American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415490][b][i]Liberal policies will always fail because they are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior. [/i][/b]

Jackson[/QUOTE]

> Wasn't MEDICARE a liberal policy/legislation?

Yes, in 1945 by Harry Truman, DEMOCRAT (what a surprise)

Then there were two decades of debate by the Republicans over " socialized " medicine before it was signed into law.

By who? Lyndon B. Johnson, DEMOCRAT, 1965.

Imagine all our senior citizens without it now-

> What about SOCIAL SECURITY?

Yup, you betcha!

By- FDR (DEMOCRAT) - 1935.

Look at them scramble to defend their ideology in the face of Bush's pathetic record! Hilarious!!

Here's some conservative translation for Moveon and others:

[i]It's George Bush's fault. [/i]

means:

[i]I'm making a joke to deflect the discussion. I can't defend the record of conservative policies under Bush. I have no idea why the tax cuts didn't work. [/i]

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415488]Once again, Esten is right, our first black president saved us from poverty and delivered us from evil, all the while managing to bust a nut on some fat chick's blue dress. [/QUOTE]Clinton was not the black president. If you are so mixed up, why should we take anything you write seriously?

[QUOTE]"In the late 1950s, the overall poverty rate for individuals in the United States was 22 percent, representing 39. 5 million poor persons. Between 1959 and 1969, the poverty rate declined dramatically and steadily to 12. 1 percent."

Wow, didn't JFK cut taxes during this presidency? When was that again? [/QUOTE]That was 1964-65. The poverty rate had a significant decline before those tax cuts.

Another fact: The poverty rate has moved in a range between roughly 11-15% since 1966. How many tax cuts have we had since 1966 when the top tax rate was 70%? Why didn't they have much effect on poverty (while helping the rich enormously)?

Why did poverty go down under Clinton's higher tax rates?

Why did poverty go up under Bush's lower tax rates?

The only clear conclusion: There is no clear cut case that lower taxes reduce poverty.

This is what I always love about you guys, you want to lump all the programs together and cry foul.

MediCARE and Social Security are programs funded by PAYROLL TAX DEDUCTIONS from those who work and contribution to the system.

Welfare and MediCAID programs are totally UNFUNDED MANDATES by the Fed for those who do not contribute but depend on the Fed.

Look at the cost of MediCAID and Welfare programs. Eliminating these will go a long way to reducing our debt.

You are always going to have people who are poor in any system, unless you make everyone equal by making everyone poor!

Originally Posted by Jackson "Liberal policies will always fail because they are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior."

As if he has a clue about accurate models of human behavior!

Read his teachings on chica negotiation and try not to laugh!

Just too fucking funny for words!

Delusion central. You have a leader!

The best indication of muddled liberal thinking on these issues is this: They point to social security and medicare as evidence of [i]successful[/i] Liberal policies and programs.

Normally, one might say: If they consider these their successes, I would hate to see their [i]failures[/i].

Sadly, however, we've been forced to witness them. The so-called "stimulus", Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, welfare, the NEA, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, leading up to ObamaCare.

When you step back from it all, you realize that liberals are good at just one thing: [i]Spending other people's money. [/i]

Not wisely, mind you. More like a magician.

BHO: "I call this [i]the Stimulus Trick[/i]. Watch as I make $800 billion disappear."

"And for my next trick, watch as I f*ck up the entire country by nationalizing health care. No. Really. It will [u]save[/u] Money. I'm not fooling this time."

[QUOTE=Esten; 415499]Look at them scramble to defend their ideology in the face of Bush's pathetic record! Hilarious!

Here's some conservative translation for Moveon and others:

[i]It's George Bush's fault. [/i]

Means:

[i]I'm making a joke to deflect the discussion. I can't defend the record of conservative policies under Bush. I have no idea why the tax cuts didn't work. [/i][/quote]It's funnier when I do it. What negative effects did the Bush tax cuts have?

[quote=]Clinton was not the black president.[/quote]According to Toni Morrison, he was in fact the first black president.

[url]http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/clinton/morrison.html[/url]

From Wikipedia:

"In writing about the impeachment in 1998, Morrison wrote that, since Whitewater, Bill Clinton had been mistreated because of his "Blackness":

Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. [14]

The phrase "our first Black president" was adopted as a positive by Bill Clinton supporters such as on September 29, 2001, when the Congressional Black Caucus honored the former president at its dinner in Washington D. C, with the chair, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) , telling the audience that Clinton "took so many initiatives he made us think for a while we had elected the first black president.".

[quote=]If you are so mixed up, why should we take anything you write seriously?[/quote]If you are so poorly informed and know so little about US politics, why should we take anything you say seriously? Oh, wait, we don't.

[quote=]That was 1964-65. The poverty rate had a significant decline before those tax cuts. [/quote]I put the numbers right there for you and anyone else to see.

From '59 to the Kennedy tax cuts, poverty dropped from 22. 4% to 19. 0% (or a 15. 2% reduction) whereas during the tax-cutting period of '64 to '03 the rate dropped from 19% to 12. 5% (or 32. 2%). You are so blinded by your ideology, you think reducing the number of people below the poverty rates by 15% is better than reducing it by 32.

Why do you hate poor people so much? Or is it that you are only interested in the poor when they can be used to buttress your false ideological arguments?

[quote=]Another fact: The poverty rate has moved in a range between roughly 11-15% since 1966. How many tax cuts have we had since 1966 when the top tax rate was 70%? Why didn't they have much effect on poverty (while helping the rich enormously)?[/quote]The fact that the poverty rate maintained that trading band is absolutely remarkable considering that the US population grew by 57% during that period.

[quote=]Why did poverty go down under Clinton's higher tax rates? [/quote]Momentum and continued economic expansion.

[quote=]Why did poverty go up under Bush's lower tax rates?[/quote]Momentum, economic contraction (you might recall two small events that occurred in the US around 2000, 911 and the dot-com bust).

[quote=]The only clear conclusion: There is no clear cut case that lower taxes reduce poverty.[/QUOTE]In addition to clearly demonstrating the high correlation between tax cuts and reducing poverty it also shows how little command you have of any of these subjects and how you hate the poor.

[quote]Normally, one might say: If they consider these their successes, I would hate to see their [i]failures[/i].

Sadly, however, we've been forced to witness them. The so-called "stimulus", Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, welfare, the NEA, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, leading up to ObamaCare.[/quote]Ask anyone who is receiving their monthly payments for social security if it was a failure. And imagine if George W. Bush had been able to privatize social security with the stock market? Don't make me laugh. They would all be homeless by now.

Same thing goes with Medicaire. It's not perfect but nothing ever is. (unless a Republican does it, naturally)

According to the Tea Party Republicans and many "mainstream" Republicans we should never have bailed out GM and Chrysler. GM is doing quite well, thank you and Chrysler is slowly improving. (Oh, wait a minute. Who bailed out Chrysler back the first time back in the "80's? A REPUBLICAN President. Ronald Reagan.)

