In other words, it's not the President's budget. It belongs to Congress. Yes, Congress.

The last "Republican" budget was 2007, with a deficit of $161 billion - reduced from about $400 billion in 2004. The 2008 budget, with its record (then) deficit of $455 billion, was the product of a Democrat-run Congress; George W. Bush forced some compromises in that one. In 2009, Congress bypassed Dubya entirely through "continuing resolutions" to keep the Federal government running until Obama came into office. The 2009 budget nearly QUADRUPLED that "record-setting" $455,000,000,000 deficit from 2008.

The [I]smallest[/i] CBO-projected budget in the attached graph is for 2011. The Congressional Budget Office expects that one to be over $600 billion dollars; and after that, the deficit goes whoopin' and hollerin' into the sunset.

[I]Incidentally, Barack Obama was in the Senate to vote for the 2008 budget and the 2009 "continuing resolutions". [/i]

Whose budget?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Yes Esten TARP was passed before Obama took office, but last time I checked his administration has been in charge of the majority of the funds and most of the oversite of the program but let's not leave out the Stimulus which may yet result in a double dip recession. I guess you believe TARP was passed, all the fund distributed and oversite completed in 2 months? About the only thing Obama has not fxxk up is his vacations.

I know - Its all Bush's fault. I don't think anyone is buying that anymore[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Yes Esten TARP was passed before Obama took office, but last time I checked his administration has been in charge of the majority of the funds and most of the oversite of the program but let's not leave out the Stimulus which may yet result in a double dip recession. I guess you believe TARP was passed, all the fund distributed and oversite completed in 2 months? About the only thing Obama has not fxxk up is his vacations.

I know - Its all Bush's fault. I don't think anyone is buying that anymore[/QUOTE] Sure it's Bush's fault [b][u]everything[/u][/b] under the sun is Bush's fault. At least Obama and all his left-wing wannabe serfs are going to keep saying it's Bush's fault, because that's all they've got. You're right people aren't buying it, they're waking up to the fact that this administration is nothing more than a bunch of Chicago hoodlums hell-bent on raping America!

Speaking of the Stimulus perhaps one of the Obama whiz kids would like to explain again how the stimulus has help the American people, seems nearly 10% of the work force are having trouble understanding.

Oh BTW I'm sure most of you understand that the 10% number is very low, it's just a number one of the Obama chefs crooked up. Obama has more than one type of chef some who cook food, others who cook the books.

How many jobs lost during recovery summer?

[QUOTE=El Alamo]The economy is a mystery. [/QUOTE]Great words of wisdom! If you don't believe it just ask Obama, he's been mystified by the economy every since he took office.

[QUOTE=Westy]In other words, it's not the President's budget. It belongs to Congress. Yes, Congress.[/QUOTE]This has always been the scam. The public debates which President (Rep or Dem) was the biggest moron while we keep electing incumbents back into the Congress and Senate. Where, they continue to fuck us over with little recourse.

Now, where are my blood pressure pills?

Sysco

[QUOTE=Sysco234]This has always been the scam. The public debates which President (Rep or Dem) was the biggest moron while we keep electing incumbents back into the Congress and Senate. Where, they continue to fuck us over with little recourse.

Now, where are my blood pressure pills?

Sysco[/QUOTE]So I wonder what is the underlying factor that create such extreme obsession, both adulation and hatred of Obama.

Yeah, keep those pills close at hand, but keep them separate from the blue ones.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]So I wonder what is the underlying factor that create such extreme obsession, both adulation and hatred of Obama.[/QUOTE]It's the same factor that caused such an extreme adulation and hatred of Bush. When was the last time there was a debate that contained any real facts or positions on issues beyond marketing points? Campaign ads are smear campaigns. IMO, we've reduced our politics to raw emotions playing on extreme fears. In that environment, you get extreme reactions to candidates.

Sysco

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Here's another one: The Cash for Clunkers program was a. Clunker.

Even NPR, that bastion of liberalism, concedes it: [url]http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/02/129608251/cash-for-clunkers[/url]

It accomplished two things:

1. It shifted car purchases forward, but did not impact total purchases, because once the program ended sales declined substantially. That's according to the study that the article linked above discusses. The net result: No greater car sales than would otherwise have occurred.

