PDA

View Full Version : OT: American Politics



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422

MindzEye
08-23-2011, 11:08 PM
As requested by Jays, I won't be updating the news thread with anything directly related to American politics...and this seemed like a fitting enough piece to lead off with.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/08/paul-ryan-congress-town-hall


Congress' approval rating—currently 13 percent, according to Gallup—is at a historic low, and its disapproval rating, at 84 percent, is at a historic high. Many Americans eagerly awaited Congress' August recess so they could use town hall meetings and other public appearances to give their elected officials a piece of their mind. There's just one problem: most of Congress isn't scheduling any town halls. None. Zilch.

The think tank No Labels called the offices of all 430 active members of Congress and found that 60 percent of them weren't scheduling town hall meetings. According to No Labels' analysis, more Democrats than Republicans are shutting themselves off from their constituents: 68 percent of Dems and 51 percent of Republicans hadn't planned a town hall during Congress' weeks-long summer break. (Click here to see if your representative or senator is planning a town hall or not.)

Not to be ignored, angry citizens, at least in one high profile district, have taken action to get some attention. Last week, a handful of unemployed constituents organized a sit-in in GOP Rep. Paul Ryan's office in Kenosha, Wisconsin, while 100 protesters picketed outside. Ryan in particular has drawn heaps of criticism for his plan to eliminate Medicare as we know it and refashion Medicaid into a state-based block grant program. In the end, Ryan's staff had police remove the protesters from the office, which was done peacefully.

Paul Ryan has made himself available during the recess—but for a price. That's right: Ryan and other lawmakers are now charging constituents to attend public events and ask them questions. Ryan wanted $15 a head. Rep. Dan Quayle (R-Ariz.), Politico reported, is charging $35 from attendees who want to ask him questions over a catered lunch at a Phoenix law firm. Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.) also wants money—$10 a person—to attend an his event, which is hosted by the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

Why the ticket price? At the very least, it's a way to weed out the unemployed and financially burdened, who are also the most likely to give lawmakers an earful for the dismal state of the labor market and sluggish economic recovery. As Scott Page, a twice laid-off worker who participated in the sit-in inside Paul Ryan's office, told a local blogger, "I don't have $15 to ask Rep. Ryan questions, so I guess this is the only means I have to talk to him."

theREALkoreaboy
08-23-2011, 11:25 PM
wow. dan quayle's kid is now a congressman? holy crap, i'm getting old.

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-23-2011, 11:26 PM
Is Quayle's son as dumb as his dad?

theREALkoreaboy
08-23-2011, 11:28 PM
no dumber than the press declares every other major republican to be i guess.

IrishWolfman
08-23-2011, 11:36 PM
no dumber than the press declares every other major republican to be i guess.

Press seems to like Jon Huntsman and Scott Brown. But then again, they have an IQ higher than that of celery.

MindzEye
08-23-2011, 11:45 PM
no dumber than the press declares every other major republican to be i guess.

When they stop arguing against things like Evolution, maybe the press won't have so much material work with when declaring them such?

axlsalinger
08-24-2011, 12:09 AM
I do like Jon Huntsman out of the group, he is a smart guy. Will be interesting to see who wins, as far as I can see there are only 3 serious contenders: Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachmann. Anybody have another name that could legitimately win this thing? I don't see it.

MindzEye
08-24-2011, 12:16 AM
There are still some who think Paul Ryan will be running and he would definitely be a contender, though old people hate him for wanting to take away their Medicare.

MapleLeafBlueJayBoy
08-24-2011, 12:32 AM
I actually really like Huntsman on the republican side. He sounds very reasonable and logical. He is not a radical at all. If there had to be a Republican President, he'd be my guy.

Problem is, since he is not radical, he won't get a sniff and that is a damn shame.

Romney might even be acceptable if he wasn't trying so hard to run from all of his accomplishments. Romney is actually a very central guy as we all know, but he has had to change his whole personna and because of his record as a middle of the road guy, he won't get a sniff.

Such a shame. A couple of guys who might be good contenders with real solutions and they won't even get a look.

northernlou
08-24-2011, 12:42 AM
There are still some who think Paul Ryan will be running and he would definitely be a contender, though old people hate him for wanting to take away their Medicare.

Forget Ryan, he announced yesterday that he isn't taking a run at the top job.

MindzEye
08-24-2011, 12:46 AM
I actually really like Huntsman on the republican side. He sounds very reasonable and logical. He is not a radical at all. If there had to be a Republican President, he'd be my guy.

Problem is, since he is not radical, he won't get a sniff and that is a damn shame.

Romney might even be acceptable if he wasn't trying so hard to run from all of his accomplishments. Romney is actually a very central guy as we all know, but he has had to change his whole personna and because of his record as a middle of the road guy, he won't get a sniff.

Such a shame. A couple of guys who might be good contenders with real solutions and they won't even get a look.

Hunstman believes in Evolution and Romney was the architect of a bi partisan, fully function, envy of the rest of the country, government run medical program.

Therefor, they're both unelectable by Republican standards.



Forget Ryan, he announced yesterday that he isn't taking a run at the top job.

I didn't figure he had the base for it yet. He hasn't picked which sector of the Republican party owns him yet.

axlsalinger
08-24-2011, 01:16 AM
Mitt Romney can still win this thing, if only because of the lack of strong contenders around him. In the end I think Bachmann is too much of a wacko to win the election, but she is a shrewd politician. Rick Perry's probably leading right now.

MindzEye
08-24-2011, 01:19 AM
The one thing leaning in Romney's favour right now is that the wacko base of dominionists are pretty much split between Bachmann & Perry.

Romney is the only one in the Republican camp than in a sane universe, can challenge Obama. People can't point at Obama's popularity right now, but the comparative popularity of the Congress makes him look as popular as Johnny Bower at a Leaf game. The country isn't just mad at Obama, it's irate at it's government, and not just for the reasons that the tea party put forward.

MapleLeafBlueJayBoy
08-24-2011, 01:38 AM
ME, I really enjoy your posts. I always learn something and they are very thoughtful/balanced. Kudos.

axlsalinger
08-24-2011, 01:45 AM
The Christian right and fundamentalists will support Perry. Probably the majority of Tea Partiers will support Bachmann, though she loses some to Perry. Romney collects everybody else, which is a sizable group in its own right.

IrishWolfman
08-24-2011, 01:47 AM
If the question is can Mitt Romney win? The answer is yes. Romney doesn't have to worry about money which is usually a concern for someone who isn't on the party's fringe, and thus less likely to generate angry interest group cash.

Romney is ignoring Iowa and pouring money into New Hampshire with good reason. He's not going to win Iowa. The Republican Iowa caucus is dominated by Christian evangelicals who just aren't going to vote for a Mormon with a centrist past. However, that could help him in New Hampshire. Romney wins New Hampshire, builds a bit of a shield against the body blows he's probably going to take in South Carolina and Nevada.

After that, it all comes down to what states elect to dole out their delegates proportionally and which ones follow a winner-take-all format. Ideally, for Romney to win, the smaller states he's likely to win would go in March, so that he keeps racking up wins without handing too many delegates to other candidates (this would include most of New England going in the month of March).

If Romney can keep up the wins in March, even at a lesser pace, the race moves into April. Romney WILL win New York and New Jersey. But to win, he HAS to win California, Illinois and Pennsylvania. If he can rack up those three, in winner-take-all primaries after March, he can win the Republican nomination because he should already have Ohio and Michigan in his corner by that point. Bachmann and Perry will split up the traditional Republican heartland with Bachmann winning much of the prairie west and Perry taking the South and maybe Southwest.

MapleLeafBlueJayBoy
08-24-2011, 02:05 AM
Romney wins but then has to go up against the President and bad mouth healthcare. Then will try and bad mouth him about the downgrade when he lobbied and raised taxes to get his states rating up. He is a Democrats dream. Then the flip flop on gay marriage, abortion.

MapleLeafBlueJayBoy
08-24-2011, 02:08 AM
I think if Perry/Michelle don't win, we will see a third party in the form of a Tea Party person. However, they are so busy using the Republicans party for funding support they won't do have the balls to leave them.

I'd personally love to see Mayor Bloomberg run. He is the ultimate center candidate. Been a GOP and Dem person in the last 15 years and is now independant. And he could fund his own campaign.

MindzEye
08-24-2011, 02:13 AM
ME, I really enjoy your posts. I always learn something and they are very thoughtful/balanced. Kudos.

Thank you man.

MindzEye
08-24-2011, 02:17 AM
The Christian right and fundamentalists will support Perry. Probably the majority of Tea Partiers will support Bachmann, though she loses some to Perry. Romney collects everybody else, which is a sizable group in its own right.

I don't know if it's that cut and dry for Christian right/fundies/dominionist support. Bachmann has serious street cred in that world and touches all the right bases as far as her "intellectual" influences in that movement go. Texas is also a major tea party state, so Perry will bleed off a solid chunk of tea party support from Bachmann (who has been the TP spokesperson of choice since her hilarious off camera stare during her televised response to the State of the Union address from last year.)

MapleLeafBlueJayBoy
08-24-2011, 02:17 AM
No problem, I mean it.

MindzEye
08-24-2011, 02:22 AM
If the question is can Mitt Romney win? The answer is yes.

I agree....sort of. The question in my mind, from an analytical standpoint is: How crazy is the Republican base really?

Now, I know that's an inflammatory question the way I word it, but it's not an outlandish question to ask considering the tea party/hard right evangelist movement of the last 2-3 years.

Do the sane Republicans who will vote for a good political operator who has a track record of success in both the private and public world outnumber the loons who won't vote for him because he's a Mormon who built the best bit of socialized medicine the US has ever seen in Mass?