As as for the banks, without the aid the US would have been in another great depression. Again, right-wing Teabaggers did not want any part of this either.

I could go on and on, ....

[QUOTE=Moveon;415505]Ask anyone who is receiving their monthly payments for social security if it was a failure.[/QUOTE]You want to do a survey of the people currently receiving free money from the government in which you would ask them if they approve of the government program giving them the free money?

That's as pointless as the results from Esten's survey asking people if they approve of "someone else" paying all of the country's tax burden.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415506]You want to do a survey of the people currently receiving free money from the government in which you would ask them if they approve of the government program giving them the free money?

That's as pointless as the results from Esten's survey asking people if they approve of "someone else" paying all of the country's tax burden.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]That's all they've got: An argument that those receiving free money like it, so it [u]must[/u] Be successful. What rubbish!

Liberals enact these entitlement programs as vote-getting measures."I got you medicare. I got you social security. Vote for me." Then, people get addicted to them and forget how to [b]do[/b] For themselves. The result? They rise no higher than the so-called safety net Democrats have erected.

But, ignore the fact that these programs aren't actually helping the people they are intended to serve. After all, that's the dirty little secret of all liberals and Democrats: As long as people [i]think[/i] They are benefiting from welfare, handouts and other free money, they'll vote Democrat. It doesn't matter whether they're actually worse off.

So, what are we left with to measure success? How about how the costs stack up in relation to what Democrats [b]said[/b] They would cost. Let's take medicare:

[i]In 1965, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance program of Medicare, the federal health care program for the elderly and disabled, would cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost that year was $67 billion.

In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion.

In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid. The joint federal-state health care program for the poor. Would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion. [/i]

[url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/18/health-programs-have-history-of-cost-overruns/print/[/url]

There are hundreds of examples like this. If these projections were put out by the evil, money-grubbing corporations, a swarm of lawyers would be on them alleging securities fraud. But, this is politics. And those happy left-wing warriors who committed this fraud have long since retired from office, and a new band of left wing thieves has taken their place.

Fortunately, the public is starting to catch on. Survey after survey show that the vast majority of American people do not believe projections that ObamaCare will reduce the defict, result in any savings whatsoever, or do anything more than become a colossal sinkhole for money. Even Democrats know this. But, the prospect of getting access to an entirely new dependency class has them salivating, so much so that they ignore all the carnage that this ill-advised program would cause. All that matters is the votes. And, distilled to its essence, that is Esten and Moreon's platform: If they like free money, then the program's a success. Crank up the printing presses!

Thanks goodness we have some adults in control of the House.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415506]You want to do a survey of the people currently receiving free money from the government in which you would ask them if they approve of the government program giving them the free money?

Jackson[/QUOTE]Jackson, with all due respect, I don't know how long you've been living in Argentina or if you have made your billions through a Ponzi scheme or an inheritance but wage earners like myself in the US contribute every paycheck to the Social Security System. It's been a safety net for millions of hardworking Americans. Later, at an ripe old age, I'll be entitled to some of the money back on a monthly basis.

Only right-wing Tea Party Republican extremists can call this "free money." Like many Tea Party lies, slogans like this one end up being repeated, over and over again.

Reminds me of what Adolf Hitler once said: 'Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it'

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 415508]

Thanks goodness we have some adults in control of the House. [/QUOTE]You bet, just like this one:

Congressman Christopher Lee (R-NY) resigns after Craigslist photos, flirting allegations with lobbyists emerge.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/10/AR2011021003020.html[/url]

Oh, this was the same R-Congressman that "Warned Teens About Dangers of the Internet."[ATTACH=CONFIG]27802[/ATTACH]"

[QUOTE=Jackson;415506]You want to do a survey of the people currently receiving free money from the government in which you would ask them if they approve of the government program giving them the free money? [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Stan the Man; 415508]That's all they've got: An argument that those receiving free money like it, so it [u]must[/u] Be successful. What rubbish!

Liberals enact these entitlement programs as vote-getting measures."I got you medicare. I got you social security. Vote for me." Then, people get addicted to them and forget how to [b]do[/b] For themselves. The result? They rise no higher than the so-called safety net Democrats have erected. [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Stan Da Man;415503]The best indication of muddled liberal thinking on these issues is this: They point to social security and medicare as evidence of [i]successful[/i] Liberal policies and programs.[/QUOTE]blah blah blah blah blah

Wouldn't you know it, when you actually look up what Americans think about Medicare and Social Security, they like these programs. Not polls of people receiving benefits. Polls of all Americans.

There are all sorts of polls out there showing little support for cutting these programs. One recent poll from Jan. 21 even showed that nearly two-thirds of Americans would rather pay higher Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes than have those benefits cut.

Poll: Medicare, SoSec worth higher taxes
[url]http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/21/Poll-Medicare-SoSec-worth-higher-taxes/UPI-11481295600400/[/url]

How could it be that these programs are so popular? Perhaps because they are just good, common-sense ideas. You pay into a program to receive benefits later when you need them.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 415501]This is what I always love about you guys, you want to lump all the programs together and cry foul.

MediCARE and Social Security are programs funded by PAYROLL TAX DEDUCTIONS from those who work and contribution to the system. [/QUOTE]Tell that to Jackson and Stan. They're the ones who just used the terms "free money" in response to Moveon's post about Medicare and Social Security.

In their rabid eagerness to once again regurgitate their stories about free money and creating dependency classes, Jackson and Stan overlooked a few details about how these programs are funded and how widely popular they are.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 415501]Welfare and MediCAID programs are totally UNFUNDED MANDATES by the Fed for those who do not contribute but depend on the Fed.

Look at the cost of MediCAID and Welfare programs. Eliminating these will go a long way to reducing our debt.

You are always going to have people who are poor in any system, unless you make everyone equal by making everyone poor! [/QUOTE]Debating these separately is fair enough. I agree eliminating them would save a lot of money.

The simple fact is that many people have a value system in which it is wrong for a wealthy nation not to provide for their poorest.

That's pretty much what it comes down to. And as I said before, in a democracy, if that value is strong enough in enough people, such programs will exist. Not so the poor can be well-off, but so they can at least escape hunger, malnutrition and disease.

It is not the goal of people who support these programs to make the poor dependant on them. Dems and Repubs alike want to lower unemployment, increase jobs and pay and the standard of living (and thereby get people off these programs). But free market capitalism has been unable to eliminate poverty.

What you and Jackson always seem to forget is that there aren't enough jobs for everybody. Today there are 5 applicants for every job. In your world it seems if the unemployed would just stop being lazy and go find a job, they would find one. And if it didn't pay well to begin with, they could work their way up.

Well the market doesn't work that way. The market always excludes a certain percentage of the population from making a decent wage (enough to avoid poverty). No matter how hard they strive.

I'll also give you an economic argument for these programs (vs. just a moral / value based one). The money from these programs pretty much always gets spent and goes right back into the economy. The same cannot be said for tax breaks for the rich, who do not spend (or create jobs) with all or necessarily even most of their money. This is just another conservative fallacy.

