American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Tiny and Doppel beat me to the punch on pointing out that BS was right about people taking to the streets (how else are they going to get to the polls?) he is just wrong about who is taking to the streets and that to which they are objecting.

One of the major fallacies of US liberalism is the trope about income disparity. While Esten bellyaches that the poor are paralyzed by the income gap, the truth is that most productive poor people spend little or no time worrying about the 'haves' and most of the time working and figuring out how to put food on the table. The reality is, as pointed out numerous times by folks other than myself, that the poor in America are rich relative to much of the world's population. Even the unproductive poor in America are provided with free healthcare (don't even try to refute this fact. They are) and assistance for housing and food (something like 50 million Americans on food stamps). What the productive and potentially productive members of the financially challenged want is opportunity. An opportunity to get ahead through hard work is a hell of a lot more meaningful to them than having the government steal more money (that they will never see) from some rich guy.

Further, when you look at the portion of society chronically dependent upon the government (right where the left wants all of us to be) you'll still see more 60" 1080p flat screens than you can at a BestBuy. What is their motivation to take to the streets and vote? They are getting subsidized housing, free money to use at the grocery store and free healthcare. Sure, if you ask them if they want to loose all these freebies, they will say 'no. ' But they aren't working for or earning any of them. Something earned by an individual is inevitably more meaningful to him than a similar item bequeath to him.

Conversely, only about half of American citizens, who have attained the age of majority, pay any income taxes at all. While the greatest tax burden falls on those earning in the top 20% of Americans, the squeeze is felt by everyone (everyone who pays taxes, that is). In fact, the squeeze is probably felt more keenly by the folks earning less than $100k. While they pay lower marginal rates, they have considerably less disposable income than their wealthy counterparts. So they miss it when it disappears. As the government grows exponentially and takes more from its productive citizenry to finance its insatiable appetite, eventually the people being robbed will say enough is enough. That is exactly what happened last fall. It is what is continuing to happen now. What does it tell you that a significant majority of the US wanted the government shut down?

Talk about taxation without representation. The ultimate version of this took place in the last congress where 50% of the American public had absolutely no representation within the legislative or executive branches of government. You know what came of it? The people paying the bills got pissed. They voted and they got results (outcome of the election not necessarily the performance of these new repubs) and feel empowered to finally have a chair at the table (considering that they paid for the table, the chairs and the building that houses it).

Esten can continue to beat that dead horse ad nauseam (can't imaging he'll ever stop) but it won't make it true.

"Streets" is in italics because I do not know when and how the American people will finally get tired of a Congress that is mired in bull-shit, that is self-serving on personal gain and party idiocy. America is falling behind every day, yet they always show up, looking like they have just come from the health spa, and making the same old speeches. I do agree that the Tea Party is a strong manifestation of public outrage, but it will be interesting to actually see how many of them have good financial disciplines privately. Many have been duped and addicted, so I will direct you to how we got to this point.

"Consumer Beware", so which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you do not think that American consumer is in the clutches of Big Business, you are very naive. From the lack of viable public transportation, to the people who depend on 7-11s for their culinary delights, the easy availability to leasing rather than buying cars, you can go on and on. Is it true that "instant gratification" and "attention deficit to be of American cultural origin? Maybe, that can be debated. So we had a damn good run, and now, we have to clean up after a night of debauchery. Still don't understand that if you make $300, 000 that you are not consider rich.

Just a personal note, I am neither angry or pessimistic about life. Nor do I choose to be categorized as either Republican or Democrat, just a concerned American.

I define "rich" as being able to quit your day / night job or what ever you do to earn money but not have to change your life style.

A variety of situations could ignite a critical mass in the EEUU ($10 dollars a gallon might be one). In the 60s it was Viet Nam, but that was because the youth didn't want to die in a fucking jungle for nada (no 9/11, no Bin Laden, no hate mongering except for the cold war and we weren't fighting Russia). Now 20% of the population is facing foreclosure and nothing happens because it's not affecting the youth (thanks to an unregulated free-for-all on Wall Street). The baby-boomers are too tired and scared to start burning banks down on Wall Street, and the up and coming yuppies are buying up the repos. Meanwhile, China owns all our debt and Walmart is their 7th largest trading partner because we don't make anything. How long can that last? The fact that so many Republicans took seats in the last election is because the economy sucks and half the American public lack critical thinking skills. They rely on their churches, Sarah Palin, and Glen Beck to tell them how to vote (against themselves). IMHO.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;416653]"Streets" is in italics because I do not know when and how the American people will finally get tired of a Congress that is mired in bull-shit,[/quote]Agreed, if you are referring to the 11th Congress and those that preceded it. If you are speaking of the current Congress (the 112th) , I'd have to say that you are a little hasty in pronouncing judgment. While I too am concerned about their future performance, they have only been in office for around 90 days. They came up short on the cuts that they were supposed to get. Let's hope they do better and deliver on the 2012 budget (where there is a much bigger opportunity to cut).

Going into the 2010 midterms, congressional approval ratings were at their all-time low. The historic outcome of the midterms seemed to indicate that Americans were starting to pay attention to Congressional races and holding its members responsible for the condition of the country.

For the longest time (at least during my lifetime) district voters, regardless of party, tended to vote to reelect their representatives in both houses despite the low congressional approval numbers. You would hear the sentiment "throw the bums out" or "they are all thieves" and then they would go to the polls and reelect aforementioned bums and thieves. Ostensibly the reason for this apparent disconnect was that 'they' really felt those feelings about other members of congress and not specifically their members. Finally it seems that voters are starting to grasp that being good at bringing home pork might not be the best measure of one's representatives and that congressional behavior, as it relates to expanding the scope, reach and expense of government, is the responsibility of all members, including their own.

[quote=]that is self-serving on personal gain and party idiocy. America is falling behind every day, yet they always show up, looking like they have just come from the health spa, and making the same old speeches.[/quote]They are the Ruling Class. For far too long, they have not served the interests of America and her people but have served their own.

[quote=]I do agree that the Tea Party is a strong manifestation of public outrage, but it will be interesting to actually see how many of them have good financial disciplines privately. [/quote]I think that there are two distinct measures of commitment: the commitment of the elected officials to deliver as promised and the commitment of the voters to hold said elected officials accountable for their actions in Washington. For example, I believe that if the 112th Congress does not deliver cuts of a magnitude, previously unimaginable by the press, the newly empowered voters will unleash their wrath upon them.

[quote=]Many have been duped and addicted, so I will direct you to how we got to this point.[/quote]By this do you mean newbies to Congress who proclaim to be reformers going in to effectuate change and before long they are settling into the easy going lifestyle of American legislators, maintaining the status quo? If so, I couldn't agree with you more. One of the things that most bothered me about the 104th Congress. While they initially did some good in restoring fiscal restraint, many of them got too comfortable in Washington and lost thier way.

[quote=]"Consumer Beware", so which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you do not think that American consumer is in the clutches of Big Business, you are very naive. From the lack of viable public transportation, to the people who depend on 7-11s for their culinary delights, the easy availability to leasing rather than buying cars, you can go on and on.[/quote]You lost me here. Consumerism is definitely the primary driver of the US economy.

Public transportation is excellent and widely available in many places throughout the country. Where it is not available it isn't viable on its own and obviously hasn't had a patron saint or two in the government to overcome (throw money at) the fact that it is unsustainable in that particular market. This is in large part due to the individual preferences of Americans. We like to drive our cars and if we are driving our cars, we can fit into buses and trains. Why should we be forced to use or pay for transportation modalities we neither want nor utilize?