Romney is though, as I've stated, the only one who can seriously challenge Obama. The loons terrify swing voters.

MindzEye
08-24-2011, 02:25 AM
Romney wins but then has to go up against the President and bad mouth healthcare. Then will try and bad mouth him about the downgrade when he lobbied and raised taxes to get his states rating up. He is a Democrats dream. Then the flip flop on gay marriage, abortion.

Honestly, if Romney wins the nomination, I think he's safe from that particular criticism...the people most likely to make that particular criticism aren't voting Obama for any reason at all, ever. It's just an issue that Romney will go great lengths to avoid. Romney and his machine will make this a on issue election, and the US public will buy it. This will be a referendum on the economy and the question will be whether or not enough swing voters buy that the Republican ideology can get them out of this mess.

mbow30
08-24-2011, 11:12 AM
obama needs to do two things to secure a 2012 victory:

(1) put together a coherent economic policy that results in (near immediate) real job growth. easier said than done but the people need to see some real results. job creation has fared better than the unemployment figure tells us, but that isn't good enough. unemployment has to drop.

(2) start selling americans on the success of his policies. mindzeye, you pointed out earlier in the week that health care reform has already resulted in some spending cuts; the people have to hear about that. he has to highlight the fact that the TARP spending did help to stabilize the economy when it looked to be in peril, that it did preserve (and in fact create some) jobs, that it did prevent catastrophic meltdown. he needs to point out the success in libya: successfully ousting a regime without a single american casualty. he has to highlight successes in afghanistan after his petraeus appointment. he got osama, too.

the truth is that he has had some significant legislative achievements, but hasn't done a good job of selling them to the public. there were, of course, a few big missteps as well, but on those counts obama is going to have to really lay the blame at the feet of congress (mainly on debt ceiling issue). in the next 12 months he needs to show himself as a confident and assertive leader, and demonstrate how he has helped the country and the economy. he has made it really difficult for himself because he has expended practically all of his political capital. but the achievements are there, he just needs to sell them.

of course, none of that might matter in a campaign against romney. imo, he's the only republican candidate with a legitimate shot to beat obama. let's face it -- the economy is still going to be in bad shape come november 2012 -- and romney can very easily sell himself as the sort of wall street type who can rescue the nation from the financial abyss. he can point to the political leadership experience in massachusetts. he also has shown enough centrist tendencies (maybe even if he disavows some) to keep the moderates happy.

really, it should be an easy selection for repubs but unfortunately too many loons are on the saddle. if they push through pArry (i don't think bachmann has a chance) they will get slaughtered. to be honest, i'm not even sure if pArry could hold down 40% of the vote (i know bachmann couldn't). romney, however, is a good candidate on all fronts, and would give them their best shot at victory.

HabsAddict
08-24-2011, 12:19 PM
.......outlandish question to ask considering the tea party/hard right evangelist movement of the last 2-3 years.

s.

Evangelical movement? Only in your mind.

The Tea Party is 90% economic oriented. The other 10% is cause de jour by any right group, which of course is what the media and headline puppets repeat.

HabsAddict
08-24-2011, 12:39 PM
really, it should be an easy selection for repubs but unfortunately too many loons are on the saddle. if they push through pArry (i don't think bachmann has a chance) they will get slaughtered. to be honest, i'm not even sure if pArry could hold down 40% of the vote (i know bachmann couldn't). romney, however, is a good candidate on all fronts, and would give them their best shot at victory.

The "loons" as you call them care more about getting rid of obama then their individual causes. What is not negotiable is garbage like cap-n-trade or another stimulus/debt blowout. As for obamacare, the courts will give it a nice body blow. The obama regime want to keep this from happening until 2013. Romney can then sell obamacare as a failed project without having to fight it head on. With obamacare whacked, obama has nothing to show for his tenure other then economic misery.

Romney will beat obama. So now we have to settle in for endless media spin of evil doing for every fart Romney takes.

