American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Just to be serious, can you see Americans washing dishes and picking tomatoes?

Come on.[/QUOTE]Yes I seriously can see it, they did it years ago before the government started giving people more money to stay home than they could make working. Take the government handouts away and they'll pick tomato and wash dishes again. What makes Americans think they're to good to do these types of work?

[QUOTE=Easy Go]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.[/quote]I agree with much of this and if we stop illegal immigration we could and should increase legal immigration. More people that have skills and can contribute to the betterment of our society.

[QUOTE=Easy Go]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]Illegal immigration is a problem both political parties have ignored, for different reasons but ignored none the less.

The best way to stop illegal immigration is to take the incentive away. Make the penalty for hiring an illegal immigrant so severe that employers wouldn't even think about hiring them, I'm talking jail time for repeat offenders. Social services, drivers license, and aiding of illegal immigrants in any way should be verboten by federal law.

Take the work and social services away and a large percentage of these people would go home.

Unfortunately the remaining illegals are the bad guys that aren't coming for the work, so we would still need to seal our borders.

Perhaps we should put the troops that are coming home (and about to join the ranks of the unemployed) on the border. Image American troops protecting American soil.

Your [I]"Papers, please"[/i] sentiment is not lost on me I feel it too. I feel it when randomly stopped at a sobriety check point. I feel it when entering the country and they ask for my passport and when the guy says "what do you do for a living sir?" or when they want to look at the photos on my camera or my computer.

I feel it when crossing the border from Mexico and they ask "how long were you in Mexico" and "what did you do in Mexico?"

I feel it most of all when I drive through the check point on Interstate 35, twenty nine miles north of Laredo, Texas, USA, all northbound traffic is stopped by the border patrol, they walk around your car with dogs and ask "are you an American citizen", and sometimes they will ask "where are you headed today sir?" Try giving any of these guys less than candid answers.

I see the Arizona law as an act of desperation and a cry for help. The federal government needs to get their asses in gear and seal the borders. Let those wanting to cross the border be the ones to feel the "intrusion", not Americans driving on I35 or the streets of Arizona.

I used to work for a company that had very generous overtime policies. Except for some lean years, we had OT all the time. But it would be the foreign born citizens that welcome the OT. The native born, would just walk out the door, citing fatigue, paying too much tax, need to party and a host of reasons not to stay. It did not really matter as their work production was always lower anyway. Plus, their attendance was a major problem.

Yeah, I think they will wash dishes and pick tomatos, but it will take a madatory draft for them to comply.

There are lots of worse things in the world than illegal immigration. It's not worth sacrificing our freedom of movement to immigration checkpoints nor is it worth spending billions upon billions to try and and make our borders into the Maginot Line. A reasonable effort makes sense but there's no practical way to plug a 5,000 mile land border and a 12,000 mile coastline. We've got 20,000 border agents and many miles of fence (that costs billions to maintain) on the Mexican border which has succeeded mostly in increasing the cost (both dollars and lives) of making a crossing. The increased cost and difficulty mostly seems to have resulted in "professionalizing" the border crossing business and turning it into an attractive side business for the drug cartels. So we spend billions on defending the border while the drug cartels make billions smuggling people and drugs across it.

Also, by making it so much harder to cross the border, we've destroyed the informal guest worker program we used to have where farm workers crossed illegally to work during the peak seasons and returned to their homes during the rest of the year. Now, once you are across, it's so hard to cross back and return that the sensible action is to bring your family and setup permanent residence.

Meanwhile, draconian efforts at immigration enforcement inside the US drives illegals farther underground where their fear of the police makes them easy targets for criminals and their children don't get the education that would make them into economically productive citizens when they reach adulthood.

Just like the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration mostly seems to be making things worse while wasting our resources and enriching and strengthening criminal gangs.

More fences, more guards, and sticking more people (like employers) in prison isn't going to solve the problem.

[QUOTE=Easy Go]There are lots of worse things in the world than illegal immigration. It's not worth sacrificing our freedom of movement to immigration checkpoints nor is it worth spending billions upon billions to try and and make our borders into the Maginot Line. A reasonable effort makes sense but there's no practical way to plug a 5,000 mile land border and a 12,000 mile coastline. We've got 20,000 border agents and many miles of fence (that costs billions to maintain) on the Mexican border which has succeeded mostly in increasing the cost (both dollars and lives) of making a crossing. The increased cost and difficulty mostly seems to have resulted in "professionalizing" the border crossing business and turning it into an attractive side business for the drug cartels. So we spend billions on defending the border while the drug cartels make billions smuggling people and drugs across it.

Also, by making it so much harder to cross the border, we've destroyed the informal guest worker program we used to have where farm workers crossed illegally to work during the peak seasons and returned to their homes during the rest of the year. Now, once you are across, it's so hard to cross back and return that the sensible action is to bring your family and setup permanent residence.

Meanwhile, draconian efforts at immigration enforcement inside the US drives illegals farther underground where their fear of the police makes them easy targets for criminals and their children don't get the education that would make them into economically productive citizens when they reach adulthood.

Just like the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration mostly seems to be making things worse while wasting our resources and enriching and strengthening criminal gangs.

More fences, more guards, and sticking more people (like employers) in prison isn't going to solve the problem.[/QUOTE]Now we part ways because I'm vehemently against open borders which is what you seem to be suggesting.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]I used to work for a company that had very generous overtime policies. Except for some lean years, we had OT all the time. But it would be the foreign born citizens that welcome the OT. The native born, would just walk out the door, citing fatigue, paying too much tax, need to party and a host of reasons not to stay. It did not really matter as their work production was always lower anyway. Plus, their attendance was a major problem.