Eating a diet consisting of Nacho flavored Doritos, Dinty Moore Stew and Twinkies, procured at your local 7-11, is a personal choice. The fact that many consume diets like this. Despite potential health implications and the fact that a much more healthy diet could be purchased from a full fledged grocery store for much less money. Is indicative of poor personal decisions. That's it. You can't legislate away stupidity and ignorance. Look at Esten (sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation).

[quote=]Is it true that "instant gratification" and "attention deficit to be of American cultural origin?[/quote]I'm pretty sure that the Cro-Magnon figured out how to beat off, so I doubt America started or invented any of it. That said, the relative American wealth has enabled us many luxuries, of our own individual chosing.

[quote=]Maybe, that can be debated. So we had a damn good run, and now, we have to clean up after a night of debauchery. [/quote]Yes, time to clean up.

[quote=]Still don't understand that if you make $300, 000 that you are not consider rich.[/quote]You can consider that rich. Hell, you can consider anyone making over $75K rich if you want. However, I suspect that most people making $300k, especially those with families, don't think that they are rich. Doing well? Yes. Rich? No.

[quote=]Just a personal note, I am neither angry or pessimistic about life. Nor do I choose to be categorized as either Republican or Democrat, just a concerned American.[/QUOTE]We're just two peas in a pod.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416654]I define "rich" as being able to quit your day / night job or what ever you do to earn money but not have to change your life style.[/QUOTE]Very good, I like it. But how to tell someone that they don't need spent $3,000 to fuck a porn-star when for the same money, they can go to Colombia or Thailand and fuck every day for 3 weeks?

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;416656]A variety of situations could ignite a critical mass in the EEUU ($10 dollars a gallon might be one). In the 60s it was Viet Nam, but that was because the youth didn't want to die in a fucking jungle for nada (no 9/11, no Bin Laden, no hate mongering except for the cold war and we weren't fighting Russia). Now 20% of the population is facing foreclosure and nothing happens because it's not affecting the youth (thanks to an unregulated free-for-all on Wall Street). The baby-boomers are too tired and scared to start burning banks down on Wall Street, and the up and coming yuppies are buying up the repos. Meanwhile, China owns all our debt and Walmart is their 7th largest trading partner because we don't make anything. How long can that last?[/quote]We're going to find out, aren't we?

[quote=]The fact that so many Republicans took seats in the last election is because the economy sucks and half the American public lack critical thinking skills.[/quote]Then why didn't they just elect more Democrats?

[quote=]They rely on their churches, Sarah Palin, and Glen Beck to tell them how to vote (against themselves). IMHO.[/QUOTE]I certainly respect your right to your opinion and doubt that you'd change your mind or have changed your mind on such subjects. However, I would like to point out a disservice that you are doing to yourself, if you really think this way. In Esten's case, he babbles left-wing propaganda in his sleep. Do you really think that the historic outcome of the 2010 midterm elections were due to Palin, Beck and churches?

Do you think that any of those millions of voters were motivated by the fact that a full 50% of the American public (including almost all of the people actually paying taxes) had absolutely no representation in the legislative or executive branches? Despite the fact that a large majority of Americans opposed Obamacare the leaders (BHO, Reid & Pelosi) of what is supposed to be a representative democracy forced Obamacare on us saying FU to the constitution, the history of the country and the voice of the voters. Do you think that anyone amongst those stupid voters felt honestly that $14T of debt is just too much?

If you are going to cast dispersions on the critical thinking capabilities of others, you might want to at least allude to having some of your own.

A return to the Clinton era tax structure on the super rich (the top 3%) was reasonable and necessary during such an economic downturn. But the Repbulicans vowed to eliminate unemployment insurance before Christmas if they didn't continue to get their $500 billion dollar tax break, per year. Instead they financed 7 years of war under Bush by borrowing more from China, and expect the middle class to pay the interest. Now they're blaming Dems and Obama for overspending.

You are obviously a smart person and a good writer Walleye, and are what I think of as one of the "true believers." I'll elaborate more on that another time. It's not negative.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 416659]We're going to find out, aren't we?

Then why didn't they just elect more Democrats?

I certainly respect your right to your opinion and doubt that you'd change your mind or have changed your mind on such subjects. However, I would like to point out a disservice that you are doing to yourself, if you really think this way. In Esten's case, he babbles left-wing propaganda in his sleep. Do you really think that the historic outcome of the 2010 midterm elections were due to Palin, Beck and churches?

Do you think that any of those millions of voters were motivated by the fact that a full 50% of the American public (including almost all of the people actually paying taxes) had absolutely no representation in the legislative or executive branches? Despite the fact that a large majority of Americans opposed Obamacare the leaders (BHO, Reid & Pelosi) of what is supposed to be a representative democracy forced Obamacare on us saying FU to the constitution, the history of the country and the voice of the voters. Do you think that anyone amongst those stupid voters felt honestly that $14T of debt is just too much?

If you are going to cast dispersions on the critical thinking capabilities of others, you might want to at least allude to having some of your own. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;416660]Instead they financed 7 years of war under Bush by borrowing more from China, and expect the middle class to pay the interest. Now they're blaming Dems and Obama for overspending.[/QUOTE]HappyGoLucky,

Within his first 30 days in office, Obama borrowed more money than the combined [u]TOTAL[/u] cost of liberating Iraq and Afghanistan, [u]AND[/u] the Hurricane Katrina cleanup.

I know, let me guess: You don't care.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;416658]Very good, I like it. But how to tell someone that they don't need spent $3,000 to fuck a porn-star when for the same money, they can go to Colombia or Thailand and fuck every day for 3 weeks?[/QUOTE]Now you're trying to tell other folks how they should spend their money. That's pretty popular among the many value mongers on this board, but I would resist the temptation. Their time with a porn star may be far more meaningful than the dozens of chicas they could nail in Columbia or Thailand for three weeks, especially since they don't have three weeks to do it.

The other side of the question about who is "rich" is this: About a year ago, we had someone on this board claiming he was too poor to afford health care in the US under the current system. He claimed that the recent rate increase he received had simply made a health insurance policy unaffordable and that he was forced to decline to renew his policy. He further claimed that ObamaCare was a necessity because people like him were priced out of the market.

At the time he was posting all this, he was simultaneously posting that he was on a two-week or one-month junket to Buenos Aires, where he was paying for pussy, going out to Hippopotamus, etc, and asking for help fixing his iPhone. So, he could afford airfare, hotels and apartments, P4P chicas, an iPhone, etc, but he was too poor to afford an increase in health insurance. If I recall correctly, the increase was something like $500, but my memory on the amount is a bit hazy.

So, don't tell me this guy is "poor" and that I should be paying for his insurance. I've got little time for those who claim that poor, ignorant Americans are being taken advantage of by insurance companies or even banks, who are "forcing" them to take loans. Or, that corporate America always figures out how to stick it to the little guy. The little guy in the US has it better than the little guy in every other country in the world, which is why they're all trying to figure out how to get here. The only time these folks take to the streets is when they can get three weeks off by protesting that their collective bargaining "rights" are in jeopardy, and when the union doctor will give them a note so they get paid for protesting. The only other time is when you threaten to close the border or, god forbid, actually check whether they're here legally. The average joes who are content to collect unemployment or welfare want nothing to do with the street unless someone is seriously threatening to cut off the gravy train.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 416653]"Consumer Beware", so which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you do not think that American consumer is in the clutches of Big Business, you are very naive. From the lack of viable public transportation, to the people who depend on 7-11s for their culinary delights, the easy availability to leasing rather than buying cars, you can go on and on. Is it true that "instant gratification" and "attention deficit to be of American cultural origin? Maybe, that can be debated. So we had a damn good run, and now, we have to clean up after a night of debauchery. Still don't understand that if you make $300, 000 that you are not consider rich.