This is going to go in front of a right wing Supreme Court.. Good luck.

~~~~~~~~~~

By Jeremy Pelofsky and James Vicini

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law suffered a setback Friday when a U.S. appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled 2 to 1 that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but it unanimously reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire law.

The legality of the individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents have argued that without the mandate, which goes into effect in 2014, the entire law falls.

The law, adopted by Congress in 2010 after a bruising battle, is expected to be a major political issue in the 2012 elections as Obama seeks another term. All the major Republican presidential candidates have opposed it.

Obama has championed the individual mandate as a major accomplishment of his presidency and as a way to try to slow the soaring costs of healthcare while expanding coverage to the more than 30 million Americans without it.

The White House voiced confidence the law would be upheld. “We strongly disagree with this decision and we are confident it will not stand,” Obama aide Stephanie Cutter said in a statement.

Because it conflicts with another appeals court ruling that upheld the law, the Supreme Court is expected to take it up during its term that begins in October with a ruling possible just months before the November 2012 presidential election.

Legal experts said it was impossible to predict how the high court will rule but agreed that it may be a close vote by nine ideologically divided justices, with moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy as the possible swing vote.

More....

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/08/12/ruling-goes-against-obamacare-chance-of-supreme-court-challenge-rise/

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-24-2011, 12:46 PM
Addict, will you decry Mitt (and what kind of a name is Mitt anyway) as a socialist for having socialized medicine?

HabsAddict
08-24-2011, 12:48 PM
Honestly, if Romney wins the nomination, I think he's safe from that particular criticism...the people most likely to make that particular criticism aren't voting Obama for any reason at all, ever. It's just an issue that Romney will go great lengths to avoid. Romney and his machine will make this a on issue election, and the US public will buy it. This will be a referendum on the economy and the question will be whether or not enough swing voters buy that the Republican ideology can get them out of this mess.

Bingo. As the saying goes.....It's about the economy stupid.

The swing votes just need someone who is not far right to vote Republican. This is why the lefty media machine will go into hyperdrive to link even the most modest Republican economic policy to "far right Tea Party lunacy".

HabsAddict
08-24-2011, 12:51 PM
Addict, will you decry Mitt (and what kind of a name is Mitt anyway) as a socialist for having socialized medicine?

1. Do you know where I stand on that? You don't.

2. The enemy of my enemy is my......good buddy.

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-24-2011, 12:52 PM
but will christian america vote for a mormom?

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-24-2011, 12:52 PM
1. Do you know where I stand on that? You don't.

2. The enemy of my enemy is my......good buddy.

but why is Obama your enemy, what has he done to you?

worm
08-24-2011, 12:58 PM
obama is like subban

HabsAddict
08-24-2011, 01:01 PM
but why is Obama your enemy, what has he done to you?

I'm an economic conservative........and obama is the devil to that.

HabsAddict
08-24-2011, 01:05 PM
obama is like subban

obama can't be Subban. Telepromters are not allowed on the ice.

Besides, I'd change teams. LeafsAddict would hurt, but not as much as watching obama score into his own net....every game.


http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/e2bf9e8b43.jpg

johnunit
08-24-2011, 01:11 PM
obama can't be Subban. Telepromters are not allowed on the ice.

Besides, I'd change teams. LeafsAddict would hurt, but not as much as watching obama score into his own net....every game.


http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/e2bf9e8b43.jpg

what's always been one of the more bizarre slams on him. Using a teleprompter? Teleprompters have been commonplace with nearly every elected official since the 70s. You might as well bitch about him wearing suits too much.

HabsAddict
08-24-2011, 01:27 PM
what's always been one of the more bizarre slams on him. Using a teleprompter? Teleprompters have been commonplace with nearly every elected official since the 70s. You might as well bitch about him wearing suits too much.

The left took every pause Bush made in a statement as proof that he was an idiot. So obama resorted to using teleprompters at every opportunity. Off telepromter, obama is as prone to "uhh's" as Bush was.

SundinsTooth
08-24-2011, 01:35 PM
that's a fair point, in my opinion.

MindzEye
08-24-2011, 01:41 PM
Evangelical movement? Only in your mind.

The Tea Party is 90% economic oriented. The other 10% is cause de jour by any right group, which of course is what the media and headline puppets repeat.

Well, first of all, there's a reason that I separated the two with a "/" because they're not quite the same movement. But if you think that it's 90% an economic movement, you simply don't under the American right wing very well. Nothing on the far right is very far removed from their warped sense of WWJD.

MindzEye
08-24-2011, 01:42 PM
Besides, I'd change teams. LeafsAddict would hurt,

Flip Floppers aren't welcome

Metalleaf
08-24-2011, 01:44 PM
HawksAddict?

zeke
08-24-2011, 01:45 PM
I just heard that not one candidate for the republican nomination right now has a positive approval rating in his/her own state.

zeke
08-24-2011, 01:48 PM
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/06/gop-candidates-unpopular-at-home.html

heh.

HabsAddict
08-24-2011, 01:59 PM
Flip Floppers aren't welcome

Nonsense. You need professional, military grade crankiness in the Leafs ranks.

zeke
08-24-2011, 02:00 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/evolution-climate-change-could-divide-the-republican-party/244076/

hopefully this Huntsman guy heralds a new direction for the republican party.

MindzEye
08-24-2011, 02:09 PM
Nonsense. You need professional, military grade crankiness in the Leafs ranks.

Maybe you're not familiar with this board during a losing streak, or whenever Ron Wilson's punchable face is trying to explain away a stupid decision. Weapons grade crankiness around here.

zeke
08-24-2011, 02:47 PM
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/24/white_house_obama_method_for_regime_change_better_ than_bush_method

axlsalinger
08-24-2011, 03:03 PM
obama needs to do two things to secure a 2012 victory:

(1) put together a coherent economic policy that results in (near immediate) real job growth. easier said than done but the people need to see some real results. job creation has fared better than the unemployment figure tells us, but that isn't good enough. unemployment has to drop.

(2) start selling americans on the success of his policies. mindzeye, you pointed out earlier in the week that health care reform has already resulted in some spending cuts; the people have to hear about that. he has to highlight the fact that the TARP spending did help to stabilize the economy when it looked to be in peril, that it did preserve (and in fact create some) jobs, that it did prevent catastrophic meltdown. he needs to point out the success in libya: successfully ousting a regime without a single american casualty. he has to highlight successes in afghanistan after his petraeus appointment. he got osama, too.

the truth is that he has had some significant legislative achievements, but hasn't done a good job of selling them to the public. there were, of course, a few big missteps as well, but on those counts obama is going to have to really lay the blame at the feet of congress (mainly on debt ceiling issue). in the next 12 months he needs to show himself as a confident and assertive leader, and demonstrate how he has helped the country and the economy. he has made it really difficult for himself because he has expended practically all of his political capital. but the achievements are there, he just needs to sell them.

of course, none of that might matter in a campaign against romney. imo, he's the only republican candidate with a legitimate shot to beat obama. let's face it -- the economy is still going to be in bad shape come november 2012 -- and romney can very easily sell himself as the sort of wall street type who can rescue the nation from the financial abyss. he can point to the political leadership experience in massachusetts. he also has shown enough centrist tendencies (maybe even if he disavows some) to keep the moderates happy.

really, it should be an easy selection for repubs but unfortunately too many loons are on the saddle. if they push through pArry (i don't think bachmann has a chance) they will get slaughtered. to be honest, i'm not even sure if pArry could hold down 40% of the vote (i know bachmann couldn't). romney, however, is a good candidate on all fronts, and would give them their best shot at victory.This is a solid post, I agree with everything you said here. Obama has a number of successful achievements, but he really needs to sell them hard.

I think it will be Romney in the end, and I do think he is the only one with at least an outside chance at beating Obama. His only hope is the economy, but it is something to hang his hat on since it's obviously not in very good shape. As Mbow said, Obama has to really go on the offensive starting in September regarding job creation. I am sure he will be all for a bi-partisan approach, because despite the lies that people like HabsAddict keep spouting, he is a lot more centrist and economically conservative than many people on the left were hoping for. The opposition will fight any job initiative tooth and nail because they want the economy to stay in shambles, so Obama will have to keep repeating every day, loudly and frequently, that they need to put the American people ahead of their political agenda.

As I said before, Rick Perry is a strong contender but he has pissed off the Karl Rove wing of the base, who are going to want to knock him out. This helps Romney as well, and it will be fascinating to see what happens here.

axlsalinger
08-24-2011, 03:06 PM
that's a fair point, in my opinion.What's a fair point, HabsAddict's sad attempt to pretend that Bush and Obama are of similar intelligence if you remove teleprompters from the equation?

zeke
08-24-2011, 03:22 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/24/news/economy/ceo_pledge_donations/index.htm

refreshing.

northernlou
08-24-2011, 03:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q&feature=player_embedded

more refreshments.....

"the way Bush has done it over the last 8 years ..." heh, it only took me 3 yrs"

MindzEye
08-24-2011, 04:02 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/24/news...ions/index.htm

refreshing.

Cute, but it will only magnify the influence of the financial industry CEO's that will be contributing large dollars and put politicians even deeper in their debt.

worm
08-24-2011, 04:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q&feature=player_embedded

more refreshments.....

"the way Bush has done it over the last 8 years ..." heh, it only took me 3 yrs"

remember the bush vs bush thing on john stewart show? that was classic

northernlou
08-24-2011, 04:20 PM
candidates do have a way with words don't they? Obama included. And for nostalgia's sake, here is the Bush vs Bush thing....

http://m.ikbis.com/shots/72195

MindzEye
08-24-2011, 04:36 PM
"the way Bush has done it over the last 8 years ..." heh, it only took me 3 yrs"

Yeah, but Bush did it from a position of surplus, not the massive deficit Obama had a head start with. That's far more impressive really.


On the side of this though, I love how conservatives in the U.S blatantly ignore the massive revenue shortfall Obama has had to deal with since day one. They waive their arms about his spending, but don't like to talk about the significantly lower revenues he's dealing with (especially considering that after 8 years of supply side tax policy at work, government revenues should have been through the roof according to their little theory)

TimHorton
08-24-2011, 05:34 PM
The left took every pause Bush made in a statement as proof that he was an idiot.

That and his brutal sodomy of the English language.

theREALkoreaboy
08-24-2011, 05:54 PM
u ever heard biden speak? every time he sounds like an idiot (which is frequently), they say its cute and endearing. like he's the crazy old uncle everyone loves. but when righties (allegedly) speak that way, they are morons, inevitably.

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-24-2011, 05:59 PM
u ever heard biden speak? every time he sounds like an idiot (which is frequently), they say its cute and endearing. like he's the crazy old uncle everyone loves. but when righties (allegedly) speak that way, they are morons, inevitably.

your left wing media bias paranoia is quite cute.

northernlou
08-24-2011, 06:09 PM
Yeah, but Bush did it from a position of surplus, not the massive deficit Obama had a head start with. That's far more impressive really.


On the side of this though, I love how conservatives in the U.S blatantly ignore the massive revenue shortfall Obama has had to deal with since day one. They waive their arms about his spending, but don't like to talk about the significantly lower revenues he's dealing with (especially considering that after 8 years of supply side tax policy at work, government revenues should have been through the roof according to their little theory)