Yeah, I think they will wash dishes and pick tomatos, but it will take a madatory draft for them to comply.[/QUOTE]I've seen that attitude as well, but I think if we stop rewarding those that refuse to work attitudes would change.

Hunger is a pretty good motivator, perhaps even better than a draft. Lol

Yet sill no response to my last post. I guess you can't argue with facts.

Dubya -

The president took on tyranny by embracing torture. He fought a war for freedom by trampling human rights. He enriched the already rich, excused their excesses, and then bailed them out of trouble and handed us the bill.

He politicized everything, promoted incompetents, and -- whenever things got tight -- appealed to our basest instincts of fear, greed, ignorance and hate. And his election had all the legitimacy of Rutherford Hayes'.

Here's a list of the seven worst things Bush did during his time in the White House.

7. Bush politicized parts of the government that should be nonpartisan.

6. Bush squandered the budget surplus.

5. Bush comforted the comfortable and afflicted the afflicted.

4. Bush rewarded incompetence.

3. Bush lied us into war.

2. Bush has exposed himself to war crime charges.

1. Bush weakened our democracy.

[QUOTE=Miamipro]Yet sill no response to my last post. I guess you can't argue with facts.[/QUOTE]If you knew what a fact was, it would be easier to find one.

[quote=]Dubya -

The president took on tyranny by embracing torture. He fought a war for freedom by trampling human rights. [/QUOTE]Nice talking point. Please cite specific examples of Bush either condoning or ordering torture. Generally in war, the goal is to trample the human rights of your enemies armed forces (I. E. Deprive them of life - liberty and the pursuit of happiness are things you worry about off the battlefield)

[quote=]He enriched the already rich, excused their excesses, and then bailed them out of trouble and handed us the bill.[/QUOTE]I thought you were railing against Bush? Why the non sequitur about Obama?

[quote=]He politicized everything, promoted incompetents,[/QUOTE]Ever heard of any of these folks: Biden, Geithner, Chu, Jarrett, Killifer, Napolitano, Freeman?

Why don't you enumerate some examples?

[quote=]and -- whenever things got tight -- appealed to our basest instincts of fear, greed, ignorance and hate.[/QUOTE]Why don't you enumerate some examples?

[quote=]And his election had all the legitimacy of Rutherford Hayes'.[/QUOTE]Other than swallowing the left wing talking points, do you have some facts upon which you base this opinion (to which you are certainly entitled)

[quote=]Here's a list of the seven worst things Bush did during his time in the White House.

7. Bush politicized parts of the government that should be nonpartisan.[/QUOTE]Why don't you enumerate some examples?

[quote=]6. Bush squandered the budget surplus.[/QUOTE]Congress spent the money. However, Bush should be held accountable for going along with them.

[quote=]5. Bush comforted the comfortable and afflicted the afflicted.[/QUOTE]Like all those people in Africa with Aids? Why are they comfortable? GWB, that's why.

Why don't you enumerate some examples?

[quote=]4. Bush rewarded incompetence. [/QUOTE]Why don't you enumerate some examples?

[quote=]3. Bush lied us into war.[/QUOTE]Why don't you enumerate some facts related to his deliberate acts?

[quote=]2. Bush has exposed himself to war crime charges.[/QUOTE]Considering those making such claims, I'll side with W.

[quote=]1. Bush weakened our democracy.[/QUOTE]How?

Miamipro, as I can see you are a card carrying, Bush bashing, liberal, I doubt anything I say will make a difference, falling on deaf ears to be sure.

You can't fight terrorism with polite inquirers and taking "no" for an answer. Political correctness will be the death of us all since the terrorist constantly use it against us. We didn't fight "fair" in WW I, WW II, Korea or any other war. The guy who fights "fair" is the one who has his "fairness" turned against him and ends up being defeated. By the way – did you serve in any conflicts or just taking the cheap shots from the peanut gallery?

Bush politicized everything? Give me a break; Obama has done more to politicize everything under the sun to serve his "higher calling" than anyone I can recall. What would you call moving the Census directly under executive control, firing a company CEO with no authority, the BP oil spill, healthcare the list goes on and on.

Bush was incompetent and hired incompetents – right and Obama can't find a staff person who can do his taxes right or does not owe the IRS money on past taxes, while paying off unions from day one. His latest payoff to the teachers union was accomplished by taking funds from the food stamp program. Wow, what compassion. Literally take the food out of people's mouths to give money to the teacher's unions.

If Bush has exposed himself to "war crimes" then Obama is exposed to the same extent as Bush as he has continued almost every Bush policy he railed against during his campaign and even increased the operational tempo of some.

Bush squandered a budget surplus, first the CONGRESS controls the purse strings and perhaps you let the 9/11 attack slip by you. By the way, the Democrats have controlled Congress for the last 4 years. I will give you one point, both Democrats and Republicans squandered the hard fought reductions in welfare that were gained when the Republicans controlled Congress and forced Clinton to the middle.

Bush weakened our democracy, right. You have to have a country first to have a democracy and you don't do that by placating your enemy and surrendering your advantages. Perhaps you forgot that bastion of Democracy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, suspend habeas corpus, interned populations as threats, investigated individuals with abandon, and permitted all sorts of "wrong doing" in the name of victory during WW II.

Bush rewarded incompetence, Obama embodies the very essence of incompetence from Stimulus, to ObamaCare, to BP, to appointments, to payoffs, to appropriation of private companies – I would go on but I have to do some work today and I am sure you get the idea. He can plan vacations for himself and his wife with no problem, I will give him that.