[/QUOTE]Say the city fathers fail to construct or maintain levees. Then a flood comes and wipes out the town. It's the rain's fault, right?

One of the reasons that capitalism works so well is because businesses compete to make money. That makes the economic system more efficient and productive and creates wealth for all. Government sets the rules. If a government does that wisely, society will benefit. If it doesn't, if politicians are corrupt or stupid or obsessed with obtaining votes instead of doing what's right, it won't.

Politicians shouldn't allow people to borrow to buy houses with no money down. They shouldn't offer guarantees for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages. They shouldn't offer homeowners deductions on interest expense. They shouldn't give businesses deductions for interest expense while charging tax on dividends (thus encouraging them to raise capital by borrowing instead of issuing equity). They shouldn't allow banks to charge interest rates that, after late fees, are effectively 30% per year on credit card debt. They shouldn't put people in charge of the Federal Reserve that are going to keep interest rates at or below the inflation rate year after year after year.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, they shouldn't encourage people to believe in massive Ponzi schemes like Medicare and Social Security. Why work hard and save your money for retirement or a rainy day? The government will be there for you, even when Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security account for 25% of GDP, and the proportion of retirees to workers is much higher than it is now.

Black Shirt, What you're describing is the biggest problem facing America. But the root cause is politicians, not businessmen. Or, actually, the individuals who elect politicians and who make stupid spending decisions.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;416663]The little guy in the US has it better than the little guy in every other country in the world, which is why they're all trying to figure out how to get here. [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416647]The reality is, as pointed out numerous times by folks other than myself, that the poor in America are rich relative to much of the world's population. [/QUOTE]Well lookee here. This lame talking point trotted out twice in two days.

In other words, it's OK to pay American workers low wages with few benefits, and allow most of the prosperity to go to the wealthy, as long as those workers are better off than their counterparts in other countries.

How laughable, and shameless, for the rich elite (and their followers) to use the Third World as a benchmark for American workers.

Pathetic.

Hi Jackson. Long time no see.

With all due respect, look at the freaking mess Obama inherited after 8 years of Bush imperialism.

I just don't agree with wars for profit (i. e. defense contractors (e.g.Halliburton, Blackwater, Carlyle), oil companies, etc.) Our dependence on foreign oil is not by necessity but by design. I could go on for days with examples, but it's already widely known and recognized. We don't go around "liberating" every other f-up country in the world, and there's a reason for that. But you've got the degree in Political Science, so you already know all this. And BTW, I care as much as you do bud, but from a different perspective.

PS The Hurricane Katrina "clean-up" was a national embarrassment.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 416662]HappyGoLucky,

Within his first 30 days in office, Obama borrowed more money than the combined [u]TOTAL[/u] Cost of liberating Iraq and Afghanistan, [u]AND[/u] The Hurricane Katrina cleanup.

I know, let me guess: You don't care.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 416664]Say the city fathers fail to construct or maintain levees. Then a flood comes and wipes out the town. It's the rain's fault, right?

One of the reasons that capitalism works so well is because businesses compete to make money. That makes the economic system more efficient and productive and creates wealth for all. Government sets the rules. If a government does that wisely, society will benefit. If it doesn't, if politicians are corrupt or stupid or obsessed with obtaining votes instead of doing what's right, it won't.

Politicians shouldn't allow people to borrow to buy houses with no money down. They shouldn't offer guarantees for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages. They shouldn't offer homeowners deductions on interest expense. They shouldn't give businesses deductions for interest expense while charging tax on dividends (thus encouraging them to raise capital by borrowing instead of issuing equity). They shouldn't allow banks to charge interest rates that, after late fees, are effectively 30% per year on credit card debt. They shouldn't put people in charge of the Federal Reserve that are going to keep interest rates at or below the inflation rate year after year after year.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, they shouldn't encourage people to believe in massive Ponzi schemes like Medicare and Social Security. Why work hard and save your money for retirement or a rainy day? The government will be there for you, even when Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security account for 25% of GDP, and the proportion of retirees to workers is much higher than it is now.

Black Shirt, What you're describing is the biggest problem facing America. But the root cause is politicians, not businessmen. Or, actually, the individuals who elect politicians and who make stupid spending decisions. [/QUOTE]Thank you for your very intelligent post. The crux of the matter is that Politics and Big Business are like Siamese Twins. The electoral process demands massive funding and so the coupling is often made with the public's interests being compromised.

Singapore has show the world the meaning of responsible government in a global economy. Government public housing, healthcare, retirement funds work there. Neither Capitalism nor Socialism is a dirty work, they can co-exist. Our frontier days are long gone, it is a more complex urban enviroment that we exist in today.

[QUOTE=Esten; 416667]Well lookee here. This lame talking point trotted out twice in two days.

In other words, it's OK to pay American workers low wages with few benefits, and allow most of the prosperity to go to the wealthy, as long as those workers are better off than their counterparts in other countries.

How laughable, and shameless, for the rich elite (and their followers) to use the Third World as a benchmark for American workers.

Pathetic. [/QUOTE]I believe Stan posted his comment prior to mine and that a similar statement has been made herein in the past, which is precisely why I referenced the prior statements. I apologize if the succinct and abundantly clear reference confused you.

Simply because two people, out of 6. 8 billion human beings on this planet, state the same fact, doesn't make it a talking point. Both Obama and Hitler remarked, separately, that the sun rises in the east. Am I to conclude that this is a talking point of fanatical fascist dictators? Or is it possible that the sun does rise in the east? At the risk of further confusing you, I'll let you in on a little-known secret. The sun doesn't actually 'rise' in the east, it only appears to rise in the east. You see, the sun doesn't revolve around the earth. We can discuss Obama and Hitler's joint efforts to perpetuate the same myth later.

Further, neither Stan nor myself has, to my knowledge, proffered that the poor should stay poor or that being poor is good or that American poor should live in conditions similar to those in developing countries (learned folks have come to view 'Third World' as a pejorative term). Quite to the contrary, we are both on the side of helping the poor via opportunity. You on the other hand seem more interested in enslaving the poor, via dependence upon the government for everything from food to shelter to healthcare, as a means to permanently install leftists in the three branches of our government.

Which seems more cynical to you?

It seems that the super rich are getting even a greater share of the country's wealth. So far, Reagan style tricklenomics has failed to provide a fair and stable social structure. These quotes are from the Boston Globe:

"The only people being saved are the wealthy.

While unemployment remains at close to 9 percent, the average salaries for CEOs at 200 of America's largest companies rose 20 percent, to $11. 7 million, according to the New York Times. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that CEO bonuses at 50 major corporations rose 30. 5 percent last year, the biggest gain in three years, to an average bonus of $2. 5 million.

The rich have recovered so fast that their share of America's income is on track to break the all-time record. According to Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, the top 10 percent of Americans hoarded 46. 3 percent of the nation's income in 1932. That fell to around 31 percent in the 1950s and held steady into the early 1970s, due to a combination of World War II fiscal shocks, more progressive income and corporate tax policies, unions, and social programs. The top 1 percent had 19. 6 percent of the nation's income in 1928 and that fell to 7. 7 percent by 1973.

Then income for the wealthy roared back full circle. The share for the top 10 percent was back up to 45. 6 percent in 2008. For the top 1 percent, it was back up to 18. 3 percent in 2007.

If we had just ended the Bush-era tax cuts and returned to the Clinton years — which were booming ones for the economy — the Treasury said it would get back $3. 7 trillion over the next decade.