We also like to talk about how the suddenly debt aware Obama, has operated for two years without a budget, the latest of which his own senate couldn't vote for. Anyhow, an unemployment rate of 8% like his 09' stimulus promised, might have helped those revenue's, but that didn't work out as advertised. At what point does Obama bear any responsibility for ballooning debt?

The narrative explaining Obama's inheritance misfortune has grown old. That, and running down his opposition is all he seems to have left.

MindzEye
08-24-2011, 06:48 PM
Obama definitely has responsibility for the ballooning debt, but the hand wringing and arm waiving while ignoring what got the U.S to this point is silly.

If anyone wants to blame Obama for not fixing the problem, have at it, it's a legitimate line of argument. But when the claim is that Obama is the problem, well that's just silly. It's a claim that falls apart under any sort of scrutiny. Same as that little dig of yours at him, it falls apart as soon as context gets added. To put this all another way and ask another question. "At what point does the failed fixes for Bush's mess make it Obama's mess?" I would answer "soon" because sooner or later, one of his core problems; not being able to beat the Republicans politically to get anything that he wants done to actually get done, has to fall on his shoulders as the abject failure it's sure looking like right now.

Clinton also dealt with an obstructionist Congress and he manhandled them. I've long contended that Obama's core problem was actually trying to be conciliatory with the Republican's at all.

Bleedsblue&white
08-24-2011, 06:58 PM
The Reps are in a bind; they've been fighting Obama every step of the way, afraid he might do well and gain popularity...but if they go to0 far in screwing him over while he's trying to fix the country/win the election, the people will not be happy with them anyways.
They only way for the GOP to win is to let the guy do what he wants.

lecoqsportif
08-24-2011, 07:09 PM
hee hee

http://www.theonion.com/articles/whitehot-gop-race-down-to-two-mentally-ill-people,21196/

blacksheep
08-24-2011, 07:58 PM
no dumber than the press declares every other major republican to be i guess.
Yeah, because it's the press' fault that Ann Coulter thinks we invaded Egypt, or that Canada joined the U.S. in Vietnam. Them "liberal" reporters convinced Dan Quayle that Idaho's potato has an "e" on the end of it. If only the press didn't tell Sarah Palin that you can actually know everything about American foreign policy on Russia by looking at them from Alaska. Maybe if Michelle Bachman wasn't so hounded by MSNBC staff, she wouldn't claim that God talks to her directly.
Or... maybe the Republicans just need to stop picking idiots to represent them.

blacksheep
08-24-2011, 08:09 PM
The left took every pause Bush made in a statement as proof that he was an idiot.
Yeah, it was the pauses. Of course.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpEPd4x_mPE


"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."


"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that."

Yeah. It was the pauses. For sure...

Habsy
08-24-2011, 10:34 PM
Geez, here we go again.

Obama is a tool, Jimmy Carter incarnate. Intelligent? Sure. Weak? Absolutely.

Problem is most of the Republicans coming out of the woodwork are also tools.

I ****ing hate American Politics.

theREALkoreaboy
08-24-2011, 11:14 PM
what do you hate more, habsy- people or american politics?

Habsy
08-24-2011, 11:24 PM
One is the root cause of the other. The answer is obvious.

Habsy
08-24-2011, 11:27 PM
Oh and Berezin is truly weeping. Wow, two weeks of total suckage.

mbow30
08-25-2011, 12:01 AM
Geez, here we go again.

Obama is a tool, Jimmy Carter incarnate. Intelligent? Sure. Weak? Absolutely.

Problem is most of the Republicans coming out of the woodwork are also tools.

I ****ing hate American Politics.

i agree with you.

but here's a question: what would you say if obama had, early in his administration while the dems held the house, passed what he wanted rather than trying to appear conciliatory? if tarp spending was $1.5trn as people like krugman had said it should be, and if the dems had imposed regulations like left LEANING (from a relative perspective) economists like krugman have called for. i don't ask to be antagonistic. just wondering what you think you'd be saying if obama had done what he wanted, rather than trying to be 'bi/post partisan'

northernlou
08-25-2011, 01:02 AM
Obama definitely has responsibility for the ballooning debt, but the hand wringing and arm waiving while ignoring what got the U.S to this point is silly.

If anyone wants to blame Obama for not fixing the problem, have at it, it's a legitimate line of argument. But when the claim is that Obama is the problem, well that's just silly. It's a claim that falls apart under any sort of scrutiny. Same as that little dig of yours at him, it falls apart as soon as context gets added. To put this all another way and ask another question. "At what point does the failed fixes for Bush's mess make it Obama's mess?" I would answer "soon" because sooner or later, one of his core problems; not being able to beat the Republicans politically to get anything that he wants done to actually get done, has to fall on his shoulders as the abject failure it's sure looking like right now.

Clinton also dealt with an obstructionist Congress and he manhandled them. I've long contended that Obama's core problem was actually trying to be conciliatory with the Republican's at all.

"But when the claim is that Obama is the problem"

You must be thinking of someone else, I can't take credit for that.

those failed fixes as you call them, are reflected by an additional 4plus trillion $ he's added to the debt. That's my dig, the contribution to national debt that candidate Obama raised alarm over, called unpatriotic, and later piled it on at record levels. If Obama can score political points with that rhetoric, he's fair game now by his own hand. Which you seem to agree with anyway, provided I don't blame the whole fiscal mess on Obama, which I don't. His share is enough to threaten his re-election on it's very own.

MindzEye
08-25-2011, 01:25 AM
"But when the claim is that Obama is the problem"

You must be thinking of someone else, I can't take credit for that.

It's a common rallying cry from the right wing in recent months.



those failed fixes as you call them, are reflected by an additional 4plus trillion $ he's added to the debt.

That's the rub. Sure they're reflected in the additional debt, he's had little choice in the matter short of incredible levels of spending cuts. The one bit of "out of control" spending that can be hung on him is the stimulus package, but that's a matter of economic ideology. The possibility of the U.S economy contracting significantly in the absence of significant deficit spending was extremely high. Like Msun noted, most top economists argued at the time that the stimulus was actually much too small. The 4 trillion in additional debt is imo more indicative of massive revenue contraction than it is a matter of out of control spending.



That's my dig, the contribution to national debt that candidate Obama raised alarm over, called unpatriotic, and later piled it on at record levels.

Well, let's be real here....Bush raised national debt during a period of mediocre growth, but at least it was growth. Revenues were generally strong and his deficits were based on policy decisions he had the luxury of making for himself, not those heaped on him by a derelict previous administration.


If Obama can score political points with that rhetoric, he's fair game now by his own hand. Which you seem to agree with anyway, provided I don't blame the whole fiscal mess on Obama, which I don't. His share is enough to threaten his re-election on it's very own.

and this is fair enough, though as I noted above I think that a clear distinction has to be made about the environments the two debt numbers were "achieved" in.

northernlou
08-25-2011, 02:34 AM
Here's a well detailed paper from the Brookings Institute titled, "President Barack Obama’s First Two Years: Policy Accomplishments, Political Difficulties" - Nov 4, 2010

a few highlights but I recommend reading the whole thing.


************************************************** ******

During his first two years in office, President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress compiled a substantial record of policy accomplishment—the economic stimulus, bringing the financial system back from the brink of collapse, rescuing two automakers, universal health care, sweeping reform of financial regulation, and major changes in student loan programs, among many others. Nevertheless, the political standing of both the president and congressional Democrats slipped steadily through much of this period, and the voters administered a substantial rebuke in the November 2010 midterm elections....


What went wrong? There are four broad schools of thought.

The first— popular among mainstream liberals, and the most supportive of the president—focuses on the unusual quantity and nature of problems that Obama inherited when he took the oath of office......

In reality, the divide between the parties and between red and blue America went well beyond incivility to embrace disagreements on core principles and conceptions of how the world works. Bridging this divide, if possible at all, would have taken much more than a change of tone in the White House. It would have required, as well, a policy agenda that breached traditional partisan bounds. But there was little in Obama’s agenda that corresponded to Bill Clinton’s heterodox positions on crime, welfare, trade, and fiscal restraint. Instead, Obama synthesized and advocated policies representing the consensus within the Democratic Party. Republicans rejected that agenda as a basis for reaching common ground.....


The second explanation, associated with the left wing of the Democratic Party, argues that Obama failed politically, not because he was too partisan, but because he wasn’t partisan enough; not because he went too far, but because he didn’t go far enough

There is something to this critique as well. Given the intensity of the polarization that predated his presidency, Obama did underestimate the difficulty of mitigating it. Even the White House’s strongest defenders concede that the health care debate went on much longer than it should have, with negative consequences for the rest of Obama’s agenda. And his administration’s kid-glove treatment of big banks and AIG was morally and politically tone-deaf....

For the most part, however, the critique from the left fails the test of political realism. The administration couldn’t have gotten a larger stimulus bill, even if it had pushed hard; nor could it have passed health reform with a public option, let alone the liberal beau ideal, a single-payer system. The reason is the same in both cases: not only were Republicans unanimously opposed, but so were many Democrats. What the liberals overlook is that unlike the Republican Party, Democrats are a diverse ideological coalition, split roughly 40/40/20 among liberals, moderates, and conservatives at the grassroots level. In the country as a whole, moreover, liberals constitute only one fifth of the electorate and cannot hope to succeed outside a coalition with Americans to their right.....


There is also a third explanation, a critique from the right: while Obama campaigned as a moderate conciliator, he governed as a liberal activist, undermining the possibility of bipartisan cooperation and preventing himself from overcoming the divide between Red and Blue America. His efforts to bring Republicans into the conversation were largely cosmetic and were inconsistent with the role he allowed House Democratic leaders to play in the legislative process.

As we’ll see, there are some elements of truth in this critique as well. There was indeed a tension at the heart of the Obama campaign between the rhetoric of post-partisanship and the substance of the agenda. Once in office, Obama could have tried harder to restrain Democratic partisanship in the House and to build Republican concerns into his health care proposals.

Nonetheless, one overriding fact undermines the plausibility of the critique from the right. After their defeat in 2008, Republicans quickly reached a consensus on the cause: voters had punished them, not because they had been too conservative, but rather because they hadn’t been conservative enough. They had come to Washington to cut spending and limit government, but under George W. Bush, they concluded, they had become the reverse—a party that used government programs to cement its majority....


In this paper, I will argue for a fourth explanation. The gist of it is this: Yes, American history is replete with examples of presidents and parties who experience political difficulties in hard economic times, only to regain public esteem as the economy regains its balance. But there is more to the losses that President Obama and the Democratic Party suffered in November 2010: the public punished them, not only for high unemployment and slow growth, but also for what it regarded as sins of both commission and omission. The White House and congressional leaders pursued an agenda that the people mostly rejected while overlooking measures that might well have improved the economy more, and almost certainly would have been more popular, than what they did instead. In short, while Obama was dealt a bad hand, he proceeded to misplay it, making the political backlash even worse than it had to be.

There's far more to this paper than I've cherry picked.....so enjoy the read

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010/1104_obama_galston.aspx

HabsAddict
08-25-2011, 04:17 AM
Here's a well detailed paper from the Brookings Institute titled, "President Barack Obama’s First Two Years: Policy Accomplishments, Political Difficulties" - Nov 4, 2010



Interesting but a bit biased. He's soft-peddling some of obama's failures.......and he still whacks him a few.

WHO is that paper written by?