Let the voice of the people on Nov. 2nd settle this inane argument Miamipro, but of course you believe the unwashed masses don't know what is good for them and need to be led by the Liberal Intellectual Elite for their own good. Talk to me about Democracy after the elections my friend.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Bush rewarded incompetence, Obama embodies the very essence of incompetence from Stimulus, to ObamaCare, to BP, to appointments, to payoffs, to appropriation of private companies – I would go on but I have to do some work today and I am sure you get the idea. He can plan vacations for himself and his wife with no problem, I will give him that[/QUOTE]"No matter what meeting Obama is in, he is the least knowledgeable and least experienced person in the room."

This is absolutely true.

[QUOTE=Easy Go]A reasonable effort makes sense[/quote]We won't know if making a "reasonable effort" will work until we first try it.

[QUOTE=Easy Go]Also, by making it so much harder to cross the border, we've destroyed the informal guest worker program we used to have where farm workers crossed illegally to work during the peak seasons and returned to their homes during the rest of the year.[/quote]Sounds like a good argument for an effective, enforceable, Guest Worker program.[QUOTE=Easy Go]Meanwhile, draconian efforts at immigration enforcement inside the US drives illegals farther underground where their fear of the police makes them easy targets for criminals and their children don't get the education that would make them into economically productive citizens when they reach adulthood.[/quote]Their solution is simple: Don't commit a criminal act by illegally sneaking into the country in the first place.

Easy Go, just come out and admit it: You're salivating at the prospect of 12 million new, loyal Democrat voters, aren't you? We all know the history here. When Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in 1986, the state of California permanently tilted from red to blue, and now you're thinking [I]"If we could just do the same thing in New York, Florida and Illinois, then we'd never lose a Presidential election again".[/i]

It's truly disappointing how Democrats would so willing weaken the country just to keep themselves in power, but then the last two years under Obama / Reid / Pelosi has been a non-stop demonstration of that philosophy.

Thanks,

Jackson

I actually liked watching Obama on the campaign trail. I didn't then (and certainly don't now) agree with much of his domestic agenda or economic policies, but I thought that he had the right ideas on foreign policy. I still feel the same way today, although his domestic and economic agendas have been an even bigger disaster than I thought they could be.

Today, however, I'm struck by how tone deaf the guy is. He's giving a speech right now in Ohio. He clearly just doesn't get it. He continues to blame everyone else for where we are today, without taking any responsibility himself. Frankly, it's remarkable to hear the lies coming out of his mouth about the economy and how he's creating jobs, and the past administration is responsible for all job losses. Right now he's arguing that the Bush tax cuts for top income earners can't go into effect because we can't afford it. He appears to think people are too stupid to connect the dots after the Democrats' reckless spending of trillions of dollars over the past two years. The arrogance is there for all to see.

The most astonishing thing, however, is that he seems completely unaware that his excuses don't work anymore. It's worse than that. It actually turns folks away from him. His policy appears to be simply to pass the buck wherever and whenever possible, while trying to claim credit where none is due. Either his advisers are as tone deaf as he is, or he simply cannot find an ounce of candor in himself. If someone just told him to take some responsibility and chart a course, people would start to forgive him and might actually believe a few of the words coming out of his mouth. But, he appears physically incapable of doing so. It's as if he believes he can walk on water, even as he's completely submerged. Truly remarkable.

I didn't believe that Democrats could actually make things worse for themselves before the next election, but Obama is leading these lemmings right off the cliff. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It's painful, but somehow you can't take your eyes off it.

I'd like to see both an expanded farm worker guest worker program and a expanded legal immigration program.

Except for the fact that I know you are just being snarky, I'd ask if you have anything substantive to backup your comments about voting patterns of amnesty immigrants? Or wonder about what wild story you'd come up with to explain why "red" California has had one Democratic governor since 1986? Or why you assume that illegals will automatically vote Democratic? But since I know you are just tweaking me, I won't bother.

Another fine mess brought to you by the Obama administration:

Rate Increases Are Blamed on Health-Care Overhaul; White House Questions Logic.

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html#mod=most_emailed_day[/url]

So, instead of reining in rates, they've actually increased [b]more[/b] than they otherwise would have. These are for the individual plans that so many here were squawking about, as well as plans for small businesses. I don't know whether the online WSJ edition includes the chart from the print edition, but several insurers broke out that portion of the rate increase directly attributable to ObamaCare [i]on top of[/i] the remaining increase.

The White House questions the insurers' logic. Here's the insurers' logic: When you mandate increased benefits, such as insurance for "children" until they're 26, no pre-existing condition exclusions, etc., etc., the cost to provide the expanded coverage goes up. Seems pretty logical to me. But, of course, Obama and his ilk can do no wrong, so obviously the insurance companies must be lying. Right. Just like the publicly traded companies who forecast that ObamaCare would cost them billions were lying, even though they were required to include these forecasts in their SEC disclosures. Everyone is lying or at fault except Obama.

Meanwhile, the cost of insurance in Massachusetts (the model for ObamaCare) continue to spiral out of control. Obviously, the folks in Massachusetts are lying, too. After all, they elected Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's seat to try to fend off ObamaCare.

So, all of you who bought the free lunch that the Democrats were selling -- that ObamaCare would control costs -- were completely hoodwinked. Government has [b]never[/b] been good at controlling costs in any respect. It will be no different here. There's no free lunch.

Obama happen to be the first black president in America. In that context, it was historic and the rest of the world cheer and embrace him.