2. It boosted sales for Japanese car manufacturers. All of the top 10 clunkers traded in were American models. 6 of the top 10 cars purchased were Japanese or Korean models.[/QUOTE]Alas, NPR couldn't bring itself to report on the third and perhaps most significant impact of cash for clunkers: screwing the poor! The program sought out older cars, bought them from people who could have afforded newer ones on their own and destroyed them (all the cars turned into the programs that is) Ever wonder why there is a used auto parts market? Ever wonder who are most of the people purchasing used auto parts (as opposed to new auto parts for an older car) Ever wonder where used auto parts come from? This program raised the cost for every poor American just trying keep their old POS car on the road so that they can get by. What did they do to deserve this financial stick in the eye?

Wow, what a great magnanimous ruler we have. He screws the "rich" (e. G. The rightful owners of GM and Chrysler) and the poor (purchasers of used auto parts) and all the taxpayers just to bailout the unions. And to think, I thought he was a Marxist ideologue.

Esten, can you explain Westy's very interesting chart without saying it was Bush's fault? FYI the really bad red numbers are CBO.

Esten, can you explain how going from 9.5 to 9.6 unemployment was a move in the "right direction" as per Obama?

Esten, can you explain "Recovery Summer" to me, I seem to have missed the point?

[QUOTE=Exon123]This is a MUST SEE video for anyone interested in the immigration debate, whether you are a citizen, an illegal alien or a Congressman. All » This clip from the longer video, Immigration by the Numbers, features Roy Beck demonstrating the catastrophe of the huge numbers of both legal and illegal immigration by Third World people into the modern nations. He uses standard statistics and simple gumballs to show this disaster in the making.

Video was done by roy beck:

On you tube.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ&feature=player_embedded[/url]

[url]http://www.answers.com/topic/roy-beck[/url]

Full video on google:

[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc[/url].[/QUOTE]Exon this is an issue that hasn't really been discussed here. You refer to it as a "catastrophe" and speak of both legal and legal immigration. Legal immigration is controlled and illegal immigration is out of control.

I know you see some of this first hand, so what's your solution for the problem?

BTW the Google link doesn't work.

Doppelganger,

Actually just going over some past posts. I don't agree with any of the wars. The loss of American soldiers for these campaigns were un-necessary to say the least. And really isn't going to have any long term benefits. I was wondering if you even watched the video link of Cheney in 94 detailing why we didn't "Finish the job in Desert Storm" under the first Bush. The real kicker is what he says right at the end and I will quote.

"For the family's of the 146 lost in action, it wasn't a cheap war and the question for the President whether we went on to bagdad and take on more casualties and get Saddam. Was How many additional dead was Saddam worth? Our judgment was not very many. And I think we got it right." ~Cheney 1994

Why does the middle east hate us? Maybe because we support the Israelis? Who have different religious views in that part of the world compared to most of the middle east. Religions create wars. All religions have extremists. Even the ones in the good ol' USA. Our Politician's make policy based on their Religious views. Forgetting to separate Church and State.

Let me make a point with out getting into to much detail about Israelis. They aren't any better than The Palestine's or Hamas. They create so much of their own problems. Its no wonder the other guys want to kill them so badly. Religion is Poison and God is not great.

We could go on a long time about budget and spending issues. The bottom line is that most of the increased spending in the last two years has been to address the financial crisis and ensuing deep recession that Obama inherited. Obama is simply taking responsible steps advised by economists. It wouldn't be much different if Repubs were in power either. The line that Obama is an out-of-control spender is unfortunate politics. The right would like people to think Dems spend like this all the time, overlooking the context of the spending & events of the past two years.

Both TARP and Stimulus were responsible and effective actions, regardless of how you argue who approved it and spent the money. But we should be accurate about what was what. Fox News fan Doppelganger tried to spread mis-information by claiming Stimulus spending exceeded $1 Trillion. The real number as of today is $289 Billion, of an approved $499 Billion. The effect of that spending combined with tax benefits in the Stimulus has been significant:

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs
[url]http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm[/url]

Repubs claim the Stimulus was a failure, but this is just more unfortunate politics. The only grain of truth here is that it did not keep unemployment below 8% as projected back in January 2009. That projection was a mistake. But you needed a crystal ball then to see the huge layoffs to come in 2009. If anything, a more accurate projection would have warranted a larger stimulus. And without the Stimulus things would have been much worse; that's not just a talking point but a conclusion of respected economists. Contrast this with right wing talking points that Obama spent $1 Trillion on the Stimulus and it accomplished little.