Meanwhile, the US Census last year said the rich-poor income gap reached record levels, nearly doubling gaps of the late 1960s. The United States is the richest nation on earth, yet we rank 97th in family-income equality, according to the CIA Factbook. Our inequality is so profound that we rank behind nations we associate with corruption, poverty, oppression, or collapsed governments — Nigeria, China, India, Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Egypt, Burundi, Nicaragua, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Greece. The most economically equal country in the world is Sweden.

Even the CIA says the United States is now a nation where 'those at the bottom lack the education and the professional / technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20 percent of households. '

For all of those 'gains, ' we are sliding backward with each announcement of CEO pay. The gain for a few has become the great American loss."

[url]http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/12/surprise_surprise_rich_get_richer/[/url]

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 416677]as a means to permanently install leftists in the three branches of our government.

Which seems more cynical to you? [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky; 416678]It seems that the super rich are getting even a greater share of the country's wealth. So far, Reagan style tricklenomics has failed to provide a fair and stable social structure. These quotes are from the Boston Globe:

Blah, blah, blah[/QUOTE]It must be true. This is typical of globe reporting, as is this:

Two boys are playing hockey on the Boston Common pond when one is attacked by a vicious rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy takes his hockey stick and scares the dog off, stopping the attack. A reporter who is strolling by sees the incident and rushes over to interview the boy.

"Young Bruins fan saves friend from vicious animal." he starts writing in his notebook.

"But I'm not a Bruins fan," the little boy replies.

"Sorry. Since we're in Boston, I just assumed you were," says the reporter and starts again."Red Sox fan rescues friend from horrific attack. ' he continues writing in his notebook.

"I'm not a Red Sox fan either!" the boy says.

"So, what team do you root for?" the reporter asks.

"I'm a Yankees fan!" the child beams.

The reporter starts a new sheet in his notebook and writes: "Little brat from New York kills beloved family pet."

Typical liberal rag and a true example of the use of talking points, as opposed to Esten's misguided attack.

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky; 416678]It seems that the super rich are getting even a greater share of the country's wealth. So far, Reagan style tricklenomics has failed to provide a fair and stable social structure. These quotes are from the Boston Globe:

"The only people being saved are the wealthy.

While unemployment remains at close to 9 percent, the average salaries for CEOs at 200 of America's largest companies rose 20 percent, to $11. 7 million, according to the New York Times. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that CEO bonuses at 50 major corporations rose 30. 5 percent last year, the biggest gain in three years, to an average bonus of $2. 5 million.

The rich have recovered so fast that their share of America's income is on track to break the all-time record. According to Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, the top 10 percent of Americans hoarded 46. 3 percent of the nation's income in 1932. That fell to around 31 percent in the 1950s and held steady into the early 1970s, due to a combination of World War II fiscal shocks, more progressive income and corporate tax policies, unions, and social programs. The top 1 percent had 19. 6 percent of the nation's income in 1928 and that fell to 7. 7 percent by 1973.

Then income for the wealthy roared back full circle. The share for the top 10 percent was back up to 45. 6 percent in 2008. For the top 1 percent, it was back up to 18. 3 percent in 2007.

If we had just ended the Bush-era tax cuts and returned to the Clinton years — which were booming ones for the economy — the Treasury said it would get back $3. 7 trillion over the next decade.

Meanwhile, the US Census last year said the rich-poor income gap reached record levels, nearly doubling gaps of the late 1960s. The United States is the richest nation on earth, yet we rank 97th in family-income equality, according to the CIA Factbook. Our inequality is so profound that we rank behind nations we associate with corruption, poverty, oppression, or collapsed governments — Nigeria, China, India, Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Egypt, Burundi, Nicaragua, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Greece. The most economically equal country in the world is Sweden.

Even the CIA says the United States is now a nation where 'those at the bottom lack the education and the professional / technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20 percent of households. '

For all of those 'gains, ' we are sliding backward with each announcement of CEO pay. The gain for a few has become the great American loss."

[url]http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/12/surprise_surprise_rich_get_richer/[/url]

[/QUOTE]There is nothing Un-american about making money dude! So I am the CEO of a large public company and make killer results, enhancing shareholder value, and I don't deserve a BIG BONUS? This concept is what separates the US from socialist countries like Argentina. VIVA America baby. As the lawyers say "you eat what you kill"! Since when is there some rule that the wealth should be equally divided by the masses. THAT'S UN-American buddy. Guessing you never worked for yourself dude. Give it a try. You might like it or crash in flames. To the victor goes the spoils. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

I had my own business for 12 years, and did quite well. How we define the lines and limits of social responsibility and everyone contributing a fair share will determine the overall health of our nation.

The list of the biggest corporate freeloaders contains many of the largest energy / oil conglomerates. What a surprise.

[url]http://front.moveon.org/3-which-corporations-are-the-biggest-freeloaders/?rc=recirctest[/url]

[QUOTE=Toymann;416681]There is nothing Un-american about making money dude! So I am the CEO of a large public company and make killer results, enhancing shareholder value, and I don't deserve a BIG BONUS? This concept is what separates the US from socialist countries like Argentina. VIVA America baby. As the lawyers say "you eat what you kill"! Since when is there some rule that the wealth should be equally divided by the masses. THAT'S UN-American buddy. Guessing you never worked for yourself dude. Give it a try. You might like it or crash in flames. To the victor goes the spoils. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten; 416667]Well lookee here. This lame talking point trotted out twice in two days.

In other words, it's OK to pay American workers low wages with few benefits, and allow most of the prosperity to go to the wealthy, as long as those workers are better off than their counterparts in other countries.

How laughable, and shameless, for the rich elite (and their followers) to use the Third World as a benchmark for American workers.

Pathetic. [/QUOTE]This perfectly illustrates, yet again, the difference between socialists and capitalists. Esten is a socialist. He is akin to the closet homosexual who has not yet made peace with himself, so he'll issue public denials about what he likes and believes. But, all the evidence is points in a different direction.

Esten doesn't quibble with the notion that our "poor" are better off than folks in other countries. He tries to suggest that these are third world comparisons, but no one mentioned the third world except him. My statement was that the poor are better off here than anywhere else. But, for Esten, that's not good enough if the rich are doing really well. It's not enough to take care of your poor better than anywhere else if Esten can look at the rich and say "they're making too much." That's the socialist in him. Again, he can issue as many denials as he wants, but someday he'll look in the mirror and have the spine to have that talk with mom and dad.

The difference between the socialist and capitalist mindset is best illustrated by an old joke:

An American capitalist, a French parliamentarian and a Russian socialist found an old bottle on the beach, opened it up, and saw a genie fly out. The genie was so grateful that he granted them each one wish.

The capitalist always admired his high school chum, who had accumulated great wealth. So, he wished for a mansion on the ocean, lots of money, cars, women, and all the other aspects of a wealthy lifestyle.

The parliamentarian wanted something similar. His cousin inherited a fortune, and he was always envious. So, he wished for a villa on the Mediterranean and limitless money and luxury.

When the socialist took his turn, he remembered his neighbor who was better off. He said,"My neighbor has a goat, and I don't have one. Kill my neighbor's goat!"

Esten can't be happy if others are doing better. He'd rather see the government force everyone to be equal, or "more equal" and that's the basic difference here. He will never be happy. That's because poverty, like wealth, is relative. It's meaningless if you simply say someone is poor. The only way to make sense of it is in relation to others. So, for Esten, it doesn't matter that our "poor" are doing better than the "poor" everywhere else, and it doesn't matter if today's "poor" are "rich" in comparison to the "poor" of 100 years ago. We need to compare them to the wealthy and then let the government try to equalize things.

I reject this view. In terms of economics, my view is that the government is responsible for providing a bare bones safety net, and to ensure that opportunities are available. Beyond that, government needs to get out of the way. The government should not be in the business of looking at how many cows or goats someone has. Whether people capitalize on opportunities is up to them, and it's not the government's business to try to even out the odds. Once a bare bones safety net is in place, and opportunities exist, the rest is up to the individual.