On the homefront, he was and is abominable to a certain segment of our society. As individuals, we are what we are, and we arrive to that point from our cultural background and life experiences. Thus we have our individual prejudices and opinions. Be very clear, I am not talking about outright racism, but people are always going to be very comfortable with their own kind (culturally) So on the issue of immigration, I feel that's where we are. Economically, as America struggle, this will come to the forefront in a big way. We already can see in France, the deporting of gypsies and not allowing the covering of the head by Muslim women. True, these examples do not measure up to the ransacking and raping of the Chinese community following the financial meltdown in Jakarta in 1997.

I guess I got carried away, just trying to say why there is so much passion when the discussion comes around to Obama.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]If you knew what a fact was, it would be easier to find one.[/QUOTE]If you knew anything that would be amazing. Try checking out the video link I posted. I will let Cheney make the fact in point.

[QUOTE=Miamipro]Yet sill no response to my last post. I guess you can't argue with facts.[/QUOTE]This is true. In his attempt to exaggerate Obama's spending, Doppelganger resorted to a CNN list of spending spanning several years, which included spending under Bush, and tried to pass it off as all Obama's spending.

This the same individual who claimed the true cost of the Stimulus (ARRA) projected by CBO @ 10 years was $327 Trillion. Aside from forgetting the decimal point in 3.27, what he failed to mention was that this was not an official CBO estimate. It was a response to a Republican from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan, who asked the CBO to estimate the impact of permanently extending more than 20 provisions in ARRA for 10 years. As CBO noted in it's letter to Ryan, these provisions are NOT in place for 10 years under ARRA. The official 10-year CBO cost estimate remains at $787 billion.

Now what would be the reason for a Republican to submit such a request to the CBO? Obviously, to provide an inflated number which can be peddled over the blogosphere to try to fool people.

Everything Doppelganger says needs to be fact-checked. And Wild Walleye as well!

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Another fine mess brought to you by the Obama administration:

Rate Increases Are Blamed on Health-Care Overhaul; White House Questions Logic.

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html#mod=most_emailed_day[/url]

So, instead of reining in rates, they've actually increased [b]more[/b] than they otherwise would have. These are for the individual plans that so many here were squawking about, as well as plans for small businesses. I don't know whether the online WSJ edition includes the chart from the print edition, but several insurers broke out that portion of the rate increase directly attributable to ObamaCare [i]on top of[/i] the remaining increase.

The White House questions the insurers' logic. Here's the insurers' logic: When you mandate increased benefits, such as insurance for "children" until they're 26, no pre-existing condition exclusions, etc., etc., the cost to provide the expanded coverage goes up. Seems pretty logical to me. But, of course, Obama and his ilk can do no wrong, so obviously the insurance companies must be lying. Right. Just like the publicly traded companies who forecast that ObamaCare would cost them billions were lying, even though they were required to include these forecasts in their SEC disclosures. Everyone is lying or at fault except Obama.

Meanwhile, the cost of insurance in Massachusetts (the model for ObamaCare) continue to spiral out of control. Obviously, the folks in Massachusetts are lying, too. After all, they elected Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's seat to try to fend off ObamaCare.

So, all of you who bought the free lunch that the Democrats were selling -- that ObamaCare would control costs -- were completely hoodwinked. Government has [b]never[/b] been good at controlling costs in any respect. It will be no different here. There's no free lunch.[/QUOTE]I think you are right on the mark, my health insurance has already increased 13.5% since the bill became law. This was an unusual mid year increase that came shortly after the law was singed.

Thank you Mr. President!

Esten, yes the decimal was omitted in error (it is $3.27 Trillion) but the link to the website was included for "fact checking". You don't dispute the number you just make excuses as to why it is so large. Just as you don't disput the numbers listed on the CNN documentation but try to obscure the facts by blaming it on Bush. In case you have not noticed - folks are buying that bill of goods any more.

You keep referring to $787 Billion for the cost of the Stimulus / ARRA of 01/29/2009 when the true cost with all the add ons is really now at least $836 Billion; even the Democrats are using this number and not the $787 Billion you continue to refer to.

The Congressional Budget Office's website does not concur with your claim the total cost of the Stimulus is $787 over 10 years, point of fact they have revised their number upward on the cost which is still not know. I would remind you of CBO cost estimate of Medicare, after 10 years their cost estimate was under the actual cost by a factor of 10.

If you look back at previous Federal Programs which we now have the ACTUAL COST numbers for you find the Congressional Budget Office significantly under estimated nearly every one of them.

Regarding the TARP spending, there was a revision of TARP in January 2009 and the referenced TARP spending by Obama – not Bush – occurred after that revision. I make the same argument with you as Maimipro – do you contend George Bush continued the spending after leaving office and after Obama was sworn in? You surely are not trying to tell me Bush fired the GM CEO, took over GM & Chrysler, funneled more money to AIG excreta, excreta, after Obama was sworn into office. These actions were taken with TARP funds by Obama not Bush and therefore add to his spending not Bush's.

How about the Bush Tax Cuts, Democrats are abandoning Obama in such numbers his proposal is dead on arrive in the House & Senate. Even his former budget director Peter Orszag recommends continuing ALL the tax Bush Tax Cuts for at least 2 more years.

Since Obama's definition of "rich" as married couples making a combined income of over $250,000, such a position will have a severe impact on small business. Depending on the legal formation of the company (Sub C, Sub S, LLP, LLC, excreta) and the accounting method used many will have "incomes" greater than $250K even though they did not receive that much in true income. Many of my clients are about to be caught in this trap.

I make the same challenge to you as I did to Maimipro, talk to me about Obama and Democracy after Nov. 2nd, but I assume you fall into the same category of those who believe the poor, huddled, unwashed masses are too stupid to know what is best for them and need the Liberal Elite to show them the way. The Liberal Elites and their talking heads are describing the current voter dissatisfaction with government as "stupid", "temper tantrums", "immature", "childish" just to name a few. Did you catch Bill Moyer on Larry King? He makes the Liberal Elite point very well.