~~~~~~~~~~~

William A. Galston

Senior Fellow, Governance Studies

The Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in Governance Studies

A former policy advisor to President Clinton and presidential candidates, Bill Galston is an expert on domestic policy, political campaigns, and elections. His current research focuses on designing a new social contract and the implications of political polarization.

http://www.brookings.edu/experts/galstonw.aspx


William Galston is a political theorist. He is the Saul I Stern Professor of Civic Engagement and the director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at the School of Public Policy of University of Maryland, College Park. In addition, he is a Senior Fellow of Governance at the Brookings Institution. He was also a senior adviser to President of the United States Bill Clinton on domestic policy, and has also been employed by the presidential campaigns of Al Gore and Walter Mondale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Galston

MindzEye
08-25-2011, 04:46 AM
In short, while Obama was dealt a bad hand, he proceeded to misplay it, making the political backlash even worse than it had to be.

I agree with that. I've long stated that Obama needed to go after Wall Street as his first major action as President. Putting a rope on them (raising leverage requirements, regulating some of the more exotic financial instruments like CDO's & CDS') would have been an easy sell to the public, would likely have forced the Republicans into a corner where to not support it in the wake of the financial collapse would have been extremely damaging to public perception of the party...but....

Wall Street firms were among Obama's largest donors.

I only step in to defend Obama here when I find him being criticized for something silly, or plain inaccurate. He's done more than enough critique worthy. The worst part is, the current crop of Republicans are a huge catastrophe waiting to happen.

SundinsTooth
08-25-2011, 08:12 AM
What's a fair point, HabsAddict's sad attempt to pretend that Bush and Obama are of similar intelligence if you remove teleprompters from the equation?

That it is fair game to go on the offensive that Obama overuses his teleprompter.

Habsy
08-25-2011, 09:11 AM
i agree with you.

but here's a question: what would you say if obama had, early in his administration while the dems held the house, passed what he wanted rather than trying to appear conciliatory? if tarp spending was $1.5trn as people like krugman had said it should be, and if the dems had imposed regulations like left LEANING (from a relative perspective) economists like krugman have called for. i don't ask to be antagonistic. just wondering what you think you'd be saying if obama had done what he wanted, rather than trying to be 'bi/post partisan'

I'd probably still think he was a tool but have some modicum of respect that he did it his way whether I agreed with it or not. There are plenty of people I disagree with vehemently but still have respect for because they sack up and do things their way. It is not uncommon to have respect for someone you dislike. 20/20 hindsight is showing half-measures did nothing to alleviate the problems facing the economy and employment here.