[QUOTE=Esten; 416667]it's OK to pay American workers low wages with few benefits, and allow most of the prosperity to go to the wealthy, as long as those workers are better off than their counterparts in other countries.[/QUOTE]So, to answer your question: Yes.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;416684]Whether people capitalize on opportunities is up to them, and it's not the government's business to try to even out the odds. Once a bare bones safety net is in place, and opportunities exist, the rest is up to the individual.[/QUOTE]This is sort of what I meant by a "True believer." In concept, I agree, it just isn't working in the EEUU. Witness the Wall Street f-up.

Meanwhile prisons are exploding at an unprecedented rate in the USA because the social fabric is unraveling. The "right" wants to build more prisons and privatize the "business" but warehousing never works and is a terrible burden to the taxpayers.

I find it interesting that there are so many of the "right" mindset here. Who pressures the local PD to spend taxpayer money raiding the local AMP while gangs are gaining more control of the streets? I know a lot of guys in LE, and they just do what they're told, generally by the "right" who are always trying to legislate how we live our lives. Hence we are here, in beautiful wonderful Argentina with all its flaws and freedoms.

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;416685]Meanwhile prisons are exploding at an unprecedented rate in the USA because the social fabric is unraveling. The "right" wants to build more prisons and privatize the "business" but warehousing never works and is a terrible burden to the taxpayers.[/quote]LOL! The reason that our "[i]prisons are exploding[/i]" is our idiotic drug laws, not because "[i]the social fabric is unraveling[/i]".

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;416685]I find it interesting that there are so many of the "right" mindset here. Who pressures the local PD to spend taxpayer money raiding the local AMP while gangs are gaining more control of the streets? I know a lot of guys in LE, and they just do what they're told, generally by the "right" who are always trying to legislate how we live our lives. Hence we are here, in beautiful wonderful Argentina with all its flaws and freedoms.[/QUOTE]HappyGoLucky,

Look around you. I don't believe you're going to find too many of [i]those[/i] kinds of guys on this website.

I know that its standard leftist strategy to demagogue everyone who doesn't subscribe their unique brand of logic, and specifically to lump persons with different perspectives together and malign them as a group. However, it is completely inaccurate, not to mention manifestly unfair, for you to brand everyone who is fiscally conservative as right wing bible thumpers.

Kind of reminds me of the anti-commercial sex bigots who always try to aggregate consensual prostitution with slavery and child abuse.

==============================================

For the record, I am [u]NOT[/u] a Republican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] a conservative.

- I am [u]against[/u] the death penalty.
- I am [u]against[/u] [u]any[/u] government support of religious organizations.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am [u]for[/u] a woman's right to choose.
- I am [u]for[/u] comprehensive sex education.
- I am [u]for[/u] a foreign guest worker program.
- I am [u]for[/u] a universal flat tax on [u]EVERYONE'S[/u] income.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]INSURANCE[/u] reform.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]JUSTICE[/u] reform.

I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;416685]This is sort of what I meant by a "True believer." In concept, I agree, it just isn't working in the EEUU. Witness the Wall Street f-up.[/quote]The Wall St. F-up didn't just come out of nowhere and appear on the corner of Wall & Broad one morning.

[quote=]Meanwhile prisons are exploding at an unprecedented rate in the USA because the social fabric is unraveling. The "right" wants to build more prisons and privatize the "business" but warehousing never works and is a terrible burden to the taxpayers.[/quote]Only a true believer (one that believes in bull shit) would make such a statement.

This is another misguided liberal rant. "Boo hoo, look at all the people in jail. It's obvious that they shouldn't be there because the crime rate is so low"

Check out the statistics over at the FBI. The incidence of violent crime (per 100k people) has dropped roughly 41% from 1990, a lovely time in the US when urban decay was in full swing, complemented by the crack cocaine epidemic. During that same period, the incidences of murder, rape and armed robbery have dropped 46.8, 30% and 48, respectively.

While both the nominal number of people incarcerated (not a good measure because it skews high because it doesn't account for population growth) and the real incarceration rate (adjusted for population growth) have gone up, those people weren't put there by the Tea Party, Glenn Beck or Wall Street. They were put there by their own criminal behavior. The fact that they were incarcerated and thus prevented from committing more crimes against innocent people resulted in lower crime rates. If you read those statistics the same way I do, it looks like the authorities have put an awful lot of the bad guys in jail, where most of them belong.

So exactly what is it that is causing the unraveling? Do you prefer the days of lower incarceration rates and higher crime rates?

[quote=]I find it interesting that there are so many of the "right" mindset here. Who pressures the local PD to spend taxpayer money raiding the local AMP while gangs are gaining more control of the streets? I know a lot of guys in LE, and they just do what they're told, generally by the "right" who are always trying to legislate how we live our lives. Hence we are here, in beautiful wonderful Argentina with all its flaws and freedoms.[/QUOTE]Look at who has been running most of America's cities over the last 30 years and tell me how it is that the "right" is telling them to do anything. Politicians looking to curry favor with voters often crack down on things like prostitution purely for their own political gain.

Further, you should look at who is really trying to legislate and dictate every little part of your life. Who is saying what light bulbs you can use? Forcing you to use low-flow toilets? Driving little cars? Preventing you from sending your kid to school with a homemade lunch? Banning chocolate milk from school? Making happy meals illegal? Telling you what you can and can't do with your own property?

Like I said, there mustn't be too many reflective objects in your general vicinity.

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;416685]I find it interesting that there are so many of the "right" mindset here. [/QUOTE]I won't bother responding to your prisons argument. You've already been cut to shreds on that one.

The reason there are so many people from the "right" here is that reason generally wins out. There have been many, many people with a leftish perspective drop in now and again. They make their "points" and, generally, they are shown either to be wrong, fools, or both. Usually both. Then, most shuffle off, bleating like sheep.

Don't get me wrong, we have our village idiots who stick around no matter what: Esten, Moreon and a couple more. But, there are dozens of others from the left wing persuasion who have come and gone.

Looks like we've got another village idiot to me. Welcome aboard!

[QUOTE=Jackson;416688]LOL! The reason that our "[i]prisons are exploding[/i]" is our idiotic drug laws, not because "[i]the social fabric is unraveling[/i]".[/QUOTE]That is certainly true, but not the only reason. Public education is at an all time low, and constantly under attack, i.e. losing funding.

[QUOTE=Jackson;416688]HappyGoLucky,

Look around you. I don't believe you're going to find too many of [i]those[/i] Kinds of guys on this website. [/QUOTE]Well, who wants to be called names? I don't mind debate; sometimes we learn something.

[QUOTE=Jackson;416688]I know that its standard leftist strategy to demagogue everyone who doesn't subscribe their unique brand of logic, and specifically to lump persons with different perspectives together and malign them as a group. However, it is completely inaccurate, not to mention manifestly unfair, for you to brand everyone who is fiscally conservative as right wing bible thumpers. [/QUOTE]That was not my intent. My previous comments were in response to an assumption that the last election indicated a mandate for the Republican agenda. Clearly, the voters who elected Republicans had a variety of agendas, some of which were fiscal, but many of which relate to issues such as abortion, gay rights, immigration, etc. The ultra ultra rich have coopted votes by pretending to care about the "Bible thumper" issues, and are quick to enact laws which further restrict our personal freedoms (tougher drug laws, etc.), to garner support. To do justice to your point, there is probably no one on this board (the upper elite 3% of the mega rich, or even the upper 10% for that matter). I am in fact "fiscally conservative" but I also believe in taking care of our social infrastructure, as opposed to funding wars for oil.