[QUOTE=Esten]This is true. In his attempt to exaggerate Obama's spending, Doppelganger resorted to a CNN list of spending spanning several years, which included spending under Bush, and tried to pass it off as all Obama's spending.[/QUOTE]"(CNSNews. Com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U. S. Presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan."

"At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U. S. Presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration."

From zerohedge:

"Nine States Did Not File Initial Claims Data Due To Labor Day, Hundreds Of Thousands Of Estimates In Data "Beat"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/09/2010 08:16 -0500

The BLS has announced that as a result of the Labor Day weekend, 9 states (among which the biggest one California) did not report initial claims data to the bean counters, so instead the government had to "estimate" what the data would have been: yep, estimate, what the data was in these nine states. From Bloomberg: "For the latest reporting week, nine states didn't file claims data to the Labor Department in Washington because of the Labor Day holiday earlier this week, a department official told reporters. California and Virginia estimated their figures and the U. S. Government estimated the other seven." Official data is now made up on the fly. This US economic data reporting has just entered the twilight zone. Also, when the data is officially made up, it is not that difficult to get data that is "better than expected." The full list of states is: DC, Illinois, Idaho, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Washington. California and Virginia estimated themselves."

I guess Obama has been taking lessons from Argentina on making up statistics.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]From zerohedge:

"Nine States Did Not File Initial Claims Data Due To Labor Day, Hundreds Of Thousands Of Estimates In Data "Beat"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/09/2010 08:16 -0500

The BLS has announced that as a result of the Labor Day weekend, 9 states (among which the biggest one California) did not report initial claims data to the bean counters, so instead the government had to "estimate" what the data would have been: yep, estimate, what the data was in these nine states. From Bloomberg: "For the latest reporting week, nine states didn't file claims data to the Labor Department in Washington because of the Labor Day holiday earlier this week, a department official told reporters. California and Virginia estimated their figures and the U. S. Government estimated the other seven." Official data is now made up on the fly. This US economic data reporting has just entered the twilight zone. Also, when the data is officially made up, it is not that difficult to get data that is "better than expected." The full list of states is: DC, Illinois, Idaho, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Washington. California and Virginia estimated themselves."

I guess Obama has been taking lessons from Argentina on making up statistics.[/QUOTE]Now I'm haunted by this vision of Halle Berry, playing Michelle Obama on the silver screen, singing "Don't cry for me, A-me-RI-ca..."

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]I guess Obama has been taking lessons from Argentina on making up statistics.[/QUOTE]You took the words right out of my keyboard. It started with "created or saved". Listening to Obama's speech yesterday, the BS was so thick you started to wonder whether Chavez was writing his teleprompted talking points. Perhaps Obama should go talk to Fidel Castro. Even he conceded yesterday that socialism doesn't work, but Obama hasn't learned that lesson yet, and we're the ones that are going to pay for it. The Silver Lining: At least we'll have Cuban style health care while we're all making $20 a week. Everyone will be the same -- dirt poor -- and then Obama can claim that he achieved equality.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]You took the words right out of my keyboard. It started with "created or saved". Listening to Obama's speech yesterday, the BS was so thick you started to wonder whether Chavez was writing his teleprompted talking points. Perhaps Obama should go talk to Fidel Castro. Even he conceded yesterday that socialism doesn't work, but Obama hasn't learned that lesson yet, and we're the ones that are going to pay for it. The Silver Lining: At least we'll have Cuban style health care while we're all making $20 a week. Everyone will be the same -- dirt poor -- and then Obama can claim that he achieved equality.[/QUOTE]Hopefully, in approximately 26 months we can achieve some measure of equality by placing Obama in the same status as 14.9 million fellow Americans, unemployed (although we all know the real number is much higher)

A link on another website turned up a story in the Augusta, Georgia [u]Chronicle[/u], about "When Augusta Licensed Its Prostitutes." (World War II)

Two useful comments followed the story:

[quote]Legalization could help President Obama with his unemployment numbers.[/quote][quote]Legalization would also help Obama with his tax revenue as they would be forced to submit tax returns rather than work for cash.[/quote]Yeah, it might help, but would the chicas have to join the SEIU?:p

[QUOTE=Westy]Now I'm haunted by this vision of Halle Berry, playing Michelle Obama on the silver screen, singing "Don't cry for me, A-me-RI-ca."[/QUOTE]Really not a bad scenerio. After all, we all love Argentina the way it is. If they clean up their act, it would be the "good" ole USA. Back in the 70 & 80s, the massage scene in Los Angeles was a monger's dream. Sunset Strip was jigglling and jiving. And downtown had the dance halls. Both Whites and Blacks women were coming out of the woodwork to work. This was followed by the Koreans and Vietnamese. Down the road was Tijuana, and Las Vegas and Nevada offered even more options.

A golden era. Well, you know my history now.

[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?[/QUOTE]How about:

If George W. Bush had led the country into the deepest recession since WWII, would you have approved?

Oh wait, he did.

[QUOTE]"No matter what meeting Obama is in, he is the least knowledgeable and least experienced person in the room."

This is absolutely true. [/QUOTE]This was clearly never the case with Bush!

Say what you like about Bush, it's a free country (for now at least)

Read some of my pre-Obama posts, I was no fan of Bush, but please drop the pretense that he is either stupid or not accomplished. He graduated from both Yale University and Harvard Business School (1975, long before his dad was Pres) While being a 4th generation legacy at Yale probably helped him get in to the school, it didn't help him get through or get out. Being wealthy and connected probably didn't hurt his application to HBS but again it did not get him through or out of the program.