As he has said many times.

So what does this site have to do with getting Laid?

This site and the movies can tell you how to talk to the chicas in English or Spanish.

What he tells you should be is how to get laid, and were has to get Laid.

This site Will Help.

[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050025/[/url]

G

An excellent discussion of the reasons private sector unions have been failing, and are destined to fail, can be found here: [url]http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/02/10/labor_unions_and_the_problem_with_more_98861.html[/url]

As for the wooly-headed Esten and Moreon, it's too much to expect that they'll ever get it. Some things simply will be beyond their grasp forever. This undoubtedly is obvious to the rest here, but apparently they need to have it spelled out: It's "free money" because those programs don't pay for themselves, as advertised. Apparently, you've both been living under rocks, because you haven't heard that the social security program is bankrupt. It's a Ponzi Scheme much larger than what Madoff perpetrated. Again, he's in jail for what he did. But, since this is the government, there are no consequences.

So, you can talk all you want about how people pay into Social Security or Medicare, but they don't pay nearly what they should be paying. They get back far more than what they contribute. The liberal calculators used to tally contributions apparently were missing a few digits. Either that, or the lefties working the calculators were math challenged. That's the free money. Ponzi schemes eventually collapse under their own weight. The only difference between the federal government and Madoff is that Madoff couldn't legally print money.

Social security is predicted to go bankrupt in the year 2041. (unless you ask a Republican) Plenty of time to fix it one way or another. In the meantime, it has served this nation for generations. It's so obvious that certain right-wing Militia members of this panel just can't deal with that fact.

Nor the fact that a Democrat began with the legislative process to begin with. Besides their obsession with tax cuts to the super rich of this country, do tell me what the Republicans have done for the "average" American on Main Street.

By looking at Texas and their potential of going BK as a state, it's time for the Republicans concede that conservative fiscal policies are not the cure as they pretend to be. Now that state faces a budget deficit which is 1/3rd of their total budget. For years, we have been hearing that the Unions, pension funds, and others were to blame for everything that went wrong in D-California. Well, R-Texas, what's your excuse?

Oh, yes, this was the same Republican Governor, mind you, who wanted to invade Mexico last year. (yeah, you guessed it, Governor Rick Perry is a Tea Party "Patriot."

Patriot? Not really, just anther war monger Republican hell-bent on invading another sovereign nation.

Thank God, you're not our President.

I don't think you understand the reality of social security, but don't let that stop you from calling people Nazis.

[QUOTE=Moveon;415509]... but wage earners like myself in the US contribute every paycheck to the Social Security System.[/quote]'Contribute' is a code word for TAX. While your pay stub may call it something else, it is a tax and 'revenue' collected and spent (immediately, if not sooner) by the US govt. Social Security has no assets, no business and no revenues. There is no social security trust fund and there certainly isn't any sort of 'lock-box. ' What the fuck good is a lock-box if you don't have anything to put into it?

You and the rest of us are forced to pay into a gigantic ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is where one 'investors' contribution is used to repay a prior investor, rather than having an underlying revenue generator and paying investors back out of profits or legitimate recapitalizations.

Your funds are not put aside for your future benefit, they are immediately redistributed to those currently collecting social security.

Why don't you pop over to the SS Admin, next time you are in DC. Ask them if you can see the vault where they are keeping your contributions.

[quote=]It's been a safety net for millions of hardworking Americans.[/quote]"It" does not exist."It" is a current transfer from current workers to former workers. Payments to retirees under social security are not distributed from a Social Security trust fund or a lock-box, since neither exists.

[quote=]Later, at an ripe old age, I'll be entitled to some of the money back on a monthly basis.[/quote]What was that Aerosmith hit song, back in the 70's? Oh yea,"Dream On."

As the baby boomers retire in greater and greater numbers, the payments due to them under social security will far exceed the new payments coming in from current workers. That is the simple truth. When there are more people taking benefits out than there are making payments in, there will be a shortfall.

What do you call something with greater obligations than its receipts? Bankrupt.

[quote=]Only right-wing Tea Party Republican extremists can call this "free money." Like many Tea Party lies, slogans like this one end up being repeated, over and over again.[/quote]I don't see any tea party folks calling social security 'free money. ' They must be too busy being racist or feeding dog food to old people. I believe Jackson's point is valid, if you ask someone if they want to stop receiving a stream of cash flows, for which they currently have to do nothing (whether or not they may have done something to deserve it in the past) , they will elect to keep getting the cash.

As far as 'free money' anything you receive in the future from SS will be anything but free. You earn it today and give it to the government, they spend it. It does not earn interest or experience capital appreciation (the normal ways that investments grow) because it doesn't exist. When it comes time for you to get some back, you get money taken from someone else and paid out based upon an artificial formula, not actually the growth performance of an underlying investment portfolio. If your payout is based upon a simulated 4% appreciation from the time of your 'contribution' you have lost a theoretical 7% (based upon the historical equity returns for the last 100 plus years) on your investment. Worse yet, if you die, the cash stream goes away. You can't leave the assets of the underlying portfolio to your heirs.

If you contribute to social security for 45 years, with an average annual salary of 100K (in today's dollars) , you will have contributed nearly $600k to 'your' social security benefit. With investment income that you could have earned from that money, had you been able to keep it, you could have well over $1 million in your portfolio. If you die the day after you get your first SS check, you paid $1 million (contributions plus gains) for the privilege of receiving a check from the government for $1, 200. Nope, that sure ain't free and your family sure as shit ain't getting the remainder in the form of an inheritance.

[quote=]Reminds me of what Adolf Hitler once said: 'Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it'[/QUOTE]Typical liberal scum. Everyone who disagrees with you is racist and needs to be likened to Nazis.

What sounds more like a totalitarian regime, to me, is one that steals from its people like the above-cited ponzi scheme.

I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between illiquid and bankrupt nor the difference between a ponzi scheme and an ongoing operation with cash flow issues.

[QUOTE=Moveon;415520]Social security is predicted to go bankrupt in the year 2041. (unless you ask a Republican) Plenty of time to fix it one way or another.[/quote]Please see prior post. SS has no assets, no revenue and massive unfunded liabilities. It is bankrupt today and has been for some time. The future date, to which people often refer, is when current obligations to retirees will exceed current 'contributions' from workers.

[quote=]In the meantime, it has served this nation for generations.[/quote]Yes it has. It has enabled the government to steal more of your hard-earned money under the guise that it is safe-keeping that money for when you retire and will allow it to confiscate any remainder, when you die.

[quote=]It's so obvious that certain right-wing Militia members of this panel just can't deal with that fact.[/quote]It is a bitter pill to swallow. If you contribute to your IRA and earn 11% over many years until you retire and when you retire the govt confiscates everything except for a stream of payments equal to a theoretical 4% return on your payments, which stops upon your death, you be upset. Why doesn't the social security scam upset you?