[QUOTE=Jackson;416688]Kind of reminds me of the anti-commercial sex bigots who always try to aggregate consensual prostitution with slavery and child abuse. [/QUOTE]I'm with ya on that one!

[QUOTE=Jackson;416688]==============================================

For the record, I am [u]NOT[/u] A Republican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] A conservative.

- I am [u]against[/u] The death penalty.

- I am [u]against[/u] [u]any[/u] Government support of religious organizations.

- I am [u]for[/u] The legalization of recreational drugs.

- I am [u]for[/u] The legalization of commercial sex.

- I am [u]for[/u] A woman's right to choose.

- I am [u]for[/u] Comprehensive sex education.

- I am [u]for[/u] A foreign guest worker program.

- I am [u]for[/u] A universal flat tax on [u]EVERYONE'S[/u] Income.

- I am [u]for[/u] Health [u]INSURANCE[/u] Reform.

- I am [u]for[/u] Health [u]JUSTICE[/u] Reform.

I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent. [/QUOTE]There's nothing here I disagree with.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416689]The Wall St. F-up didn't just come out of nowhere and appear on the corner of Wall & Broad one morning.[/QUOTE]True, it happend because of relaxed government regulation. No one disputes that.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 416689]Only a true believer (one that believes in bull shit) would make such a statement.

This is another misguided liberal rant."Boo hoo, look at all the people in jail. It's obvious that they shouldn't be there because the crime rate is so low" [/QUOTE]Well, I never said that. Although the sentencing structures are pretty messed up in a lot of states.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 416689]Check out the statistics over at the FBI. The incidence of violent crime (per 100k people) has dropped roughly 41% from 1990, a lovely time in the US when urban decay was in full swing, complemented by the crack cocaine epidemic. During that same period, the incidences of murder, rape and armed robbery have dropped 46. 8,30% and 48, respectively.

While both the nominal number of people incarcerated (not a good measure because it skews high because it doesn't account for population growth) and the real incarceration rate (adjusted for population growth) have gone up, those people weren't put there by the Tea Party, Glenn Beck or Wall Street. They were put there by their own criminal behavior. The fact that they were incarcerated and thus prevented from committing more crimes against innocent people resulted in lower crime rates. If you read those statistics the same way I do, it looks like the authorities have put an awful lot of the bad guys in jail, where most of them belong. [/QUOTE]Yes, I read the stats as you do. No argument there.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416689]So exactly what is it that is causing the unraveling? Do you prefer the days of lower incarceration rates and higher crime rates?[/QUOTE]Of course not. The deterioration of the nuclear family and public education are large contributing factors, as is the lack of viable after-school programs and work-study opportunities.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416689]Look at who has been running most of America's cities over the last 30 years and tell me how it is that the "right" is telling them to do anything. Politicians looking to curry favor with voters often crack down on things like prostitution purely for their own political gain.[/QUOTE]Yes, I couldn't agree more.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416689]Further, you should look at who is really trying to legislate and dictate every little part of your life. Who is saying what light bulbs you can use? Forcing you to use low-flow toilets? Driving little cars? Preventing you from sending your kid to school with a homemade lunch? Banning chocolate milk from school? Making happy meals illegal? Telling you what you can and can't do with your own property?[/QUOTE]Yep, both sides have ideas about how we should live our lives, no question. On some of the issues you mention, members of both sides even agree. Regarding "little cars", there is technology today that can get 300 miles on one electric charge, and hybrid diesels that run on natural gas that don't pollute and cost half as much to operate as petroleum vehicles. So why don't the auto / oil industries make them widely available in the USA at an affordable price?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416689]Like I said, there mustn't be too many reflective objects in your general vicinity.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 416690]I won't bother responding to your prisons argument. You've already been cut to shreds on that one.

The reason there are so many people from the "right" here is that reason generally wins out. There have been many, many people with a leftish perspective drop in now and again. They make their "points" and, generally, they are shown either to be wrong, fools, or both. Usually both. Then, most shuffle off, bleating like sheep.

Don't get me wrong, we have our village idiots who stick around no matter what: Esten, Moreon and a couple more. But, there are dozens of others from the left wing persuasion who have come and gone.

Looks like we've got another village idiot to me. Welcome aboard! [/QUOTE]I'm tempted to stay Stan, but I think I'll just bleat along.

[QUOTE=Jackson;416662]Within his first 30 days in office, Obama borrowed more money than the combined [u]TOTAL[/u] cost of liberating Iraq and Afghanistan, [u]AND[/u] the Hurricane Katrina cleanup.[/QUOTE]Jackson,

The Stimulus (ARRA) was a combination of spending and tax benefits. The cost of the tax benefits is $260B to date. But according to conservatives, tax breaks aren't spending, right?

Actual spending under ARRA is $374B to date. Like the Iraq war, it wasn't spent all at once.

The cost of the Iraq war is pegged around $700B for direct spending alone. Adding indirect costs, estimates get closer to $1T or higher.

Now if you want to include the ARRA tax breaks on the Democrat side, to be fair you need to also add the Bush tax breaks on the Republican side.

Whether you look at direct spending alone, or total impact on deficits, Republicans have contributed far more to federal debt than Democrats.

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;416678]It seems that the super rich are getting even a greater share of the country's wealth. So far, Reagan style tricklenomics has failed to provide a fair and stable social structure. These quotes are from the Boston Globe:[/QUOTE]Good article. I read a similar one yesterday. The media needs to spend more time covering this stuff. Of course Reagan tricklenomics failed, even George H. W. Bush called it voodoo economics. The remarkable thing is that Republicans still peddle this false hope, and millions of people lap it up.

Take a look at this interesting chart:

[url]http://blogs.courant.com/susan_campbell/balance2.jpg[/url]

[QUOTE]While unemployment remains at close to 9 percent, the average salaries for CEOs at 200 of America's largest companies rose 20 percent, to $11. 7 million, according to the New York Times. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that CEO bonuses at 50 major corporations rose 30. 5 percent last year, the biggest gain in three years, to an average bonus of $2. 5 million. [/QUOTE]This should warm the hearts of our capitalism-loving collegues.

[QUOTE]The share for the top 10 percent was back up to 45. 6 percent in 2008. For the top 1 percent, it was back up to 18. 3 percent in 2007.[/QUOTE]Truly astounding.

[QUOTE]If we had just ended the Bush-era tax cuts and returned to the Clinton years — which were booming ones for the economy — the Treasury said it would get back $3. 7 trillion over the next decade.[/QUOTE]That is the smartest thing we can do. With an additional surtax on capital gains for incomes over 200K.

[QUOTE]Meanwhile, the US Census last year said the rich-poor income gap reached record levels, nearly doubling gaps of the late 1960s. [/QUOTE]According to Republicans, this trend is OK, as long as our poor are less poor than in other countries.

PS. HappyGoLucky you said in another post:

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;416691]There's nothing here I disagree with.[/QUOTE]You really agree with Jackson's universal flat tax? I encourage you to revisit that one, and be highly suspicious. A flat tax would likely further widen rich-poor gaps, and potentially be a huge giveaway to the rich.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;416684]This perfectly illustrates, yet again, the difference between socialists and capitalists. Esten is a socialist. He is akin to the closet homosexual who has not yet made peace with himself, so he'll issue public denials about what he likes and believes. But, all the evidence is points in a different direction.[/QUOTE]I laugh each time you bring this up Stan. Things are not so black and white. Developed countries have elements of both capitalism and socialism, including the US. Like most Americans, I believe in redistribution to address lopsided distribution. I've provided several examples of this before. Here's another one.

An NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll conducted Feb. 24-28 of 1, 000 adults listed 26 different ways to reduce the federal budget deficit.