He was by all accounts a successful business man (although when you start off rich and stay rich, success is difficult to measure) in the oil business and then as co-owner of the Rangers. He defeated Ann Richards, a Democrat legend and formidable foe, for the Governor's mansion of the second largest state in the nation. He won two presidential terms and served them without leaving his DNA on an intern's dress, destroying the health care industry, capitulating to Putin on missile defense, bowing to foreign leaders or increasing the national debt by more than all presidents prior to his dad, combined.

We get it, you hate Bush. Regardless of what you may say the reason is, it isn't due to the fact that he is ignorant or incompetent.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Esten, yes the decimal was omitted in error (it is $3.27 Trillion) but the link to the website was included for "fact checking". You don't dispute the number you just make excuses as to why it is so large. Just as you don't disput the numbers listed on the CNN documentation but try to obscure the facts by blaming it on Bush. [/QUOTE]I did dispute the $3.27T number as not representing the true cost of ARRA. I followed the link to fact-check and with additional research found out it was another right wing deception which you were trying to peddle.

I also disputed that the CNN list totalling $1.2T is all Obama spending. The first item listed is "Economic Stimulus Act of 2008". Did Obama sign that one?

[QUOTE]You keep referring to $787 Billion for the cost of the Stimulus / ARRA of 01/29/2009 when the true cost with all the add ons is really now at least $836 Billion; even the Democrats are using this number and not the $787 Billion you continue to refer to. [/QUOTE]Fair point, sort of. After doing some research I did find a CBO revision to $814B last month. Still close to their original $787 estimate in Feb. 2009. I'll use this number going forward.

However, I thought you said the true cost was $3.27T? Now you say $836B? What made you change your mind?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Fact check this please.

"(CNSNews. Com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U. S. Presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan."[/QUOTE]Back on 6/24 we wrote:

[QUOTE]BTW Walleye, I wouldn't trust that cnsnews website. It's a right wing propaganda website with a sly name meant to trick people into thinking it's another well-known established news source.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Agreed that it is not trust worthy. [/QUOTE]'Nuff said.

You obviously can't read.

[QUOTE=Esten]Back on 6/24 we wrote:

'Nuff said.[/QUOTE]That's why I said you need to fact check it! (the request is in the title of my post)

[QUOTE=Esten]If George W. Bush had led the country into the deepest recession since WWII, would you have approved?

Oh wait, he did.[/QUOTE]For the 10,000th time, the current recession was precipitated by Democratic politicians who legislatively mandated the lowering of mortgage qualification standards in pursuit of their liberal goal of increasing the country's percentage of home ownership.

This artificial distortion of the free market resulted in the unintended consequence of the housing market being flooded with new (and previously unqualified) buyers who, in competition for the same inventory of houses, resulted in an artificial run up of home prices.

It's a simple as that, and I for one am tired of liberals blaming the ensuing recession, which they perpetrated by meddling with the free market, on George W. Bush.

You can continue to foist this lie to the gullible idiots in the country, but those of us who are able to think beyond sound bites know who is really responsible.

Thanks,

Jackson

P.S. Sorry everyone, but apparently I'm going to need to re-publish this fact every time somebody tries to blame the recession solely on Bush and/or the Republican Party.

Jackson,

When Clinton left office, there was a multi-billion dollar federal budget surplus and the US Dollar was worth more than the Euro. Then your boy Bush came, issued an unnecessary tax cut while at the same time bankrupting the country through a series of unwinnable and unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which we are still quagmired with today) Yes, Obama has been a disappointment so far and the stimulus and health care bills are complete shit and are only digging a deeper hole for the nation's finances. Do not forget that the economy collapsed under Bush's watch as a result of Bush stewardship. Obama was left to pick up the pieces in an untenable straightjacket position as a result of Bush's malfeasance.

Obama's recent talk of starting massive infrastructure projects is a step in the right direction. These are projects that have been a long time coming and will provide continuous jobs. Obama needs to accept the fact that Afghanistan is not a real nation-state where a normal government can ever function and get our troops out of there.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Hey HR, thought all the roads, bridges, and other infrastructure were covered under the Stimulus - Obama blew enough money on signs telling us that was what they were doing?

Esten, I said he spent $1 Trillion, CBO projected it to the larger number based on a request to project the costs. Almost every estimate the CBO has produced has been far below the actual cost, which is why you are seeing the upward creep from your original $787 Billion to $836 Billion. The creep will continue and I doubt it will stop at $1 Trillion unless Obama loses the House and Senate which will cut off his funding.

Esten have you given up on the TARP spending Obama did or do you still maintain Bush did it months after Obama took office?

Yes Esten it is a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, again. Just like Monica and Clinton – Monica was Right Wing operative sent to ensnare Bill.

This is all getting very silly. Nobody is going to convince anyone here to their point of view. The electorate will vote with their stomach, oh sorry, their pocketbooks rather. I forgot in America, even the poor are fat and funky. Unless, Obama pulls it off down the stretch, he is history as were Carter, Bush, Sr. in recent history.

As most of you know, wars can pull us out of recession. Mmmm, I wonder, where can we invade? I say Argentina! Why not?

Let's let go of our puds for a second and wrap our hands around a little reality, history and facts.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Jackson-

When Clinton left office, there was a multi-billion dollar federal budget surplus and the US Dollar was worth more than the Euro. [/QUOTE]If you recall when Clinton left office they also stole everything that wasn't nailed down in the Whitehouse, vandalized millions of dollars worth of federal property and deliberately hindered the transition to the new administration (which negatively affected our readiness from a home land defense perspective) But, let's not let the truth get in the way.