[quote=]Nor the fact that a Democrat began with the legislative process to begin with.[/quote]I am quite at peace with the fact that most all of our most egregious give-ways and take-aways have been foisted upon us by democrats.

[quote=]Besides their obsession with tax cuts to the super rich of this country, do tell me what the Republicans have done for the "average" American on Main Street.[/quote]Helped to make him above average in terms of quality of life and opportunity than his peers around the world. That ain't so bad.

[quote=]By looking at Texas and their potential of going BK as a state, it's time for the Republicans concede that conservative fiscal policies are not the cure as they pretend to be.[/quote]Of course. We need to spend our way out of these problems. We get it already.

[quote=]Now that state faces a budget deficit which is 1/3rd of their total budget.[/quote]Good thing Obama's manaed to balance the federal budget.

[quote=]For years, we have been hearing that the Unions, pension funds, and others were to blame for everything that went wrong in D-California. Well, R-Texas, what's your excuse?[/quote]Excellent point. Clearly there are no public employee unions in TX so it must be that Rick Perry was investing in some sort of satellite-based laser defence system.

[quote=]Oh, yes, this was the same Republican Governor, mind you, who wanted to invade Mexico last year. (yeah, you guessed it, Governor Rick Perry is a Tea Party "Patriot."

Patriot? Not really, just anther war monger Republican hell-bent on invading another sovereign nation.

Thank God, you're not our President. [/QUOTE]I know, it better having a devout marxist in office

[QUOTE=Esten;415514]The same cannot be said for tax breaks for the rich, who do not spend (or create jobs) with all or necessarily even most of their money.[/QUOTE]Esten,

I know that this is difficult for you to understand, but here it is: The money that "the rich" have is not your money that inadvertently happens to be in their pocket, it's [u]their[/u] money to spend or not spend as they choose, just as the money that you have in your pocket is your money to spend or not spend as you choose.

Anyone who believes that they have a right to forcibly take someone else's money to serve their own purposes is a THIEF, plain and simple. It is irrelevant whether or not the thieves are operating as individuals, or as an organized gang, or whether they can numerically outnumber (read "outvote") their targets.

Everyone should pay taxes at the same uniform rate to support a government that provides services that uniformly benefit everyone, aka "the common good".

It is not government's job to confiscate individual wealth and redistribute it among it's citizens.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

Wallyeye, it's good to know that you have finally emerged from your underground bunker! I know you must have been previously embarrassed with your babbling of Glenn Beck, the Constitution, and your complete disconnect between the so called DEATH PANELS and Avastin but that's ok.

However, it's surprising that you have such a spirited ring-wing American Militia Movement view of the world since apparently you weren't born in the US. I would not be surprised if you are actually some deposed Latin American dictator hiding deep in the outskirts of Cordoba with your Nazi drinking buddies.

Speaking of which, you may want to put down that bottle a bit. I sure hope you don't beat your wife at night or kick your dog. Maybe take an anger management course? How about therapy?

Anyway, it's all good fun plus I admit: It's nice to barge into this Republican frat party from time to time.

Perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me why we need to spend $120 billion on the replacement of the F18 fighter jet?

I know we have been experiencing some major dog fight's with the Taliban lately but perhaps you can straighten me out on this one.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415523]Esten,

Anyone who believes that they have a right to forcibly take someone else's money to serve their own purposes is a THIEF, plain and simple.

Everyone should pay taxes at the same uniform rate to support a government that provides services that uniformly benefit everyone, aka "the common good".

It is not government's job to confiscate individual wealth and redistribute it among it's citizens.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]So it's OK for government to "forcibly" take money from citizens under a flat tax rate system and then it would be kosher for it to spend revenues for the "common good", as the government defines it, and anything else is thievery!

Not to put too fine a point on it, when a person chooses to live in a country, they also agree to live by its rules, or risk becoming a criminal. If the rules include progressive income tax systems, the person can voluntarily pay them or leave the country and live elsewhere! It is their choice and to use the word "forcibly" is just juvenile!

And what pray tell are services "that uniformly benefit everyone"! If a bridge is built in Alaska with Federal funds that serves a small community, rather than a high-speed rail systems in Florida that would serve numerous large communities, where is the "uniformity"?

What if the government's duly-elected officials, interpreting the wishes of the voters who chose them, (and the corporate interests who pay for their elections) redistribute the evenly collected taxes with corporate welfare schemes such as subsidies for specific private sector activities? Is that OK to create jobs?

Aren't all the people who paid their taxes but oppose the subsidy schemes being "forcibly" made to pay for them?

Alternatively, what if the government's duly-elected officials, interpreting the wishes of the voters who chose them, (and sublimating the corporate interests who pay for their elections) use the revenues for the purpose of addressing social welfare needs? Would your hair catch on fire Senor Jackson as you are "forcibly" being made to be almost a human being?

Those are rhetorical questions. As contrasted with an empirical statement.

Jackson, you are a fucking (or maybe not so much as you age) idiot!

Get it?

The most recent analysis of the independent Public Policy Polling firm citing its recent polls finds that based on his current public standing in key electoral states, in 2012 President Obama would easily defeat any of the four current Republican front runners (Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich or Palin)"almost certainly" winning "the same number of electoral votes he did in 2008, if not more."

They found: "Across 36 horse race match ups in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Iowa, Nevada, and Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District Obama is 36 for 36."

But, guys. Look on the bright side. You will have four more years to rant and send out your irrelevant and irrational blather for each others' delusional reinforcement!

[QUOTE=Moveon;415526]Wallyeye, it's good to know that you have finally emerged from your underground bunker![/quote]Got to be prepared for the end of the World. Global warming will kill us all!

[quote=]I know you must have been previously embarrassed with your babbling of Glenn Beck, the Constitution, and your complete disconnect between the so called DEATH PANELS and Avastin but that's ok.[/quote]I didn't opine on Beck, I'll gladly stack my factual knowledge of the Constitution against what you think it means any day, I think that BHO's FDA blocking the use of a potential life-saving drug on the basis of cost is about as on-point as any example could be, of what is to come.

[quote=]However, it's surprising that you have such a spirited ring-wing American Militia Movement view of the world[/quote]Actually, my mind set is fairly far from any militia movement, of which I am aware (other than the original militias that participated in the Revolution). My faith in and defense of country are based upon belief in the principles upon which the country was founded, as memorialized in the founding documents (Declaration, Constitution, BoRs). What is surprising is that you view those principles as so deplorable.

I synthesize my objective view of the world through the prism of America's best interests, in terms of national security, sovereignty, and economic well being. For example, I believe that BHO should not have jumped on the band wagon to depose Mubarak, I am not certain that toppling the regime is in the best interests of the US. While it would be nice for the people of Egypt to experience Jeffersonian freedom, such as we have here, I do not give their concerns the same priorities as I do US national security and economic interests. Not to mention the fact that these were anti-government protests not necessarily pro-democracy demonstrations. Having Egypt, its 80+ million inhabitants and the Suez Canal under the control of an Islamic theocracy is less appealing than a continuation of the Mubarak regime. Thanks to Obama's ignorance, he helped bring about a military coup, which may very well have been set up by Mubarak in advance.