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 09:25 AM
Interesting but a bit biased. He's soft-peddling some of obama's failures.......and he still whacks him a few.

WHO is that paper written by?

~~~~~~~~~~~

William A. Galston

Senior Fellow, Governance Studies

The Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in Governance Studies

A former policy advisor to President Clinton and presidential candidates, Bill Galston is an expert on domestic policy, political campaigns, and elections. His current research focuses on designing a new social contract and the implications of political polarization.

http://www.brookings.edu/experts/galstonw.aspx


William Galston is a political theorist. He is the Saul I Stern Professor of Civic Engagement and the director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at the School of Public Policy of University of Maryland, College Park. In addition, he is a Senior Fellow of Governance at the Brookings Institution. He was also a senior adviser to President of the United States Bill Clinton on domestic policy, and has also been employed by the presidential campaigns of Al Gore and Walter Mondale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Galston
The same discoveries were made about your linked sources, HypocriteAddict. But as quoted in my signature, you are NOT objective. Carry on.

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 09:27 AM
I've long stated that Obama needed to go after Wall Street as his first major action as President.
Absolutely. Right for their jugular. It is the single most disappointing thing about his presidency to me.

corksens
08-25-2011, 10:52 AM
I wonder how long the "Yea, but Bush was ...... " rebuttal will be used by the Left.

5 years? 10 years? More?

I mean, we're almost at 8 years for Mike Harris and he was only a premiere.

zeke
08-25-2011, 11:11 AM
It's understandable that the right would like to forget Bush asap, but nobody else will forget the worst president in history. And as long as the right keeps trying to blame Obama for problems created by Bush, then the left will continue to point out where the fault actually lies. Especially when the people challenging Obama in the next election will all be taking Bush's worst policies and repeating them at an even higher level.

And thankfully, it seems like the average american joe isn't quite as retarded as the loudscreamers would have you believe:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/25/with-pessimism-growing-on-economy-more-americans-still-blame-bush-over-obama/


More people now believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows, and confidence in Obama's handling of the economy has slipped from just a few months ago, notably among fellow Democrats.

The survey found that 86 percent of adults see the economy as "poor," up from 80 percent in June. About half -- 49 percent -- said it worsened just in the past month. Only 27 percent responded that way in the June survey.

That can't be good news for a president revving up his re-election campaign. Yet there are several hopeful signs for Obama.

Despite the perception of a weakening recovery, there has been no significant change in the number of people who say he deserves re-election: 47 percent as opposed to 48 percent two months ago. That's a statistical dead heat with those who favor a change in the White House.

And more Americans still blame former President George W. Bush rather than Obama for the economic distress. Some 31 percent put the bulk of the blame on Obama, while 51 percent point to his Republican predecessor.

corksens
08-25-2011, 11:35 AM
So an infinite period of time. Nice. That should adequately absolve Obama and any other President of resposibility.

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 11:36 AM
And more Americans still blame former President George W. Bush rather than Obama for the economic distress. Some 31 percent put the bulk of the blame on Obama, while 51 percent point to his Republican predecessor.
IT'S A CONSPIRACY BY THE LEFTIST MEDIA!!!


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/25/with-pessimism-growing-on-economy-more-americans-still-blame-bush-over-obama/
Oh wait...

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 11:37 AM
So an infinite period of time. Nice. That should adequately absolve Obama and any other President of resposibility.
As Zeke stated, as long as the right will blame Obama for what was caused by Bush, then the corrections will continue. If the misplaced blame will continue for an infinite period of time, so will the corrections.

Habsy
08-25-2011, 11:43 AM
It's understandable that the right would like to forget Bush asap, but nobody else will forget the worst president in history. And as long as the right keeps trying to blame Obama for problems created by Bush, then the left will continue to point out where the fault actually lies. Especially when the people challenging Obama in the next election will all be taking Bush's worst policies and repeating them at an even higher level.

And thankfully, it seems like the average american joe isn't quite as retarded as the loudscreamers would have you believe:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/25/with-pessimism-growing-on-economy-more-americans-still-blame-bush-over-obama/

Did you just quote something from Foxnews? Shit the world will indeed end in 2012. One catastrophe after another. Hurricanes, Floods, Earthquakes, zeke posting fox... WHEN WILL THE MADNESS END?!?

Volcanologist
08-25-2011, 11:44 AM
Some 31 percent put the bulk of the blame on Obama, while 51 percent point to his Republican predecessor.


The other 18% blame Paul Revere, who tried to warn the British about Obama using his magic bags of tea.

Habsy
08-25-2011, 11:45 AM
It is really laughable to see the apologists out in full force... still. I can see the campaign slogan now... Yeah our President was a D+ but his predecessor was AN F! Vote Obama.

Habsy
08-25-2011, 11:46 AM
The other 18% blame Paul Revere, who tried to warn the British about Obama using his magic bags of tea.

Dude you weren't supposed to reveal that publicly. What's next? You're going to give out the secret handshake?

Habsy
08-25-2011, 11:48 AM
As Zeke stated, as long as the right will blame Obama for what was caused by Bush, then the corrections will continue. If the misplaced blame will continue for an infinite period of time, so will the corrections.

So is it your belief that the policies implemented to correct those issues apparently caused solely by Bush have nothing to do with the state of the current US Economy etc?

corksens
08-25-2011, 11:48 AM
As Zeke stated, as long as the right will blame Obama for what was caused by Bush, then the corrections will continue. If the misplaced blame will continue for an infinite period of time, so will the corrections.But what you are saying is totally unquantifiable...

JaysCyYoung
08-25-2011, 11:57 AM
Yeah, one cannot prove a double negative. The left in this instance is basically saying "well prove that George didn't cause the economic downturn!"

Habsy
08-25-2011, 12:09 PM
Two and a half years later I am more interested in what is known as the Japanese way of dealing with a problem... just fix it. If the Dims could do that I am a happy camper, if the Pubs can do it, I would be equally happy. I am not in the oil sector, while my brother is and is making obscene money, I have been losing money for the past 3 years. I'd like that to stop.

mbow30
08-25-2011, 12:11 PM
well i don't think it's a stretch to say that the downturn was caused by some combination of bush's policies (tax cuts, military spending increases, medicare spending increases), or lack thereof (regulatory scaleback).

in fact, i don't even think that it's contestable that the crash happened because of de-regulation, and the combination of increased spending and lowered revenues.

blame doesn't fall squarely at bush's feet because military spends are nothing new, taxes have incrementally decreased since the 1980s and there was a host of de-regulation under clinton (including a pretty ill advised and ill fated home buyers/mortgage program).

these things aren't really contestable.

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 01:10 PM
So is it your belief that the policies implemented to correct those issues apparently caused solely by Bush have nothing to do with the state of the current US Economy etc?
To the degree in the crapper it is? No.
Would the economy still be down today if, presumably, Bush Jr. didn't contribute his idiocy? Yes, but nowhere near as bad. We both know and admit that the economy is cyclical. It goes up and down all the time. There have been recessions before, and there will be again.
But this one was global, and closer to the edge of oblivion than any before.
Was it ONLY because of Bush Jr.? Of course not. But that's not what's being argued right now.
What's being argued is how come Bush Jr. is entirely exonerated for the part he played in accelerating this depression? How come it's now all magically Obama's fault?

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 01:14 PM
But what you are saying is totally unquantifiable...
No it's not.
The longer Obama is blamed for Bush Jr.'s mistakes, the longer Obama gets defended by the facts. Indisputable, despite the talking heads of your media machine.

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 01:18 PM
Yeah, one cannot prove a double negative. The left in this instance is basically saying "well prove that George didn't cause the economic downturn!"
Wrong. Economists have already made note of the crucial errors that lead to this global collapse, and many of those were decisions made under Bush Jr.'s watch. Policies he enacted, wars he created, or regulation he refused to, lead to where we are today.
Yet today, all the talk is: "but Obama didn't fix it, so it's his fault entirely" as if the fact he couldn't / didn't fix it proves that he caused it.

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 01:30 PM
Two and a half years later I am more interested in what is known as the Japanese way of dealing with a problem... just fix it. If the Dims could do that I am a happy camper, if the Pubs can do it, I would be equally happy. I am not in the oil sector, while my brother is and is making obscene money, I have been losing money for the past 3 years. I'd like that to stop.
And who wouldn't want that to stop. Understandable.
I'm disappointed that Obama tried to "fix it" by bringing the other side in to create a bi-partisan fix. The tshirt that says "doesn't play well with others" comes to mind. The current batch of tea-party looneys and Republicans simply refuse to put aside ideologies to come together for the common good. Everybody recognizes this - except members of those respective parties and Obama himself.
So the effort was a complete waste, and only served to give the R's a chance to gain some ground back from him.
But let me point to your pet name for them: the "Dims." Despite claiming that you'd be happy if they'd just fix it, you still call them the "Dims." Are you being disingenuous? Or is your attitude toward his party indicative of why it will not be fixed as easily as you'd like?
Is there a "Dim" you would have preferred over Obama? Or are they all just "Dims" to you?
I call B.S. on your wish that he just fix it as a reason to criticize his record so far, because if the Pubs, whom you clearly prefer over "Dims," were not so combative and argumentative and obstructionist with a "Dim" president who was simply trying to bridge the gap between them for a bipartisan solution, then it WOULD be fixed by now.
Your only fault with Obama should be the same as mine, then: that he actually and inaccurately believed that he could bring them together for a solution, when he should have simply taken the power the electorate blessed him with and went for the jugular to right the ship, in spite of their screaming heads.
But then, you'd have to find another reason to call him a "Dim," and that might still determine his record to be disappointing to you. Sorry, Obama, you simply can't please them all.

corksens
08-25-2011, 01:37 PM
No it's not.
The longer Obama is blamed for Bush Jr.'s mistakes, the longer Obama gets defended by the facts. Indisputable, despite the talking heads of your media machine.You're not getting it (unsurprisingly).


Say you and I are on a road trip from Ottawa to Toronto. I take the wheel and leave Ottawa. Get onto the 416 towards the 401 but take the wrong exit and go 401 East towards Cornwall. Half way down the highway we stop and you take over the wheel. At that time you know we are going in the wrong direction but continue to keep going.

Who's fault is it when we get to Cornwall? Me for steering us in the wrong direction, or you for failing to turn the car around?

corksens
08-25-2011, 01:39 PM
What's being argued is how come Bush Jr. is entirely exonerated for the part he played in accelerating this depression? How come it's now all magically Obama's fault? Actually, no one is arguing that it's all Obama's fault.

What we are debating is the notion that whenever Obama is criticized (rightly or wrongly) that his defenders always trot out the Bush 'exuse'.

zeke
08-25-2011, 01:42 PM
Obama definitely has responsibility for the ballooning debt, but the hand wringing and arm waiving while ignoring what got the U.S to this point is silly.

If anyone wants to blame Obama for not fixing the problem, have at it, it's a legitimate line of argument. But when the claim is that Obama is the problem, well that's just silly. It's a claim that falls apart under any sort of scrutiny. Same as that little dig of yours at him, it falls apart as soon as context gets added. To put this all another way and ask another question. "At what point does the failed fixes for Bush's mess make it Obama's mess?" I would answer "soon" because sooner or later, one of his core problems; not being able to beat the Republicans politically to get anything that he wants done to actually get done, has to fall on his shoulders as the abject failure it's sure looking like right now.

Clinton also dealt with an obstructionist Congress and he manhandled them. I've long contended that Obama's core problem was actually trying to be conciliatory with the Republican's at all.

Not sure it's going to matter in the end. Obama has been able to get his big policies through - the healthcare bill, the libya airstrikes, etc. - and the republicans seem to have finally hung themselves with their own rope on this whole debt ceiling thing.

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 01:43 PM
You're not getting it (unsurprisingly).


Say you and I are on a road trip from Ottawa to Toronto. I take the wheel and leave Ottawa. Get onto the 416 towards the 401 but take the wrong exit and go 401 East towards Cornwall. Half way down the highway we stop and you take over the wheel. At that time you know we are going in the wrong direction but continue to keep going.

Who's fault is it when we get to Cornwall? Me for steering us in the wrong direction, or you for failing to turn the car around?
An overly simplistic analogy for what truly happened, but let's use your example anyways.
So it's your assertion that your original mistake to take the Eastbound exit to the 401 is now null and void, and all the blame simply falls to me?
The exoneration of the idiot who can't remember the "Fool me once" routine is astounding. All his mistakes are wiped clean now, because the filibusters, smear campaigns and conspiracy theorists at Faux News had nothing at all to do with it.
You guys are incredible.