Your logic is that Clinton left in 2000, and there was a surplus (281B in 2000, according to the US Treasury) Therefore the surplus was due to his stewardship of the economy, right? Wrong.

"You may ask yourself, well, how did I get here? "

Well, let me tell you.

This surplus had nothing to do with Bill Clinton and everything to do with Ronald Reagan and later, Newt Gingrich. The Democrats dominated both houses of congress from 1954 through 1994, when the republicans, riding on the Contract with America, finally broke through. The Democrats' addictions to spending, expanding the role of govt and entitlements and taxing the citizenry to death (and actually beyond death) put us on the path to extinction.

The return of fiscal responsibility to Washington (wow, that is tough to conceptualize) began when Reagan was elected, to remove the scourge foisted upon this great nation named Jimmy Carter. Among other things, he tried to reduce the size and roll of govt, based upon the simple premise of less govt equals less govt spending and grasped the notion that lower taxation leaves more money in the citizens' pockets which leads to more personal spending which grows the economy. Once referred to as Voodoo economics, these concepts together over time produced the above-mentioned surplus.

The economic boom following the 1982 recession won over political leaders of both parties that lower marginal tax rates were essential to a strong economy, while the tax code was too convoluted and negatively affected the economy costing jobs. Reform of the tax code, as highlighted in Reagan's 1984 State of the Union speech, with a system more economically efficient, fairer and simpler with lower rates would result in a broader base and increased Federal tax receipts. The Tax Reform Act of 1986: reduced the top statutory tax rate down from 50 percent to 28 percent and the corporate tax rate from 50 percent to 35 percent. The code was "simplified" and the personal exemption and standard deduction amounts were increased and indexed for inflation which relieved millions of taxpayers of any Federal income tax burden (according to the US Treasury) Keep in mind that the Congress writes most of the checks and when RayGun was president, the Congress 'belonged' to one Thomas "Tip" O'neil. Despite this fact, he was able to LEAD them (in the face of great hostility from the media) to do the right thing in many instances.

Fortunately, Clinton took the Democrat controlled congress he inherited for granted and squandered much of his first two years. Midterm elections came and the resulting shift of majorities effectively restrained much of Clinton's spending agenda. Despite the Republican congress, elected in 1994, tax rates grew ever higher during the 1990s. Throughout the 1990s, strong economic performance prevailed, based upon good economic fundamentals (low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment) the global situation was improving (byproducts of the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Union, etc) and new information technologies. This created an enormous increase in the aggregate tax burden, with Federal taxes as a share of GDP reaching a postwar high of 20. 8 percent in 2000. Economic growth driven by private sector innovation lead to tax receipts that outpaced Washington's ability to spend (temporarily)

So that is whence the surplus came.

Had the Democrats won a majority in the 104th Congress, Clinton and the Congress would have squandered every cent of any surplus. Thankfully, the Democrats did not win the Congress and the Republicans did. In fact, one of the primary reasons Clinton was not able to blow through that surplus was the GRIDLOCK that liberals and their lapdog media bleated about incessantly. Me? I'll take gridlock over reckless spending any day.

[quote=] Then your boy Bush came, issued an unnecessary tax cut [/QUOTE]Unnecessary? Tax rates crept up ever since Reagan left office (starting with GHWB) Reagan's tax cutting measures had proved once again what stimulates the economy. When something works, stick with it. Bush's tax cuts stimulated the economy and increased federal tax receipts.

[quote=]while at the same time bankrupting the country through a series of unwinnable and unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which we are still quagmired with today)[/QUOTE]I don't think quagmire is a verb. I can't believe we jumped into two wars completely unprovoked and without cause. Must be the republicans paying off the war machine. I won't waste my breath on debating the wars with you. Let's just agree to disagree on the wars. Hey, what are you doing tomorrow?

[quote=] Yes, Obama has been a disappointment so far and the stimulus and health care bills are complete shit and are only digging a deeper hole for the nation's finances. Do not forget that the economy collapsed under Bush's watch as a result of Bush stewardship. Obama was left to pick up the pieces in an untenable straightjacket position as a result of Bush's malfeasance. [/QUOTE]Straightjacket? Poor choice of analogies since a straightjacket implies something that immobilizes someone not something that enables them to add trillions to the national debt with nothing to show for it.

[quote=]Obama's recent talk of starting massive infrastructure projects is a step in the right direction. These are projects that have been a long time coming and will provide continuous jobs.[/QUOTE]Ok, you're losing me here. You just said

[quote=]Yes, Obama has been a disappointment so far and the stimulus and health care bills are complete shit and are only digging a deeper hole for the nation's finances.[/QUOTE]So the $3T he has spent and committed us to spend, to date, it shit but you trust him to be on point with the next $3T?

What was that Ben Franklin said about doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome?

The proof of the net positive effects of tax cutting has been borne out in reality many times. The proof that Keynesian spending helps the economy is only found in dated text books.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Hey HR, thought all the roads, bridges, and other infrastructure were covered under the Stimulus - Obama blew enough money on signs telling us that was what they were doing?[/QUOTE]Actually, the cost of the signs exhausted stimulus 1 so they need stimulus 2 to actually do the work that the signs are supposed to highlight.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412131]Actually, the cost of the signs exhausted stimulus 1 so they need stimulus 2 to actually do the work that the signs are supposed to highlight.[/QUOTE]

Dude, sometimes I think you must be wearing your trousers inside out.

[quote][red]The Mess Bush Left And Other Obama Fables [/red]

By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted 09/07/2010 06:35 PM ET

President Obama boldly proclaims, "The buck stops here!" But, whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush.