[quote=]since apparently you weren't born in the US.[/quote]Born and raised in the brier patch my friend.

[quote=]I would not be surprised if you are actually some deposed Latin American dictator hiding deep in the outskirts of Cordoba with your Nazi drinking buddies. [/quote]

There you go again.

Can't argue on the merits of your position, call the other side names. Liberals are particularly fond of calling the opposition Nazis.

[quote=]Speaking of which, you may want to put down that bottle a bit.[/quote]Why? I enjoy a little nip every now and then.

[quote=]I sure hope you don't beat your wife at night or kick your dog.[/quote]Once again, you are mistaken. I am a conservative so I must hate old people.

[quote=]Maybe take an anger management course?[/quote]Please give me some examples of statements that I have made that show a disposition to anger.

[quote=]How about therapy? [/quote]I go as often as possible, mainly massage therapy, I prefer a happy ending.

[quote=]Anyway, it's all good fun plus I admit: It's nice to barge into this Republican frat party from time to time.[/quote]If I got my figurative ass handed to me as often as you do, I'd have a hard time calling it fun.

[quote]Perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me why we need to spend $120 billion on the replacement of the F18 fighter jet?[/quote]The technology and design of the original airframe are circa 1978. How old do you think the base technology of our primary strike force aircraft should be?

[quote=]I know we have been experiencing some major dog fight's with the Taliban lately but perhaps you can straighten me out on this one.[/QUOTE]Of course we all know that the only threats we will see in the future will be: home-grown, right-wing terrorists, Bedouins and Candian tourists. Therefore, we should ignore the basic infrastructure of the military which has kept all war theaters (excluding the war against Islamic fundamentalists) from our shores. Eventually, the Kamikaze (or divine winds) failed to protect Japan from foreign invaders (think August 1945) , should we just drop our pants and hope that El Nino will keep us safe?

[QUOTE=Esten; 415514]What you and Jackson always seem to forget is that there aren't enough jobs for everybody. Today there are 5 applicants for every job. In your world it seems if the unemployed would just stop being lazy and go find a job, they would find one. And if it didn't pay well to begin with, they could work their way up.

Well the market doesn't work that way. The market always excludes a certain percentage of the population from making a decent wage (enough to avoid poverty). No matter how hard they strive. [/QUOTE]It's not the market that excludes the majority of the unemployed in developed countries from making a decent wage through work. It's bad government. For example, in some European countries, people do better by going on the dole than by working, so that's what they do. A welfare system should be designed so that there are no disincentives to work. Another example, the government's promotion of home ownership in the USA, through the mortgage interest deduction, artificially low interest rates and federally-backed mortgages makes people less mobile and less likely to go where the jobs are. High taxes on business, overregulation, and giving too much power to unions are other important areas controlled by government that increase unemployment.

[QUOTE=Esten;415514]I'll also give you an economic argument for these programs (vs. just a moral / value based one). The money from these programs pretty much always gets spent and goes right back into the economy. The same cannot be said for tax breaks for the rich, who do not spend (or create jobs) with all or necessarily even most of their money. This is just another conservative fallacy.[/QUOTE]By definition, if the rich aren't spending the money, it's going into investment and savings. This is one of the biggest problems facing the USA. While we have close to the highest standard of living in the world, we spend like crazy people. We're dependent on the Chinese and others, who make a small fraction of what we make on a per capita basis, to fund our savings and investment. There are some very smart people (e. G. Paul Krugman) who make the same argument as you do, which is essentially that we should starve the economy of private savings. I think you (plural) are grasping at straws to promote redistributionist arguments and big government. Right, in the short term spending on consumption instead of investment will help the economy. In the long term it's a recipe for disaster.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415523]I know that this is difficult for you to understand, but here it is: The money that "the rich" have is not your money that inadvertently happens to be in their pocket, it's [u]their[/u] Money to spend or not spend as they choose, just as the money that you have in your pocket is your money to spend or not spend as you choose.

Anyone who believes that they have a right to forcibly take someone else's money to serve their own purposes is a THIEF, plain and simple. It is irrelevant whether or not the thieves are operating as individuals, or as an organized gang, or whether they can numerically outnumber (read "outvote") their targets.

Everyone should pay taxes at the same uniform rate to support a government that provides services that uniformly benefit everyone, aka "the common good".

It is not government's job to confiscate individual wealth and redistribute it among it's citizens. [/QUOTE]Jackson,

What you said is ideological and untrue.

Income is [u]not[/u] entirely one's own to spend as one sees fit. It is subject to taxation. Taxation and spending are determined by the government, which in turn is determined by the people. Each citizen gets one vote. If you object to this democratic and constitutionally based system, that's too bad.

You are perfectly free to go out and try to convince people of your views on taxation and spending. If your ideas have enough merit, perhaps they will catch on.

Without significant exemptions, the Flat Tax is just another scheme to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, contributing to the further deterioration of America from conservative ideology. My guess is most people would say "no thanks". People should pay according to their ability to pay.

[QUOTE=Esten; 415552]Jackson,

What you said is ideological and untrue.

Income is [u]not[/u] Entirely one's own to spend as one sees fit. [/quote]Not true. When the country was founded, Jackson's statement was absolutely true. The federal government was funded via sin taxes, internal taxes and tariffs. The Bill of Rights clearly outlines, within the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, protections from the government seizing private property.

[quote=]It is subject to taxation.[/quote]The income tax did not come into being until 1862 and the financial burden of the Civil War. The Death Tax followed in 1866. From 1817 through 1862, the federal government was funded almost entirely via tariffs on imported goods.

It clear that the Framers never envisioned the government seizing between one third and ninety percent of a citizen's annual earnings for the purposes of supporting a bloated bureaucracy and redistribution to non-earners.

[quote=]Taxation and spending are determined by the government, which in turn is determined by the people.[/quote]Technically true.

[quote=]Each citizen gets one vote.[/quote]Unless the candidate happens to be a Democrat.

[quote=]If you object to this democratic and constitutionally based system, that's too bad.[/quote]Wow, big defender of the Constitution. I bet typing that gave you a rash, even though you don't really believe in it.

[quote=]You are perfectly free to go out and try to convince people of your views on taxation and spending. If your ideas have enough merit, perhaps they will catch on.[/quote]Great idea. I wonder if anyone else has thought about putting Washington's runaway tax and spend policies at the forefront of a political movement?

[quote=]Without significant exemptions, the Flat Tax is just another scheme to make the rich richer and the poor poorer,[/quote]A flat tax with significant exemptions, isn't a flat tax, now is it?

[quote=]contributing to the further deterioration of America from conservative ideology.[/quote]Of course, an ideology that encourages personal responsibility and excellence is clearly less desirable than one based upon enslaving generations of the citizenry for he benefit of its political elites.

[quote=]My guess is most people would say "no thanks".[/quote]My guess is that you haven't read too many newspapers lately.