Maybe you guys can try your spin on some other board, it ain't workin here.

I've also noted before, that despite the official party line many Republicans were praising Stimulus-funded projects in their districts. Schwarzenegger summed it up nicely:

[i]“I find it interesting that you have a lot of the Republicans running around and pushing back on stimulus money and saying this doesn’t create any new jobs, and then they go out and do photo-ops and they’re posing with the big check and they say, ‘Isn’t this great! Look the kind of money I provide here for the state! And this is great money to create jobs, and this has created 10,000 new jobs, and this has created 20,000 new jobs,’” Schwarzenegger said on ABC’s "This Week." “It doesn’t match up.”[/i]

Schwarzenegger: GOP stimulus attacks, then praise of projects hypocritical
[url]http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/82517-schwarzenegger-calls-gop-opposition-of-stimulus-then-praise-of-projects-hypocritical[/url]

Right now, I am in the midst of watching on CNBC, a report on the financing of toxic loans & mortgages that led to the financial meltdown. Let me just say "greedy / unscrupulous financial institutions and greedy / naive homeowners", add Wall Street to the mix, and voila! Iceland was just one place where the cocktail ignited big time. Alot of people had to grow up and found they had been wrong about the Disney notion that "crime does not pay".

So how about Franks, Clinton, Bush, Greenspan, Obama. They are just mere players in the game. And so who are the enemies? Alas, don't look too far, just look in the mirror!

[QUOTE=Punter 127]Exon this is an issue that hasn't really been discussed here. You refer to it as a "catastrophe" and speak of both legal and legal immigration. Legal immigration is controlled and illegal immigration is out of control.

I know you see some of this first hand, so what's your solution for the problem?

BTW the Google link doesn't work.[/QUOTE]Its something I've never really considered until a friend just recently sent me the video. It makes sense, imagination population growth is taxing the resources of the USA.

The video states there 800,000 legal immigrants coming into the US every year. But Lord only knows how many illegal's are coming in each year, maybe another 1 to 2 million. In time of course this add's up and we end up competing for goods and services, including "Job's" our biggest problem in today's economy.

Moreover Federal, State and Local Governments must pay for the extra infrastructure need to support the added population, more Government, schools, police, fire depts, ect, ect. This of course cost money which none of these Governments have. Thus they have to raise tax's and cut the goods and services offered to support the population.

I was astounded to hear that California with the 8th largest economy in the world, not only broke and can't pay its bill's, with 12 percent unemployment. But to keep up with the population growth must build a new School everyday to keep up with the new enrollments.

Very possibility the problems in America are not Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, but too many immigrants diluting our way of life competing for the goods and services our country has to offer.

Its really something worth thinking about.

Exon

Regardless of one's political persuasion, there are some simple solutions that, if the Ruling Class could do what is right rather than what is in its own selfish interests, could start to help the US in terms of its security, both financial and homeland.

1. Stop all illegal immigration immediately and review if the quotas for LEGAL immigration should be raised.

- an influx of 1-2 million illegal immigrants places an additional burden on the states and federal govt that can be quantified (i.e. you can calculate the cost)

- most illegal immigrants are indigent.

- indigent individuals (whether legal or not) tend to 'demand' more subsidized and 'free' services than those of means.

The actual cost of this to states and the federal govt (both of which are funded entirely through taxes) is the source of many debates. However, it is estimated that there are 11-20 million illegals in the US. When you calculate the costs included education, health care, displaced legal workers, law enforcement, etc. It turns out to be a pretty big number. Estimates run from the billions to the hundreds of billions (depending upon the political agenda of the group publishing the number) One group estimates that the public education costs alone for illegals is more than $7B per year (I am not endorsing this number, just putting it out as an example)

2. Paying out defined benefit pensions to employees of any state or federal employer should be illegal (from this point forward)

For those of you that missed my earlier explanation, simply put defined benefit plans pay you an annual amount based upon some metric (average salary over your last three years or whatever) This type of plan does not require that the employee contribute anything to the plan nor does it take into consideration the performance of the pension assets, over time. No one in the private sector gives defined benefit pensions, however it is the standard for govt employees. Why? (unions) Take a moment and download the annual budget for your town or city. Take a look at how much is allocated to retirement benefits for people no longer working for the municipality. This practice is one of the primary contributors to bankrupting or towns, cities, states and the federal govt.