The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

No president of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives, and all taxes are voted into law by Congress. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the congressional Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called "the Clinton surplus." But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills, but Sen. Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.

Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.

Having created this scary situation, President Obama now says, "Don't give in to fear. Let's reach for hope." The voters reached for hope when they elected Obama. The fear comes from what he has done since taking office. "The worst thing we could do is to go back to the very same policies that created this mess in the first place," he said recently. "In November, you're going to have that choice."

Taxpayers Get The Bill [/quote]So much for blaming it on Bush!

Well, here we have it. The real reason Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy.

So everyone in his administration can continue to [b]not[/b] pay their own taxes. We've got Tim Geithner running Treasury and he just "forgot" to pay $42, 000 in taxes. This is one of the architects of our fiscal policy? He's out there chiding Republicans, claiming that [I]we can't afford[/I] those tax breaks, while he just ignores his own tax obligations? Obviously, you've got a bunch of other ne'er-do-well democrats as well, like Charlie Rangel and Tom Daschle who just "forgot" to pay their taxes, too.

Turns out, that was just the tip of the iceberg. Looks like they've all decided not to pay their taxes. We've got people on this board complaining about the Bush administration? They were just a bunch of rummies compared to these professional thieves. Proof. LA Times, below. Anyone who actually pays their taxes ought to be reaching for their rope after reading this: [b]41 Obama White House aides owe the irs $831, 000 in back taxes. And they're not alone[/b] over the years a lot of suspicion has built up across the country about Washington and its population of opportunistic transients coming to see themselves as a special kind of person, somehow above average working Americans who don't labor down in that monument-strewn former swamp.

Well, finally, an end to all those undocumented doubts. Thanks to some diligent digging by the Washington P. S., those suspicions can at last be put to rest.

They're correct. Accurate. Dead-on. Laser-guided. On target. Bingo-bango. As clear as it's always seemed to those Americans who don't feel special entitlements and do meet their government obligations.

We now know that federal employees across the nation owe fully $1 billion in back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service.

As in, 1, 000 times one million dollars. All this political jabber about giving middle-class.

Americans a tax cut. Thousands of feds have been giving themselves one all along. Unofficially. And these tax scofflaws include more than three dozen folks who work for the president with that newly decorated oval office.

The P. S. 's t. W. Farnum did some research and found that out of the total sum, just 638 workers on Capitol Hill owe the IRS $9. 3 million in back taxes. As in, overdue. The irs gets stiffed by the legislative body that controls its budget. How washington works.

Now, back taxes have been a problem for the Obama-Biden administration. You may recall early on that Tom Daschle was the president's top pick to run the Health and Human Services Department. But it turned out the former democratic senator, who was un-elected from South Dakota in 2004, owed something like $120, 000 to the IRS for things from his subsequent benefactor that he just forgot to pay taxes on. You know how that is. $120g's here or there. So he dropped out.

And then we learned this guy Timothy Geithner owed something like $42, 000 in back taxes and penalties to the IRS, which is one of the agencies that he'the be in charge of as Secretary of the Treasury. The fine fellow who's supposed to know about handling everyone else's money. In the end this was excused by Washington's bipartisan cya culture as one of those inadvertent accidental oversights that somehow never seem to happen on the side of paying too much taxes.

And under Geithner's expert guidance the USA economy has been, well, wow! Just look at it.

Privacy laws prevent release of individual tax delinquents' names. But we do know that as of the end of 2009, 41 people inside Obama's very own White house owe the government they're allegedly running a total of $831, 055 in back taxes. That would cover a lot of special chocolate desserts in the White House mess.

In the house of representatives, 421 people owe a total $6, 524, 892. In the Senate, 217 owe $2, 774, 836. In the IRS's parent department, Treasury, 1, 204 owe $7 670, 814. At the Labor Department, where Secretary Hilda Solis' husband had some back-tax problems before her confirmation, 463 owe $7, 481, 463. Eighty-one workers for the federal reserve system's Board of Governors owe $1, 076, 733.

Over at the Justice Department, which is so busy enforcing other laws and suing Arizona, 1, 071 employees still owe $14, 350, 152 in overdue taxes.

Then, we come to the Department of Homeland Security, which is run by Janet Napolitano, the former Governor of Arizona who preferred to call terrorist acts "man-caused disasters. " Homeland Security is keeping all of us safe by ensuring that a Dutch tourist is aboard every inbound international flight to thwart any would-be bomber with explosives in his underpants.

Within that department, there reside 4, 856 people who owe the tax agency a whopping total of $37, 012, 174.

And they're checking our pockets for metal and coins?

Andrew Malcolm

[quote=Stan Da Man]41 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831, 000 in back taxes. And they're not alone.[/quote]I predict that heads will roll for this. Starting with the [you]Washington P. S. [/you] reporter who wrote the article confirming these numbers, and going on to the editor who let the article get into print. "a disgrace to the legacy of Katharine Lee Graham. "

This is part of a long list of federal workers over dozens of departments and groups. It gets in the news periodically. I'm sure federal workers have owed back taxes for ages. It's an issue that should definately be addressed.

But notice the angle taken by some in the media: instead of writing about the overall list of federal workers, the focus is on the White House and Obama. The actual category in the list is the "Executive office of the President" which employs approx. 2000 workers, and includes numerous entities not just the White House.

I have noticed Stan's progression from fairly balanced commentary to increasing negative sentiment. Now this latest P. S. Is nothing more than a Fox News style story highlighting a narrow subset of facts to attack Obama and the White House.

I think it's a bit amusing that Stan voted for Obama, despite admitting he did not agree with his domestic agenda or economic policies. And now he's upset with Obama over his domestic agenda and economic policies.