[quote=]People should pay according to their ability to pay.[/QUOTE]Absolutely, fuck the Gotha! I believe that you, Obama, Engels and Marx are all on the same page: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'

I bet you think Joe the Plumber was a bad guy, too.

[QUOTE=Esten;415552]People should pay according to their ability to pay.[/QUOTE]There he goes again. He's not a socialist. He just walks like one, talks like one, believes in socialist ideology, wants to further implement a socialist state, and spouts socialist rhetoric involuntarily.

You know, if you were gay, we'd all be encouraging you to come out of the closet.

Why don't you take that first step. It's the toughest one. You'll feel much better once the burden's off your shoulders.

Your mom and dad will understand.

Eventually.

It's not like you're a transvestite or anything.

But, if you are, that's okay too.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;415560]There he goes again. He's not a socialist.[/quote]Agreed, he'a a Marxist.

[quote=]He just walks like one, talks like one, believes in socialist ideology, wants to further implement a socialist state, and spouts socialist rhetoric involuntarily.[/quote]Again, I concur, what spews from his fingers is most likely involuntary behavior, learned at some reeducation camp.

[quote=]You know, if you were gay, we'd all be encouraging you to come out of the closet.[/quote]If he was gay, we'd all be willing to attribute much of his misguided hatred of America as a byproduct of his gayness (not that there is anything wrong with that).

[quote=]Why don't you take that first step. It's the toughest one. You'll feel much better once the burden's off your shoulders.

Your mom and dad will understand.

Eventually. [/quote]They are probably still paying his bills and he still lives in their basement.

[quote=]It's not like you're a transvestite or anything.[/quote]What's worse? A kid that turns out to be a tranny or a marxist?

[quote=]But, if you are, that's okay too.[/QUOTE]That all depends upon how passable you are.

You guys are often good for a laugh....

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;415560]There he goes again. He's not a socialist. He just walks like one, talks like one, believes in socialist ideology, wants to further implement a socialist state, and spouts socialist rhetoric involuntarily.[/QUOTE]Forget about government ownership of property and the means of production. If you believe in paying taxes according to one's means, Stan says you're a Socialist. The funny thing is that not only do most Americans believe in this, according to some polls most Republicans do as well. I've posted this before:

[url]http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1438[/url]

Q. Do you think raising income taxes on households making more than "X" should or should not be a main part of any government approach to the deficit?

X = $250,000 X = $1,000,000.
Republican 42% 56%
Democrat 82% 89%
Independent 55% 69%
Income >250k 64% 67%

Notice how even rich folks believe they should pay more. What do you think about that Stan?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415553]Not true. When the country was founded, Jackson's statement was absolutely true. The federal government was funded via sin taxes, internal taxes and tariffs. [/QUOTE]Your response perfectly demonstrates what you are all about: [i]You live in the past. [/i]

Recapping our discussion on poverty:

Clinton raised taxes and poverty went down.
Bush43 lowered taxes and poverty went up.

Walleye cited the dot-com bust and 911 as factors. However Bush had two terms, plenty of time for his tax cuts to work. And the economic impact of 911 has been shown to have been short-lived with no more than a 1% GDP effect.

He also claims it is remarkable that the poverty rate held in the range 11-15% since 1966 despite large population growth. Well there's no claim or evidence of [i]reduction[/i] here. Remember, the (false) claim is tax cuts reduce poverty. What actually happened over this period is that after-tax income for the top 1% increased at least 281%, while the poverty rate treaded water.

So just where is the evidence of Walleye's claim?

[QUOTE]From '59 to the Kennedy tax cuts, poverty dropped from 22. 4% to 19. 0% (or a 15. 2% reduction) whereas during the tax-cutting period of '64 to '03 the rate dropped from 19% to 12. 5% (or 32. 2%). You are so blinded by your ideology, you think reducing the number of people below the poverty rates by 15% is better than reducing it by 32.[/QUOTE]The Census Bureau did not track poverty prior to 1959, however it is doubtful that 22.4% represented the peak. One estimate from the conservative Goldwater Institute puts the poverty rate at 30% in 1948. That would constitute an 11% drop thru 1964, during which period top tax rates were 91%.

1964 Pov. Rate 19.0%
1965 Pov. Rate 17.3%
1966 Pov. Rate 14.7%

Most of the drop since 1964 occured within two years. Although the rate was already trending down over the previous decade, let's assign some credit and correlation with the Kennedy tax cuts. This was when the top tax rate dropped 91% to 70%. What did we get following 1966 when the top tax rate was cut from 70% to 35% ? Not much. It dipped down a few points but at times went higher than the 1966 rate. Walleye cites the drop from 19% to 12.5% over 1964-2003. But one could just as easily cite the increase from 14.7% to 15.1% over 1966-1993.

It appears Walleye's case is based entirely on cherry-picking. However, the aggregate data shows no consistent correlation.

The only clear correlation is the giant rise in economic inequality over the tax-cutting period since Reagan.

My goodness, this story from the Conservative Political Action Conference made me laugh:

Ron Paul Supporters Heckle Cheney, Rumsfeld at CPAC.

[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20031425-503544.html[/url]

[QUOTE]The crowd was on its feet, some cheering "Cheney for president!" The boos from CPAC's libertarian contigent continued and at times interrupted Cheney's remarks.

"America is stronger and more secure" because of Rumsfeld's service, Cheney said, prompting one person to loudly shout,"Where's bin Laden at!"

Some of the vice president's supporters shouted,"Shut up!" and started a loud chant of "USA, USA!"

The jeering continued, with some yelling "draft dodger!" at Cheney. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten; 415563]Recapping our discussion on poverty:

Clinton raised taxes and poverty went down.

Bush43 lowered taxes and poverty went up.

Walleye cited the dot-com bust and 911 as factors. However Bush had two terms, plenty of time for his tax cuts to work. And the economic impact of 911 has been shown to have been short-lived with no more than a 1% GDP effect. [/quote]The US economy, its components and measurements of its facets, from GDP to poverty are often interdependent and codependent on a wide number of variables, factors, inputs and unknowns. While altering certain variables will generally bring about similar outcomes, the impact of other factors can often outweigh the impact of the altered variable. To argue otherwise, as Esten does, is ignorant, obtuse and intellectually dishonest.

It hurts just to try to grapple with the breadth of your ineptitude.

[quote=]He also claims it is remarkable that the poverty rate held in the range 11-15% since 1966 despite large population growth. Well there's no claim or evidence of [i]reduction[/i] here. [/quote]I believe we argued a similar point sometime ago (I am sure you'll recall that I prevailed in that one, too). When someone with an intellectual curiosity (clearly that rules out Esten) delves into the composition of the US population growth in the post-WWII era one will see that it was not all home grown. In fact, a significant portion of US population growth during that period was in the form of immigrants. Despite Esten's distorted view of the world, I can assure the rest of you that not all of those immigrants were landed-gentry coming to America in order to fuck California Girls and farmers' daughters. You might be surprised to learn that many of them came to America, destitute and in search of a better life. In search of the American Dream (which in my case often centers upon California Girls and farmers' daughters, often at the same time) which Esten seems so hell bent on destroying. The fact that in the face of meteoric population growth, the poverty rate did not grow does say something significant about opportunity, economic growth and reduction of poverty. Saying anything to the contrary simply isn't true. Not that presenting misinformation would ever make Esten blush.