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 01:44 PM
Actually, no one is arguing that it's all Obama's fault.
Uh... actually, you are.
See your last 416 to 401 analogy.

zeke
08-25-2011, 01:44 PM
Actually, no one is arguing that it's all Obama's fault.

What we are debating is the notion that whenever Obama is criticized (rightly or wrongly) that his defenders always trot out the Bush 'exuse'.

When Obama is criticized using current economic numbers compared to historical economic numbers, without any consideration of the economic situation which he inherited, then that absolutely relevant factor must always, always be used in response.

It's called proper context.

zeke
08-25-2011, 01:46 PM
But what you are saying is totally unquantifiable...

What?

It's very easy to quantify the defecit, debt, unemployment, jobs, and economic size and growth rates which Obama inherited.

axlsalinger
08-25-2011, 01:48 PM
You're not getting it (unsurprisingly).


Say you and I are on a road trip from Ottawa to Toronto. I take the wheel and leave Ottawa. Get onto the 416 towards the 401 but take the wrong exit and go 401 East towards Cornwall. Half way down the highway we stop and you take over the wheel. At that time you know we are going in the wrong direction but continue to keep going.

Who's fault is it when we get to Cornwall? Me for steering us in the wrong direction, or you for failing to turn the car around?Such a cute analogy, but what about the fact that you drove the car into the ditch and damaged it, and then your cronies set up roadblock after roadblock trying to prevent a tow truck from getting there to fix it?

Listen, the answer here is pretty simple. This was a particularly bad downtown that was caused in large part by Bush's policies over 8 years. While there is no way to simply "turn the car around" during his first couple of years, Obama's had long enough now that he also has to take some responsibility. As do the people who refuse to let him get anything done.

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 01:55 PM
Such a cute analogy, but what about the fact that you drove the car into the ditch and damaged it, and then your cronies set up roadblock after roadblock trying to prevent a tow truck from getting there to fix it?
Or how about a discussion of the gas wasted between the Eastbound 401 exit to the time I take the wheel? Can Bush Jr. be blamed for that, or would that be exonerated with the claim "but you didn't say anything as I was taking the wrong lane in the first place."
Nevermind the fact that in a more accurate analogy, Obama wasn't even in the car at the time.


Obama's had long enough now that he also has to take some responsibility. As do the people who refuse to let him get anything done.
... and fight tooth and nail to continue to refuse to let him get anything done. Debt Ceiling, for example.
But hey, nothing Bush Jr. did matters now, because it's still not fixed. Wow...

zeke
08-25-2011, 01:57 PM
I like that analogy.

You're on a road trip with an acquaintance driving (and each of you have another buddy in the backseat), and he drives the car into a deep ravine that takes 8 minutes to hit the bottom and wreck the car.

Then he and his buddy criticize you for not driving that wrecked car back up the ravine and cruising down the highway 2 minutes later, even as they've got you in a headlock and a full nelson.

solid analogy, corks.

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 02:01 PM
solid analogy, corks.
I would expect no less from Mr. "Lay off the personal attacks, shithead."

corksens
08-25-2011, 02:07 PM
Analogies are rarely perfect - but the point was that it's both drivers fault, and the longer that person B continues driving in the wrong direction, the more fault he takes on.

You guys seem to think I'm trying to blame Obama only. I'm not. But after 2+ years and absolutely no improvement (you could argue things are worse) he has to take some blame. But you guys can't do that. Instead of criticizing when reasonable, you go into auto attack Bush mode.

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 02:10 PM
Analogies are rarely perfect - but the point was that it's both drivers fault, and the longer that person B continues driving in the wrong direction, the more fault he takes on.

You guys seem to think I'm trying to blame Obama only. I'm not. But after 2+ years and absolutely no improvement (you could argue things are worse) he has to take some blame.
So now that even your overly simplistic analogy has exposed this point to an even greater degree, you change your position?? Now, both drivers can take blame??
Incredible.

corksens
08-25-2011, 03:05 PM
Incredible is right.

I. Never. Changed. Positions.

You are literally retarded. And I'm using the word "literally" in the true meaning. I can't fathom any person without serious developmental issues being as incapable of debate as you.

blaghaus
08-25-2011, 03:18 PM
Of course the economy is "worse". It's a depression, or if you are a glass half full kind of guy, a deep recession. No matter who took on the presidency was going to be on to a loser. Has Obama's policies helped? Maybe in the short term, the stimulus might have helped. But there needs to be a serious discussion across most western democracies about what to do, and I don't see that discussion happening.

corksens
08-25-2011, 03:21 PM
Of course the economy is "worse". It's a depression, or if you are a glass half full kind of guy, a deep recession. No matter who took on the presidency was going to be on to a loser. Has Obama's policies helped? Maybe in the short term, the stimulus might have helped. But there needs to be a serious discussion across most western democracies about what to do, and I don't see that discussion happening.The problem is that nothing has helped - not even in the short term, really.

The Obama lovers on this board say it just proves how bad the Bush years were and the Obama haters say it proves how inept he is. I think it's both, but eventually the Bush crutch can't be leaned on anymore.

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 03:28 PM
Your "all or nothing" analogy indicates otherwise:

Who's fault is it when we get to Cornwall? Me for steering us in the wrong direction, or you for failing to turn the car around?
One or the other were the only choices you offered. Not both.


but eventually the Bush crutch can't be leaned on anymore.
The "Bush crutch" created some permanent damage that won't simply disappear with a few elections. That damage isn't simply a crutch. It's a blotch on the history that is blatant and large enough to continue to refer to, and learn from, in the future.

MindzEye
08-25-2011, 03:42 PM
The problem is that nothing has helped - not even in the short term, really.


Well, that's simply not true. There's a reason why a lot of (wrong) economists were calling this a double dip recession. The Stimulus pushed a lot of economic indicators upward (GDP growth being the main one). The growth wasn't sustained (mainly because employment has never been adequately addressed) but there's plenty of evidence that Obama's stimulus helped significantly in the short term. The main problem with it is that it wasn't large enough. The debt hawks will argue that last point, but if it wasn't true 2 things would have occurred that simply haven't. 1) There would be rampant inflation...there isn't 2) yields on treasury bonds would have gone through the roof...they haven't, they're actually yielding a historically low rate of interest for buyers of U.S debt.

Both of those points suggest that the Keynesians are right about this, that the problem with the stimulus was that it was far too small to do what was necessary to kick start the economy, and we see the product of that in the data that lead many to call this a "double dip". If the growth from the stimulus would have been significant enough to kick start private hiring, the U.S would be on there way out of this right now.

corksens
08-25-2011, 03:51 PM
Your "all or nothing" analogy indicates otherwiseIt was a question. I didn't give an answer.

corksens
08-25-2011, 03:52 PM
The "Bush crutch" created some permanent damage that won't simply disappear with a few elections. That damage isn't simply a crutch. It's a blotch on the history that is blatant and large enough to continue to refer to, and learn from, in the future. A few elections? You mean 8 years? Just short of a decade? Are you serious.

This is why I asked how long will the Bush crutch be used. I guess you've answered that for me...indefinitely.

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 04:04 PM
A few elections? You mean 8 years? Just short of a decade? Are you serious.

This is why I asked how long will the Bush crutch be used. I guess you've answered that for me...indefinitely.
I did say "won't."
If people will continue to blame Obama for something Bush Jr. was responsible for, then the facts will continue to absolve Obama.
Sorry that truth is not palatable to you.
You want it to end sooner? End the lynching of Obama over Bush Jr. mistakes.

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 04:07 PM
It was a question. I didn't give an answer.
Regardless of your inference, you can't remove blame for the initial wrong turn, as some are trying to do here.

theREALkoreaboy
08-25-2011, 05:01 PM
i'm not removing blame for mistakes made under the previous administration. W made his share. but hopeychange has made MORE, and it is nonsensical to suggest almost three years later now that he is still the key reason why the economy is a mess.

do you understand that when W left office, america's debt-to-GDP ratio was a little under 60%. in just three years under hopeychange, it has gone to over 100%. do you realize how frikkin' MASSIVE that is, and how catastrophic that is?

zeke
08-25-2011, 05:03 PM
yeah, now recalculate all the way to ONE MONTH after W left office.

Habsy
08-25-2011, 05:06 PM
To the degree in the crapper it is? No.
Would the economy still be down today if, presumably, Bush Jr. didn't contribute his idiocy? Yes, but nowhere near as bad. We both know and admit that the economy is cyclical. It goes up and down all the time. There have been recessions before, and there will be again.
But this one was global, and closer to the edge of oblivion than any before.
Was it ONLY because of Bush Jr.? Of course not. But that's not what's being argued right now.
What's being argued is how come Bush Jr. is entirely exonerated for the part he played in accelerating this depression? How come it's now all magically Obama's fault?

W. has never and will never be exonerated from his administrations lack of proper regulations and their being highly complicit in the fiasco that ensued. That, however, does not exonerate Obama and his administration for taking the wrong steps to try and correct the situation. The state of the US economy today is highly reflective of the programs and policies of this administration. A man can injury another man but the doctor can still kill that man with misdiagnosis and malpractice.

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-25-2011, 05:10 PM
The problem is that nothing has helped - not even in the short term, really.

The Obama lovers on this board say it just proves how bad the Bush years were and the Obama haters say it proves how inept he is. I think it's both, but eventually the Bush crutch can't be leaned on anymore.

I don't know the present Canadian govt still yaps about the Liberal's use of a paltry amount of money to save Canada. Seems those crutches stick around a long time.

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-25-2011, 05:12 PM
i'm not removing blame for mistakes made under the previous administration. W made his share. but hopeychange has made MORE, and it is nonsensical to suggest almost three years later now that he is still the key reason why the economy is a mess.

do you understand that when W left office, america's debt-to-GDP ratio was a little under 60%. in just three years under hopeychange, it has gone to over 100%. do you realize how frikkin' MASSIVE that is, and how catastrophic that is?

Obama didnt start any ILLEGAL wars which drove up DEBTS MASSIVELY.

Habsy
08-25-2011, 05:12 PM
Such a cute analogy, but what about the fact that you drove the car into the ditch and damaged it, and then your cronies set up roadblock after roadblock trying to prevent a tow truck from getting there to fix it?

Listen, the answer here is pretty simple. This was a particularly bad downtown that was caused in large part by Bush's policies over 8 years. While there is no way to simply "turn the car around" during his first couple of years, Obama's had long enough now that he also has to take some responsibility. As do the people who refuse to let him get anything done.

Precisely.

My issue with Obama is half-measures. If you are going to **** me do it big (bring on the jokes). Seriously. The stimulus? Not big enough. Half-measure. Healthcare? A frankenstein of a bill. Half-measures. Continued tax cuts in the face of astronomical debt? Half-measures.

The only full measures are him being a total hypocrite and a liar in renewing the Patriot Act, Gitmo still being open and still fighting two wars even though Bin-Laden is dead.

There is no change, there is no fresh thinking. I am still getting ****ed the old fashion way, little at a time and no foreplay.

Habsy
08-25-2011, 05:12 PM
Obama didnt start any ILLEGAL wars which drove up DEBTS MASSIVELY.

He didn't stop them either now did he.

Habsy
08-25-2011, 05:18 PM
And who wouldn't want that to stop. Understandable.
I'm disappointed that Obama tried to "fix it" by bringing the other side in to create a bi-partisan fix. The tshirt that says "doesn't play well with others" comes to mind. The current batch of tea-party looneys and Republicans simply refuse to put aside ideologies to come together for the common good. Everybody recognizes this - except members of those respective parties and Obama himself.
So the effort was a complete waste, and only served to give the R's a chance to gain some ground back from him.
But let me point to your pet name for them: the "Dims." Despite claiming that you'd be happy if they'd just fix it, you still call them the "Dims." Are you being disingenuous? Or is your attitude toward his party indicative of why it will not be fixed as easily as you'd like?
Is there a "Dim" you would have preferred over Obama? Or are they all just "Dims" to you?
I call B.S. on your wish that he just fix it as a reason to criticize his record so far, because if the Pubs, whom you clearly prefer over "Dims," were not so combative and argumentative and obstructionist with a "Dim" president who was simply trying to bridge the gap between them for a bipartisan solution, then it WOULD be fixed by now.
Your only fault with Obama should be the same as mine, then: that he actually and inaccurately believed that he could bring them together for a solution, when he should have simply taken the power the electorate blessed him with and went for the jugular to right the ship, in spite of their screaming heads.
But then, you'd have to find another reason to call him a "Dim," and that might still determine his record to be disappointing to you. Sorry, Obama, you simply can't please them all.

Ugh

Habsy
08-25-2011, 05:19 PM
And the reason I call them Pubs is not for Republican but because the majority remind me of drunken buffoons you see at your local neighborhood Pub. Just for the record.

Habsy
08-25-2011, 05:21 PM