Gentlemen,

I am appalled at your callous use of the words "Illegal Immigrants".

The politically correct phrase is "Undocumented Democrats".

Thank you,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Esten, can you explain Westy's very interesting chart without saying it was Bush's fault? FYI the really bad red numbers are CBO.[/QUOTE]Easy. I explained this before on 8/8 in case you missed it. The chart below is also based on CBO data and has the same shape but shows the deficit components. The deficits are almost all due to the wars, tax cuts and economic downturn, which are all legacies from Bush. It's these same components Obama is working to address.

[QUOTE]Esten, can you explain how going from 9.5 to 9.6 unemployment was a move in the "right direction" as per Obama?

Esten, can you explain "Recovery Summer" to me, I seem to have missed the point?[/QUOTE]The Obama administration has not done a good job of managing expectations. That's a valid criticism. But we've had eight consecutive months of private sector job growth. Last week's jobs report was better than expected. The unemployment rate still ticked up because more people entered the workforce. You know all this. The approaches have been sound, but more effort is needed which Obama has acknowledged and that's what we'll be seeing. I agree we are moving in the right direction.

It turned out the Stimulus was too small for the recession it was designed to fight. Guess who fought the size of the Stimulus - Republicans. The same people who now attempt to claim it was a failure. The conduct of Republicans has been shameful.

Here's another relevant article to consider, noting that sustained job creation began earlier in this recovery than in the prior two recoveries:

Strongest jobs recovery in decades. Seriously.
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/02/news/economy/jobs_recovery/index.htm[/url]

[QUOTE]I know - Its all Bush's fault. I don't think anyone is buying that anymore[/QUOTE]You're the one who keeps repeating this line. But as the chart I posted shows, the economic issues we are dealing with now are mainly legacies from Bush policies. He himself had a limited role and there were many factors involved. But it happened under his watch and that's how people talk about it, fair or not.

Once again you are wrong as to whether people are "buying" this:

Poll: 71 Percent Of Americans Still Blame Bush For The Current Economic Woes
[url]http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/03/most-blame-bush-economy/[/url]

81% rate U.S. economy as 'poor' - CNN poll
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/05/news/economy/economy_poll_cnn/index.htm[/url]

The CNN poll found that more Americans hold Republicans responsible than Democrats for current economic problems, with 44% blaming the GOP and 35% picking the Democrats. When Bush's name is added to the mix, the number who blame the Republicans rises to 53%. I'm sure voters will be reminded about Bush in the upcoming elections.

Didn't you ever learn [I]"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."[/i] ?

Esten, let's take a look at the costs you keep bring up.

TARP & Stimulus.

According to CNN (one of your favorite sources) the Stimulus Package committed a total of $1.2 Trillion.

Obama didn't even bother to vote "present" on TARP he just skipped it all together. Don't want to vote for on it just spend the money.

While we are talking about TARP – Obama spent a total of $77.6 Billion on the GM / Chrysler / GMAC / Chrysler Financial / GM Suppliers & Chrysler Suppliers bailout from TARP.

Also while we are on the TARP issue – Obama spent the bulk of the $69.8 Billion that went to AIG and all the bonuses were paid under his watch using TARP money as he stood by and watched it happen!

[url]http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/[/url]

But the true cost projected by CBO @ 10 years = $327 Trillion

[url]http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/12/true-cost-of-stimulus-327-trillion/[/url]

Oh, I almost forgot to add the $63 Billion Obama has authorized for the “Women-Centered Global Health Program” so unless these funds are for subsidizing guys on the Forum then it’s just more waste!