[quote=]Remember, the (false) claim is tax cuts reduce poverty.[/quote]The incontrovertible, factual claim is that tax cuts stimulate true economic growth (not the phony, baloney Keynesian and / or Marxist kinds that Esten likes) which results in a tide that raises all boats.

[quote=]What actually happened over this period is that after-tax income for the top 1% increased at least 281%, while the poverty rate treaded water.[/quote]Why are you switching the focus from helping reduce poverty to slamming the rich? I would guess it is because your argument, as usual doesn't hold water.

[quote=]So just where is the evidence of Walleye's claim? [/quote]I spoon fed it to you. You chose to ignore it and spiral out of control with your diatribe about the rich.

[quote=]The Census Bureau did not track poverty prior to 1959, however it is doubtful that 22.4% represented the peak. One estimate from the conservative Goldwater Institute puts the poverty rate at 30% in 1948. That would constitute an 11% drop thru 1964, during which period top tax rates were 91%.[/quote]Who is cherry picking? I am sure that it won't surprise you but you are wrong yet again, in your analysis.

When the country was founded, more than 90% of the nation participated in subsistence farming. Do you have any idea what that is? That means that in order for you to eat, you had to grow your own food. In addition to religious freedom, anyone want to venture a guess what other things colonists were escaping?

If you said poverty, you're right.

90% of the population of the colonies lived outside of the cities and most colonists didn't have a pot to piss in (although there was abundant forested land upon which one could piss). So upon the founding of this great country almost all of its inhabitants were, oh my gosh, POOR! The wealth of the nation was controlled by a small minority estimated between 10-20% of the population.

So from 1776 to 1964 the poverty rate fell from 80% to roughly 40% when a permanent, excessive income tax was instituted in the 1917 when the top marginal tax rate went to 67, from 7% two years earlier.

[quote=]1964 Pov. Rate 19. 0%

1965 Pov. Rate 17. 3%

1966 Pov. Rate 14. 7%

Most of the drop since 1964 occured within two years. Although the rate was already trending down over the previous decade, let's assign some credit and correlation with the Kennedy tax cuts. [/quote]Why give credit to Kennedy? If you do, then you agree with my analysis and are just choosing to argue the opposite for partisan purposes.

[quote=]This was when the top tax rate dropped 91% to 70%. What did we get following 1966 when the top tax rate was cut from 70% to 35% ? Not much. It dipped down a few points but at times went higher than the 1966 rate. [/quote]See note above regarding population influx.

[quote=]Walleye cites the drop from 19% to 12.5% over 1964-2003. But one could just as easily cite the increase from 14.7% to 15.1% over 1966-1993.[/quote]I could also have picked the drop from 40% (1920) to 12. 5% (2003) during which time the top marginal tax rate was cut from 73% to 35.

[quote=]It appears Walleye's case is based entirely on cherry-picking. However, the aggregate data shows no consistent correlation.[/quote]If it supported your agenda and ideology, you would argue that there is no correlation between sunlight hours and crop growth.

[quote=]The only clear correlation is the giant rise in economic inequality over the tax-cutting period since Reagan.[/QUOTE]I thought we were still discussing poverty as opposed to income inequality.

Let's suppose that you could manipulate 'Factor A' within the economy via policy. If you decrease Factor A, the economy grows and everyone makes more money, including the poor. However, when you decrease Factor A, the 'rich' generally will make more than the poor, due in large part to the fact that the businesses that do well under this situation are not owned by the poor because, they are poor.

Is your premise that we should decrease Factor A for everyone except the rich?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415504]In addition to clearly demonstrating the high correlation between tax cuts and reducing poverty [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415575]The incontrovertible, factual claim is that tax cuts stimulate true economic growth (not the phony, baloney Keynesian and / or Marxist kinds that Esten likes) which results in a tide that raises all boats.[/QUOTE]The data shows no consistent correlation of tax cuts with reduced poverty. Invoking the beloved conservative fable about a rising tide lifting all boats doesn't prove it either.

While tax cuts can stimulate economic growth, that doesn't mean enough people will rise out of poverty to reduce the poverty rate. I am sure a political trivia buff like yourself has heard this version before:

[i]The rising tide will lift some boats, but others will run aground. [/i]

The reason the tax cuts and economic growth over the past several decades have failed to reduce poverty is because almost all the new wealth went to the rich.

Rising economic inequality doesn't reduce poverty. You are too blinded by your ideology to recognize this.

Esten,

The changes in the income tax system that occurred during the Bush administration made it more progressive.

With the few data points that are available for the USA, you're right, you cannot show that lower tax rates result in less poverty, although I believe the data provide stronger support for Walleye's position than yours. If you look at data wordwide, which would include a number of countries in Eastern Europe, the FSU, and other places that cut income tax rates and instituted flat taxes in the last decade and the last half of the 1990's, you'd see a clear correlation between (a) lower tax rates / flat tax rates and (b) lower poverty rates.

There's a reason why countries worldwide have cut and are cutting income taxes on business and on capital. Because it results in greater prosperity.

[QUOTE=Esten; 415588]The data shows no consistent correlation of tax cuts with reduced poverty. Invoking the beloved conservative fable about a rising tide lifting all boats doesn't prove it either.

While tax cuts can stimulate economic growth, that doesn't mean enough people will rise out of poverty to reduce the poverty rate. [/quote]Excuse me Mr. Einstein, I can tell you unequivocally that the only way an individual rises out of poverty is for that individual to receive a stream of cash flows sufficient enough for him to support himself. In general there are two ways that can happen: he can earn it or someone can give it to him. Only one of these two is sustainable on a scale that includes millions of individuals living in poverty. I don't need to rely upon my many years of studying business, micro and macroeconomics in both university and the real world to know that the only way one can earn his way out of poverty is to have a job. Therefore, the individual must find or create the job. Since, in general, we are not talking about the entrepreneur 'class, ' a disproportionate number of these individuals must find work as opposed to creating it. Therefore, in order for millions of people living in poverty to find work or to get better paying jobs, there must be economic growth in order to create jobs. Lacking economic growth and job creation, poverty can only be artificially reduced via the wholesale subsidization by the public sector. This latter approach has been proven to be a colossal failure in the US via the War on Poverty, food stamps and welfare, none of which has reduced poverty at all because not one of them provides the individual with a sustainable cash flow with which he can meet his recurring obligations. Rather, these programs increase the individual's dependence upon the government to survive, fostering a trans-generational enslavement to entitlements. It is a proven fact that tax cuts stimulate economic growth and create jobs. Increased taxes and regulation (which are taxes of another form) increase the cost of doing business, limit economic opportunity and restrict or eliminate growth thereby preventing the creation of jobs.