The most popular: placing a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year (81 percent said that was acceptable) , eliminating spending on earmarks (78 percent) , eliminating funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says aren't necessary (76 percent) and eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries (74 percent).

[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41876558/ns/politics/[/url]

Stan. 81% of Americans are Socialists! I feel sorry for you, this must eat you up inside.

Esten, according to your last post 81% of Americans think $1 million is "rich" now not $200K. Perhaps you should get a grip buddy because those lunk heads who fall in the $200K to $999K bunch are small business owners and if you bother to check it is small business that produces the most jobs, far more than "big" business.

Agreed on eliminating 'Ear Marks'. Perhaps you have not noticed but the new Republican Representatives have ALREADY done this, but not their DEMOCRAT counterparts who still cling to EARMARKS. Perhaps you guys need to get your house in order.

Agreed on unwanted weapon systems. Why are we buying weapons systems the military does not want, hey could it be politicians pushing it through? That would seem to be a no brainer, even for you.

Since I work in the Oil Patch, the elimination of tax credits for the oil and gas industries are OK if you understand the increase in operational cost originally offset by these credits will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for petroleum products. Can you say $8 to $10 a gallon gas. But this is probably just what Liberal Tree Huggers want. What they fail to understand is the accompanying unintended consequence of higher prices at the pump will push the price on all consumer goods up since they are all delivered by transport systems which depend on petroleum products.

So let's see what the 'score card' is for your poll, two tax hikes and two spending cuts. Of course one of the tax hikes will crash the economy with higher costs on petroleum products / consumer products and the other is Classic Class Warfare (Democrats should be proud since they have spoon fed this toxic idea to the public for 50+ years) , but at least the spending cuts make sense and have already been undertaken by REPUBLICANS (no Ear Marks and they have already cut the second engine program for the F35)!

Seems the general public is more in tune with the Tea Party than with the Democrat Party.

Esten, how about addressing Lyndon Johnson's Welfare Program, you know the entitlement that keeps growing and eating through more of the budget each year since 1964. Now remember Democrat Johnson promised us the Welfare program would eliminate proverty in American in a generation and yet we are now on the 3rd+ generation on welfare. The program has done nothing but breed dependency on the government while destroying peoples will to move up and out of poverty.

Right before your very eyes you will see Esten the Magnificent speak completely out of his ass. Witness:

[QUOTE=Esten; 416695]Jackson,

The Stimulus (ARRA) was a combination of spending and tax benefits. The cost of the tax benefits is $260B to date. [/quote]Isn't it amazing folks? He just opens up that gap and out it comes!

Fact, the nominal cost of the scheme, when enacted was $787B. However, that was just an estimate of what the first round of spending in the initial years would cost and does not include the cost of all the 'stimulus' every year in the future into perpetuity or financial meltdown, which ever comes first. What's that you say? It's a one-time thing, right? Not exactly, you see, by design, the people who dreamed up, passed and enacted this atrocity did so in order to make it part of the base line spending every year going forward.

When asked: 'the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the CBO find? . The true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2. 527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3. 27 trillion. '

That's just looking at the top 20. When you look at the whole program, growing at 10% pa, the present value of spending built into the base line budget (of this presumably, one-time stimulus) including just the next ten years, is over $12T, including more than $1T of additional expense of debt service, since every last dime of this is deficit spending. Further, the interest on the interest would be more than $100B. If prevailing treasury rates increase, so will the ultimate cost of this nation-destroying behavior.

[quote=]But according to conservatives, tax breaks aren't spending, right?[/quote]When you come from the perspective of a sane individual, when you take someone's money and later return some of it to them, of course subtracting out the costs associated with you handling it, it could never be considered spending. You would have to come from a perspective where all private assets are really government assets to consider reductions to the marginal tax rate to be spending. Oh, wait, that is your perspective.

[quote=]Actual spending under ARRA is $374B to date.[/quote]There he goes again folks! Look at that spew! Keep an eye on him, you don't want to miss the next one!

[quote=]Like the Iraq war, it wasn't spent all at once.[/quote]Esten has finally found something he likes about Bush. The Iraq war. Only because it is the only expense category remotely big enough to be noticed next to Obama's historic spending.

While the Iraq war has been going on for some time, future expenditures will only be incurred so long as we remain involved in the military conflict. Unlike the ARRA spending, Iraq War spending theoretically will go away, one day. Since it appears that Obama is dead set on continuing to prosecute the war, in an almost identical fashion to that of his predecessor, that day won't come soon.

[quote=]The cost of the Iraq war is pegged around $700B for direct spending alone. Adding indirect costs, estimates get closer to $1T or higher. [/quote]Just a drop in the bucket next to Obama's $12T. Maybe Libya will spiral out of control and he can ramp up costs there to help make Obama's global pay-off scheme look less gargantuan.

[quote=]Now if you want to include the ARRA tax breaks on the Democrat side, to be fair you need to also add the Bush tax breaks on the Republican side.[/quote]Only an idiot would consider allowing individuals to keep more of their own hard-earned cash to be a form of spending. Ooops, no offense."Do you get a free bowl of soup with that hat? It looks good on you, though."

[quote=]Whether you look at direct spending alone, or total impact on deficits, Republicans have contributed far more to federal debt than Democrats.[/QUOTE]There it is ladies and gentlemen, the grand finale of Esten the Magnificent! I knew he could do it. Look at that doozie he just laid out there! Look at the steam coming off of that pile! An the smell! A round of applause everyone! He's terrific.

No need to let facts get in your way, you never have before. However, your beloved temporary, permanent stimulus spending (also known as the ultimate slush fund for Democrat pet causes and pay offs) alone, far out strips the aggregate debt accumulated by this nation, at any point throughout its history, prior to the 111th Congress. The fact that it is 100% deficit spending, as is all of the interest that will become due on this deficit spending, places the Democrats at the very top of the heap of profligate spenders.

I am certain that you will recall the overwhelming bipartisan support that ARRA had: "No Republicans in the House and only three Republican Senators voted for the bill. The bill was signed into law on February 17 by President Barack Obama"


A couple parting thoughts to put things into perspective:
- total US tax receipts for 2010 were $2.2T or roughly 16% of GDP (around $14T)
- US National Debt is about $14T (Esten, that is about 7 times what we bring in)
- 2011 budget, just agreed to, runs another $1.6T in debt
- There are no CBO projections showing any future years in which government revenues equal or surpass government expenditures, let alone reduce the deficit.
- Without annual surpluses, there can be no reduction of the national debt

If you could confiscate 100% of total US household income, every year, you still couldn't eliminate the deficit within a reasonable time frame.

A new low, and this one's a doozy.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 416709]Fact, the nominal cost of the scheme, when enacted was $787B. However, that was just an estimate of what the first round of spending in the initial years would cost and does not include the cost of all the 'stimulus' every year in the future into perpetuity or financial meltdown, which ever comes first. What's that you say? It's a one-time thing, right? Not exactly, you see, by design, the people who dreamed up, passed and enacted this atrocity did so in order to make it part of the base line spending every year going forward.

When asked: 'the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the CBO find? . The true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2. 527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3. 27 trillion. '

That's just looking at the top 20. When you look at the whole program, growing at 10% pa, the present value of spending built into the base line budget (of this presumably, one-time stimulus) including just the next ten years, is over $12T, including more than $1T of additional expense of debt service, since every last dime of this is deficit spending. Further, the interest on the interest would be more than $100B. If prevailing treasury rates increase, so will the ultimate cost of this nation-destroying behavior. [/QUOTE]And were those ARRA provisions extended? Or are you just recycling a right-wing article from 2 years ago when Paul Ryan asked the CBO about hypothetical (non-existent) extensions?