BUSH & IRAQ

You are always so hot to blame Bush and the spending on the war in Iraq for the economy, well how about these numbers on spending during the same time period the Iraq War was going on to put the cost in prospective:

1. Under Bush the Fed Gov spent more on education than on the war, the states and local governments spent more than 10 times the amount the Fed did on education

2. The war’s cost was less than 25% of the spending on JUST Medicare during the same period (this is only Medicare not Medicaid or Welfare which outstrip Medicare in spending)

[url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Little-known-fact-Obamas-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-than-the-Iraq-war-101302919.html[/url]

POLLS

Bush vs Obama
You always love polls but you only select those that favor your side. Regarding your Bush vs Obama poll, the one I found at random indicated when people were asked if today they could choose between having Bush back or keep Obama the results were Obama = 48% and Bush = 46% (margin of error = 3.4%) so it was basically a dead heat. This is nowhere near what you tried to represent!

[url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/poll-public-split-on-whether-they-would-prefer-obama-or-george-w-bush.php[/url]

JOBS.

I did a little research on your claim of 3 Million jobs CREATED by Obama, but since the statement is false on its face when you consider we are at 9.6% unemployment I just didn't bother. Perhaps you mis-spoke and meant CREATED &/ or SAVED, since it would be impossible to have created 3 million jobs and still have the unemployment rate go UP to 9.6% , unless of course you were losing many more jobs than you were claiming to create.



I really did like your little dodge to explain the uptick in unemployment by trying to ignore it by saying well there were more people entering the job market. July and August are NOT the months you see up swings in job seekers.

You also conveniently forgot about those folks which are not counted DOL unemployment figures when their unemployment benefits run out or they cease looking for employment out of sheer frustration. When you include them in the number it is well over 10% , add in underemployed and you are well over 14. Don't believe me – go to the Department of Labor web site, its all there.

Nice try but no sale – the folks out there with no job are sure as hell not buying this crap.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Obama spent more than $1 Trillion on one piece of legislation (Stimulus I) in his first months in office[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Are you really trying to tell me Obama did not spend over $1 Trillion dollars on Wall Street / AIG / et. Al. In his first year? [/QUOTE][QUOTE]According to CNN (one of your favorite sources) the Stimulus Package committed a total of $1.2 Trillion.[/QUOTE]First you claimed Obama spent more than $1 Trillion on Stimulus. When I challenged you on this you tried to throw in TARP. When I challenged you on THAT you now refer to CNNMoney's bailout tracker which has a $1.2 Trillion list of all federal stimulus programs spanning several years. This list includes other items such as the $168B committed and spent for the "Economic Stimulus Act of 2008" which Bush signed into law in Feb. 2008.

Holy crap man, are you THAT lost ??

The package Obama signed in his first months in office, commonly referred to as "Stimulus", is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This was a $787B package comprising $499B in spending and $288B in tax relief. And there is a difference between [I]committed[/i] and [I]spent[/i]. To date per your CNN link only $295B has been spent ($289B on recovery.gov). That's far different from your statement that Obama spent over $1 Trillion on Stimulus.

You don't deserve any more of my time until you fess up on your Stimulus mis-information.

There are two major problems with the argument in the video.

1. It only looks at the cost side of immigration and ignores the economic value created by the immigrants and their descendants. The USA has not run out of opportunity and immigrants vs nationals is not a zero sum game.

2. Long-term projections about pretty much everything have always proven to be wrong because they have no way to include the societal shifts that happen over time. Population projections have been notoriously bad.

Without immigration, our population is going to stagnate, grow old, and lose the economic base that pays for things like Social Security, Medicare, education, and the world's most powerful military. The policies we need to be discussing are ways to make sure that we continue to win the competition to get the most valuable immigrants and that they become "Americans" rather than people just passing through. IMHO, unilaterally reducing immigration and treating legal immigrants as second-class citizens are not good policies.

Illegal immigration is a somewhat different problem and has proven intractable to date. I'm not sure if there is a solution that wouldn't involve a level of intrusion into civil society that most of us would find un-American. Can you say, "Papers, please."? I can't without flashing on authoritarian governments in times and places that are as far from "of the people, by the people, and for the people" as you can get.

Your constant defense of the indefensible is almost laughable. According you your own CNN site clearly shows $1.2 Trillion allocated to the Stimulus program (and that is only one of the several spending bills passed by the Democrats) No they have not spent all of it yet and if the Republican's sweep in November they will not have the chance to do so. If you add the TARP money Obama spent (surely you are not trying to claim Bush spent it after he left office and Obama was sworn in) with the rest of their wild ass spending on top of the ObamaCare debacle all of which has led directly to the unprecedented increase in the deficit.