It is that simple. You may believe and espouse whatever you like however, you can't alter the truth. Your hatred of the rich and the policies that you adore are most harmful to the poor. Get it through your head.

[quote=]I am sure a political trivia buff like yourself has heard this version before:

[i]The rising tide will lift some boats, but others will run aground. [/i][/quote]Haven't heard it that way before. Only a fatalist or eternal loser would see it that way. In order for the latter boats to run aground, something would have to buoy them first. Perhaps that is the entitlements phenomenon?

[quote=]The reason the tax cuts and economic growth over the past several decades have failed to reduce poverty is because almost all the new wealth went to the rich.[/quote]Let's enact laws and policies that prevent the 'rich' from making money and see what the economic outcome is and what effect that will have on the poor. Wait a minute, we already have that with Obama. Seems to me everyone is fucked under this scenario. Is it your premise that as long as the 'rich' get fucked, you don't care about anyone else? I think that you should seek professional help (not the kind available herein).

[quote=]Rising economic inequality doesn't reduce poverty.[/quote]There is no other force known to man other than job creation via economic growth that can sustainably reduce poverty. It is not possible, in a free market, to create widespread economic opportunity while specifically limiting or eliminating the participation of the very people who must take on additional risk in order to expand their payrolls. To believe otherwise is pure fantasy.

[quote=]You are too blinded by your ideology to recognize this.[/QUOTE]Pot, meet kettle.

Confirming what I reported earlier, Fox News national polls echo those of other pollsters showing Obama bests all of the top 2112 GOP candidates.

Fix News, oops, Fox News found that Obama has a substantial lead over all of the GOP's top candidates, which must be galling seeing as most of the GOP POTUS want to be gang are paid big bucks as on screen egos, oops, analysts for Fox.

Mitt Romney loses 41 to 48 to Obama.

Huckabee loses 41 to 49.

Obama wins a clear 55 percent majority against both Gingrich and Palin.

But take heart Jackson and company. Maybe you can deliver the expat monger vote and save the day. Or maybe not!

The idea that government can somehow reduce or eliminate poverty should be filed under 'ideas from a birdbrain'

If government could reduce poverty Cuba should have no poverty, Chavez's socialistic nightmare would be without poverty and of course North Korea would be poverty free.

Reagon had it right when he said that government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem.

I've enjoyed Esten's nonsense about as much as I can.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;415619]I've enjoyed Esten's nonsense about as much as I can.[/QUOTE]My early nomination for comment of the year right there. At first it's amusing, but it quickly becomes disgusting.

Watching the back and forth with him is like watching someone play chess while he's still playing checkers.

Let me do you a favor by changing the subject, since you didn't fare too well with the last one.

Jimmy Carter Part Deux?

-Unemployment: 10% (I know the govt says 9, but they are the only ones that believe that)

-Job growth: Nil.

-ridiculous energy 'policy' adding to cost of energy.

-inflation is looming.

-runaway govt spending.

-no fiscal restraint.

-Weak (nonexistent) US foreign policy facilitates deposing a US ally in middle east (Egypt)

-US diplomat (s) held hostage by Islamic nation (Pakistan)

-US weakness in the face of provocative military acts (Iran)

Where do the similarities stop? Should we bring back the misery index?

I guess one difference is that Jimmy wasn't an active supporter of the caliphate against the west. At least I don't think that he was when he was president. His recent comments regarding the Muslim Brotherhood may cast doubt on his current involvement.

Don't despair guys, Obama and I will be around for another six years to help shed light on the darkness.

The recent debate that Walleye lost badly is his claim of [i]"the high correlation between tax cuts and reducing poverty".[/i]

I haven't weighed in on the government's ability to reduce poverty, or made proposals to prevent rich people from making any money. So those comments will have to be placed in the "red herring" trashcan.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415621]Let me do you a favor by changing the subject, since you didn't fare too well with the last one.[/QUOTE]No no no, please don't change the subject! I love discussing the wonderful benefits of tax cuts with you.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415597]Excuse me Mr. Einstein, I can tell you unequivocally that the only way an individual rises out of poverty is for that individual to receive a stream of cash flows sufficient enough for him to support himself. In general there are two ways that can happen: he can earn it or someone can give it to him. [/QUOTE]Thank you for that brilliant analysis.

[QUOTE]Only one of these two is sustainable on a scale that includes millions of individuals living in poverty. I don't need to rely upon my many years of studying business, micro and macroeconomics in both university [/QUOTE]Apparently you flunked statistics, or never took it.

[QUOTE]and the real world to know that the only way one can earn his way out of poverty is to have a job. Therefore, the individual must find or create the job. Since, in general, we are not talking about the entrepreneur 'class, ' a disproportionate number of these individuals must find work as opposed to creating it. Therefore, in order for millions of people living in poverty to find work or to get better paying jobs, there must be economic growth in order to create jobs. Lacking economic growth and job creation, poverty can only be artificially reduced via the wholesale subsidization by the public sector. This latter approach has been proven to be a colossal failure in the US via the War on Poverty, food stamps and welfare, none of which has reduced poverty at all because not one of them provides the individual with a sustainable cash flow with which he can meet his recurring obligations. Rather, these programs increase the individual's dependence upon the government to survive, fostering a trans-generational enslavement to entitlements. It is a proven fact that tax cuts stimulate economic growth and create jobs. Increased taxes and regulation (which are taxes of another form) increase the cost of doing business, limit economic opportunity and restrict or eliminate growth thereby preventing the creation of jobs.[/QUOTE]Notice what you just wrote: A theory. I don't disagree with everything you wrote, but let's call it what it is, a theory. There is no data here.

Now you did start with some data. But when it was exposed as cherry-picking, you've had to fall back on your ideology.

[QUOTE]It is that simple. You may believe and espouse whatever you like however, you can't alter the truth. [/QUOTE]A theory doesn't become truth without empirical evidence. Where's your evidence that tax cuts are highly correlated with reduced poverty? Whoops, you don't have any.

I will go by what the data says. Here is the Census Bureau data plotted:
[url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif[/url]

The steep decline from the 1950's to the 1960's occured mostly while top tax rates were 91%, and partly after Kennedy's tax cuts. We can call this no correlation followed by correlation. Now look at 1966-present. Is the line moving UP or is it moving DOWN? The answer is both. With periods of correlation and inverse correlation.

Here's a free statistics lesson for Walleye: Combining data points that demonstrate "no correlation, correlation, and inverse correlation" does not add up to "correlation" (let alone "high correlation"). Although, you don't have to be a statistician to recognize that the poverty rate plot from 1966-present is basically flat, meaning no correlation with the significant tax cuts that occured over this period.

All you got is theories. The numbers say otherwise. But please, keep banging that drum on how tax cuts have reduced poverty. It's amusing watching you try to defend such an obviously indefensible position.