Since we're relying on the CBO, do you know what their latest (Feb. 2011) estimate of ARRA's cost is? Here's some help:

www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12074/02-23-ARRA.pdf

[i]"When ARRA was being considered, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and 2019. CBO now estimates that the total impact over the 2009–2019 period will amount to $821 billion."[/i]

$821 billion. Which as I previously noted is part spending and part tax benefits. A far cry from your $12T number.

Here's a number we can believe in, Walleye's credibility = ZERO

Esten, according to the poll you cited 81% of Americans believe $1 Million is "Rich", maybe you should give your guy Obama a clue since he is still stuck with the $250K figure as "Rich".

I earn over $250K, own my own business, employ 22 accountants / CPAs / office staff, drive a 5 year old car and an 11 year old truck, live in a nice home but believe me I am damn sure not 'rich'. As one of those lunk head small business owners who would get caught in Obama's tax hike let me tell you what will happen.

I currently provide healthcare benefits for my employees, three weeks paid leave, paid continuing education allowance, and a 401 (k) which includes Safe Harbor contributions of 3% with an additional minimum of 3% and maximum of 9% in Profit Sharing depending on the profitability of the business year.

Well when Obama hits me with higher personal taxes here is what goes at a minimum: one week of paid leave, continuing education allowance and when ObamaCare kicks in probably healthcare as it appears to be cheaper to pay the fine than insure the employees but we still don't know for sure since HHS / IRS are still writing the rules.

As you can see we are back to the law of unintended consequences and if you think I am different you can believe this is already happening with other employers and will be exacerbated by a tax hike.

How about answering my question about Johnson's Entitlement program called Welfare.

[QUOTE=Esten; 416724]A new low, and this one's a doozy.

And were those ARRA provisions extended? [/quote]They are part of the baseline of the budget Obama submitted. Therefore, they are part of the baseline in the eyes of all democrats in Washington. Why don't you take a class or two and learn how to read so that you aren't dependent upon MSNBC for all of your information.

[quote=]Or are you just recycling a right-wing article from 2 years ago when Paul Ryan asked the CBO about hypothetical (non-existent) extensions?[/quote]Considering that Obama has attempted to make them permanent through his proposed budget, I am afraid that I don't follow your attempt to dismiss the relevance of the issue as hypothetical.

[quote=]Since we're relying on the CBO, do you know what their latest (Feb. 2011) estimate of ARRA's cost is? Here's some help:

[url]www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12074/02-23-ARRA.pdf[/url]

[i]"When ARRA was being considered, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and 2019. CBO now estimates that the total impact over the 2009–2019 period will amount to $821 billion."[/i] [/quote]Cost of ARA to date, first two years is $862B, which is : 1) more than the original $787B. 2) an incomplete tally considering that some provisions of ARRA haven't even been spent.

[quote=]$821 billion. Which as I previously noted is part spending and part tax benefits.[/quote]Yeah, whatever, you can say it as often as you like. However, you will never make tax cuts into spending. Further, 'tax benefits' given to people who didn't pay the tax in the first place is nothing of the sort. Those are called transfer payments in reference of the transfer that occurs between the person who earned it to the person who did not.

[quote=]A far cry from your $12T number.[/quote]We'll see how much of ARRA becomes a permanent part of the baseline. I stand by my estimate as being much closer to the truth than your or the CBO's.

[quote=]Here's a number we can believe in, Walleye's credibility = ZERO[/QUOTE]I've put out plenty of facts through my posts, you have yet to provide any factual refutation of any of them.

Here, see if you can factually refute the following:

I say that the sun rises in the west.

Our Obfuscator in Chief was clearly channeling Esten last night. His most revealing line of the night, in criticizing Paul Ryan's Plan:

'There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. '

Spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts? Just how can the government possibly [i]spend[/i] Anything through tax cuts?

This make sense, of course, only if you have a socialist perspective. According to Obama channeling Esten, everything really belongs to the government. So, by not taking it from "millionaires and billionaires" the government is really "spending" it.

By this perverted logic, Obama claims his proposed tax increases are really "savings."

And this is the guy liberals think is smart?

According to a new Associated Press GfK Poll. 62% of Americans believe the answer to the deficient is cutting government spending / services while only 29% believe the answer is raising taxes.

Another interesting poll result was most whites believed their taxes were fain while most no-whites believed their taxes were unfair.

I am sure Moveon and Esten can find some reason this happened and I'll bet it has something to do with Bibles, Guns, Religion and white folks.

Another interesting figure is if the top evil 5% of the country, you know the evil rich, had 100% of their income taken in tax it would NOTeven pay for the deficit created by Obama's 2011 budget much less reduce the last two years of Obama's deficit spending.

IT'S THE SPENDING STUPID!

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416743]More lies from the left [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 416743]We'll see how much of ARRA becomes a permanent part of the baseline. I stand by my estimate as being much closer to the truth than your or the CBO's.

I've put out plenty of facts through my posts, you have yet to provide any factual refutation of any of them. [/QUOTE]According to Walleye:

Citing ARRA data from cbo.gov and recovery.gov is lying.

But making projections on hypothetical extensions is posting facts.

Walleye, it's been a pleasure exposing once again what a nutjob you are. And once again it is time for me to place you on ignore mode for awhile.

All the best,

Esten

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 416755]According to a new Associated Press GfK Poll. 62% of Americans believe the answer to the deficient is cutting government spending / services while only 29% believe the answer is raising taxes.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I am sure Moveon and Esten can find some reason this happened and I'll bet it has something to do with Bibles, Guns, Religion and white folks. [/QUOTE]The second I saw those numbers I knew it must be a poll that asks what the MAIN approach should be. I went and checked, and that is the case. The poll question was:

[i]BUD3Z. In order to balance the federal budget, which should be the main focus of lawmakers? [/i]

And the choices were Increasing taxes, Cutting government services, Both equally, Neither, Don't know. You could only choose one answer.

Of course the polls have shown this preference for a long time. But what the polls have also shown consistently is that when you ask folks specifically about raising taxes on the wealthy, this also has majority support. So the polls show support for both spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy, just more weighted on spending cuts.

This is exactly what Obama has proposed. A combination of spending cuts and tax increases, more weighted on the spending cuts.

Looks like Obama is very much in sync with Americans, certainly moreso than the one-sided GOP proposal of spending cuts alone.

[QUOTE]Another interesting figure is if the top evil 5% of the country, you know the evil rich, had 100% of their income taken in tax it would even pay for the deficit created by Obama's 2011 budget much less reduce the last two years of Obama's deficit spending.[/QUOTE]We don't say the rich are evil, you do. And we agree spending needs to be cut, alongside increasing revenue.

Will get to your small business points later.

[QUOTE=Esten; 416761]According to Walleye:

Citing ARRA data from cbo. Gov and recovery. Gov is lying. [/quote]Please don't make me explain for you what the CBO is, again.

[quote=]But making projections on hypothetical extensions is posting facts.[/quote]I am an American that can read and do arithmetic, the first entitles me to question anything and everything my govt does. The fact that I possess world-renowned financial analysis skills (that far exceed anyone in the employ of the CBO) doesn't hurt either.

[quote=]Walleye, it's been a pleasure exposing once again what a nutjob you are.[/quote]I don't recall exposing my nuts to you. However, I have been known to enjoy a little of the grape every now and then so, it is possible. Did you notice how much bigger righty is as compared to lefty? I think it's cause righty is so much more virile.

[quote=]And once again it is time for me to place you on ignore mode for awhile.[/QUOTE]I think it was it Sun Tzu that said "When defeat is imminent, run like a pussy."