The problem with the economy is the Government. The only thing you and your liberal ilk can say is the Stimulus was not big enough as the reason why it is failing. Why bankrupt the country in 4 years if you can do it in 1 right?

Obama is no different than Roosevelt; they both prolonged the economic down turn by interjecting government programs which only stall economic growth. Roosevelt's only prolonged the depression until WWII; Obama's may well push the economy into a double dip recession.

Just as you have suggested, Obama's answer to everything is more spending and more taxes. The newest round of stimulus (sorry not stimulus it is targeted government investment) will primarily benefit his cronies in the unions at the Federal and State levels while doing nothing for the vast majority of the unemployed. Hey I thought we did all this wonderful infrastructure work under Stimulus I, Obama spent enough money on signs to tell us they were?

I realize you were pointing your comments to EG. Just wanted to point out that I am for LEGAL immigration and 100% against illegal immigration for reasons of both economics and national security. In the debate, if you are anti-Illegal immigration, you are painted as a racist. Whatever happened to the concept of colorblind justice?

[QUOTE=Easy Go]1. It only looks at the cost side of immigration and ignores the economic value created by the immigrants and their descendants. The USA has not run out of opportunity and immigrants vs nationals is not a zero sum game.[/QUOTE]I agree that opportunity is not a zero sum game. Excellent point.

[quote=]2. Long-term projections about pretty much everything have always proven to be wrong because they have no way to include the societal shifts that happen over time. Population projections have been notoriously bad.[/QUOTE]Except in the case of global warming.

[quote=]Without immigration, our population is going to stagnate, grow old, and lose the economic base that pays for things like Social Security, Medicare, education, and the world's most powerful military.[/QUOTE]Too late. We do not have the population to support the baby boomers. SS and medicare are bankrupt.

[quote=] The policies we need to be discussing are ways to make sure that we continue to win the competition to get the most valuable immigrants and that they become "Americans" rather than people just passing through.[/QUOTE]Those policies are remove hindrances to individual liberty.

[quote=] IMHO, unilaterally reducing immigration and treating legal immigrants as second-class citizens are not good policies.[/QUOTE]Didn't watch the video but who is advocating the approach of reducing legal immigration? Reducing illegal immigration is a great idea. People entering this country by breaking our laws should not be treated as second class citizens. They should be treated as the criminals that they are.

[quote=]Illegal immigration is a somewhat different problem and has proven intractable to date. I'm not sure if there is a solution that wouldn't involve a level of intrusion into civil society that most of us would find un-American. Can you say, "Papers, please."? I can't without flashing on authoritarian governments in times and places that are as far from "of the people, by the people, and for the people" as you can get.[/QUOTE]They are breaking our laws and should be immediately deported, following a brief asylum hearing. As for illegals that are already here, there needs to be a slightly different approach but one that does not result in citizenship or the right to vote, unless they go home and return through the legal process.

By the way, the 14th Amendment, as it was intended, does not allow for "anchor babies" because the mothers that deliver them are not here legally. Therefore babies born in the US to illegals do not meet the standard set forth by the 14th Amendment.

Got this today and thought I would pass it on to the rest of the board. Taken in total it does sort of make you wonder a little.

Author Unknown:

[quote]If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?

If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?

If George W. Bush had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident, would you have agreed?

If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, would you have said that he is clueless.

If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas, would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo) and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved.

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 15 months -- so you'll have two years and nine months to come up with an answer.

Every statement in this email is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable.[/quote]

Great post

I laugh everytime people start screaming about illegal immigration. The buisness lobby has paid Congress to prevent a creation of the foreign guest worker program. Continued cheap labor force is beneficial to them, get it?

Mexico gets billions of dollars from their citizens in the USA, why should they stop the flow? And if it was you and me that was born on the other side, we would be washing dishes and picking tomatoes right now. Oh, maybe you, I would probably be drinking a Corona and napping under the shade of the giant cactus and waiting for your money order.

Just to be serious, can you see Americans washing dishes and picking tomatoes?

Come on.

Slate is running a series of stories on income inequality for those interested in the topic. Interesting so far although it's full of annoying facts.

[url]http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/[/url]