Well, that's simply not true. There's a reason why a lot of (wrong) economists were calling this a double dip recession. The Stimulus pushed a lot of economic indicators upward (GDP growth being the main one). The growth wasn't sustained (mainly because employment has never been adequately addressed) but there's plenty of evidence that Obama's stimulus helped significantly in the short term. The main problem with it is that it wasn't large enough. The debt hawks will argue that last point, but if it wasn't true 2 things would have occurred that simply haven't. 1) There would be rampant inflation...there isn't 2) yields on treasury bonds would have gone through the roof...they haven't, they're actually yielding a historically low rate of interest for buyers of U.S debt.

Both of those points suggest that the Keynesians are right about this, that the problem with the stimulus was that it was far too small to do what was necessary to kick start the economy, and we see the product of that in the data that lead many to call this a "double dip". If the growth from the stimulus would have been significant enough to kick start private hiring, the U.S would be on there way out of this right now.

To be more precise, the Keynesians weren't correct per se but if Keynesian macroeconomics was to be used then they absolutely did not spend enough.

theREALkoreaboy
08-25-2011, 05:24 PM
yeah, now recalculate all the way to ONE MONTH after W left office.

go look at the aug.15th edition of time magazine. there is an excellent graphic in it that shows the components of the US debt, over time. the graph spikes up dramatically under hopeychange- dwarfing what happened under W. the largest chunk by far of the US debt has been accrued under hopeychange. its not even close. go find that graphic in time.

corksens
08-25-2011, 05:26 PM
I don't know the present Canadian govt still yaps about the Liberal's use of a paltry amount of money to save Canada. Seems those crutches stick around a long time.The Conservatives have had a majority for how long? 4 months?...

Habsy
08-25-2011, 05:29 PM
As far as the issue of blame, which I really am tired of, Obama campaigned with claims of knowing what ailed the economy and how to fix it. Due to these claims, and his subsequent lack of effective solutions, he will be culpable for the current economy. Whether he started it or not, many voted for him because:

1) He wasn't Bush
2) He was an articulate speaker and made people believe he knew what he was talking about.
3) Made assertions as to what needed to be done repeatedly.
4) He was black (mock all you want, it's true).
5) Palin was, well, Palin
6) McCain was impotent.

I can tell you that I know a great many people that voted for him because he came off as knowing what needed to be done to fix Bush's mess. They are now disenchanted with him as he obviously did not know what he was doing. Making promises that lead to your election and then either reneging on those promises or failing to live up to them does make you responsible in some people's minds. He may not have caused it but he sure as shit didn't deliver what he promised on the campaign trail.

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-25-2011, 05:31 PM
The Conservatives have had a majority for how long? 4 months?...

been in gov for 5 years and have harkened back to the dollars spent to save Canada in every election since 2006.

corksens
08-25-2011, 05:36 PM
Just checked, less than 4 months.

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-25-2011, 05:37 PM
how long have they been govt?

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-25-2011, 05:37 PM
It

is

longer

than

four

months

JaysCyYoung
08-25-2011, 05:46 PM
What do the Conservatives have to do with American debt? The fact of the matter is that if the Liberals were siphoning off federal tax dollars to partisan friendly advertising agencies, they should have just been honest about the facts from the start. The fact that they were so secretive about giving their friends hand-outs was the entire problem.

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-25-2011, 05:51 PM
All politicians give funds to their friends.

The biggest mistake Martin did was hold an enquiry. He should have just said tough tit, we did it, it was to save Canada and then called the Reform Party/Alliance/Cons who were against it, unpatriotic and said gee the Bloc hates it and so do you. You are in bed with the separatists.

But alas, he was too dumb and now the party is the 3rd party.

JaysCyYoung
08-25-2011, 05:58 PM
Martin didn't lose the election because he held the Gomery Inquiry. Martin lost the election because he was a poor politician who allowed the brilliant tactical posturing of Chretien to force him to accept the blame for his predecessor's corruption. Had he successfully painted Ad Scam as Chretien's doing he might have won in 2006.

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-25-2011, 06:07 PM
By holding the kangaroo court, he allowed it to remain in the news. Stupid on his part. Should have done what Harper did, just bury the auditor's report until after the majority ;)

MapleLeafBlueJayBoy
08-25-2011, 06:08 PM
Martin didn't lose the election because he held the Gomery Inquiry. Martin lost the election because he was a poor politician who allowed the brilliant tactical posturing of Chretien to force him to accept the blame for his predecessor's corruption. Had he successfully painted Ad Scam as Chretien's doing he might have won in 2006.

Bingo

axlsalinger
08-25-2011, 06:15 PM
Precisely.

My issue with Obama is half-measures. If you are going to **** me do it big (bring on the jokes). Seriously. The stimulus? Not big enough. Half-measure. Healthcare? A frankenstein of a bill. Half-measures. Continued tax cuts in the face of astronomical debt? Half-measures.

The only full measures are him being a total hypocrite and a liar in renewing the Patriot Act, Gitmo still being open and still fighting two wars even though Bin-Laden is dead.

There is no change, there is no fresh thinking. I am still getting ****ed the old fashion way, little at a time and no foreplay.I actually agree with your overall point about half-measures, and I do send some mild criticism Obama's way on this front, but let's look at these examples one by one.

1. The stimulus - you have a lot of nerve to criticize Obama here. Who caused the problems that resulted in a need for the stimulus in the first place? The Republicans. Who agreed that the stimulus was needed in the first place? Everyone - Republicans and Democrats. Who had to take the brunt of the blame for implementing a government bailout that was unpopular? Obama. Who started whining about government spending being evil and out of control, after spending 8 years blowing massive amounts of money on credit without a plan to pay for it (ie. out of control), forcing Obama to go half-in when a much larger stimulus was needed? The Republicans.

2. Health care - This bill is nowhere near good enough, but Obama got a health care bill passed in the United States when nobody could before him, and nobody believed he could do it, right up until the week that he did it. Now take a wild guess as to who is responsible for a lot of the corporate advantages that are in the bill. I'll give you one guess.

3. Tax cuts - this was stupid on Obama's part (some of the tax cuts may be defensible, but he bent over backwards to appease the Republicans on this front and got little in return.)

4. Patriot Act - this is the one thing where I fully agree, Obama dropped the ball.

5. Gitmo & Irag-Afghan wars - You know how much I was against the Iraq War and Gitmo. But Obama listened to the generals and people on the ground who argued against an immediate withdrawal, which would probably have had catastrophic results, and he has drawn down forces substantially in both wars. I give him a mild pass there because it's one thing to have a strong ideology, but it's another thing for an intelligent person to evaluate the actual facts and listen to the experts even when what they say does not support what you want to do (see the previous regime for confirmation of what happens when you are incapable of doing so). Gitmo is less defensible but you know what a political hot potato this is.

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-25-2011, 06:17 PM
I don't see how the US ever gets out of this mess mostly due to their almost insane antipathy to taxing the rich. Even the poor don't want the rich to be taxed.

theREALkoreaboy
08-25-2011, 06:41 PM
the
top
1%
pay
40%
of
all
income
taxes

theREALkoreaboy
08-25-2011, 06:42 PM
the
top
25%
pay
86%
of
all
income
taxes

theREALkoreaboy
08-25-2011, 06:42 PM
the
top
50%
pay
97%
of
all
income
taxes

theREALkoreaboy
08-25-2011, 06:43 PM
half
of
all
americans
pay
less
than
3%
of
taxes

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-25-2011, 06:51 PM
That doesn't mean the 1% actually pays what it should.

Bleedsblue&white
08-25-2011, 06:58 PM
That doesn't mean the 1% actually pays what it should.

This is the salient point;
Let's even say we're all the same, so we all cheat on our taxes; Whose cheating costs us more,someone making the minimum, paying the minimum anyways...or somebody worth billions of dollars?

Cpt. Koivu
08-25-2011, 07:09 PM
I think those numbers show a horrifying gap between the rich and poor in the U.S. The bottom fifty percent only makes enough money for the government to take 3% of total income taxes from it.

Leafovic
08-25-2011, 07:12 PM
The USA is indeed one of the nations with the biggest gap between rich and poor..along the likes of Mexico and Chile.

blacksheep
08-25-2011, 07:31 PM
20/20 hindsight has me believing that Hillary Clinton was the right person for this job at this juncture in American history. Not only would she have the benefit of slick Willy walking the WH halls and that of congress massaging both parties but she is an accomplished politician in her own right. I have thought long on this and I truly believe that of all the people available and interested in 2008, Clinton should have been President. So yes, there was a Dem that I could have seen myself voting for.
Ah, hindsight. Hindsight had me liking McCain long before Bush Jr. was made their favourite son. But McCain in 2008 was simply a puppet for the party, and not worthy of any mention or votes.
Clinton was already president for 8yrs, so her experience would have been better. (Say what you want about Bill, but she was the one truly in charge then). But she's a different kind of looney. I'm betting that if she won, we'd have an endless stream of Ms. Clinton quotes that would almost rival Quayle's claim to fame. Plus, I think she'd cave to the pressure of Faux News and the Tea Baggers much more easily.
Ron Paul was a wiser choice in 2008, but he was too human for the R's liking. Despite radical views in some areas, he's the most human person they have. However, we are talking about a party that literally stole the election away from Al Gore.
So the current talk of Romney being a good candidate is funny. He doesn't have a prayer. There's too many looneys in control of that asylum to let Romney take the reigns.
And they are fully and completely behind such lunatics as Palin and Bachman. Inaction or not, Obama's a virtual shoe-in given the idiots the other side is pushing to the top of the pile.
Yet another reason I'm pissed that Obama even bothered to try to include them in any decision thus far. They're far too nuts to even understand what he's proposing. Robert Ailes' puppets, the lot of them.

theREALkoreaboy
08-25-2011, 07:38 PM
That doesn't mean the 1% actually pays what it should.

BS. the british riots show us that when large segments of the population don't have a real stake in a society, problems result.

millions of americans don't pay any taxes whatsoever. of course many of them are going to sit on the sidelines and demand MORE of the money that isn't theirs. its a zero risk strategy, and they have no skin in the game. and they get to sit back and blame everyone else for the problems that in most cases are of their own making.

johnunit
08-25-2011, 07:52 PM
BS. the british riots show us that when large segments of the population don't have a real stake in a society, problems result.
assuming "stake" means paying into the community kitty, the majority of the rioters were too young to be paying taxes, because they were too young to be making significant money. So unless you plan on taxing lawn-mowing jobs at 50% or giving all the local kids shop space on main street, I don't know what you're on about.

axlsalinger
08-25-2011, 08:01 PM
the
top
1%
of
Americans
control
42%
of
the
wealth.

the
top
20%
of
americans
control
84%
of
the
wealth.

why
don't
those
living
well
below
the
poverty
line
pay
more
taxes?
because
they
are
lazy

johnunit
08-25-2011, 08:15 PM
so assuming those numbers are compiled the same way and at the same time,

The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes and hold 42% of the wealth...



yeah, totally, brutally overtaxed.

MindzEye
08-25-2011, 08:26 PM
the
top
1%
pay
40%
of
all
income
taxes

and control 42% of the total wealth. Besides that point though is a simple one, most of the truly wealthy make their money via the financial industry (most CEO's have "modest" base salaries, but extravagant stock options built into their contracts), and pay a much lower rate of taxation than the typical wage earner. If there was better wealthy equality in the U.S (which is currently on par with nations like Iran & Russia for wealth equality), the re distributed wealth would be garnering more tax dollars, it would be getting taxed at a higher rate than it is currently (short term is 15%, long term is 10%)


the
top
25%
pay
86%
of
all
income
taxes

Federal income taxes, which makes up approx 43% of all Federal revenues. Which is besides the point really, nobody is talking about the massive gains in income made by the 2nd-25th%. Mainly because they're absolutely modest at best over the last 30 years, getting more and more modest the closer to the 25th percentile.


half
of
all
americans
pay
less
than
3%
of
taxes

Of Federal income taxes. Wherever you get your talking points from uses misleading language.


millions of americans don't pay any taxes whatsoever.

Technically this is true, but not in the way that you meant it. There are approximately 3 million Americans either in jail or homeless, and other than the scant sales taxes the meager amounts of money spent by the homeless bring in, yes, there is nothing to tax there. However, everyone with a job pays varying levels of state income tax (some areas have a local or municipal income tax as well). On top of that there is a 6.4% payroll tax that is paid by every person earning a pay cheque in the U.S (this is the source of Medicare & SS funding). Then throw in the fact that the average American actually has no savings, which suggests that every post tax dollar these low wage earners bring in, more or less immediately spent for various necessities that are taxed (sales taxes, utilities taxes, rent taxes, fuel taxes, alcohol taxes, cigarette taxes, etc, etc, etc, etc)

All working Americans pay taxes.

With that out of the way though, I see this counter argument regularly (HA used it a few days ago, it's a common right wing talking point overall and can be found all over the internet, talk radio, etc)...but it begs an obvious question. Umm...okay, now what? Is the suggestion really to tax the poor who already don't have anything? Cutting funding to SS and Medicare (ignoring the fact that they're full funded by payroll taxes are are currently quite solvent despite the right wing nuttery claiming otherwise) harms the "middle class" just as much as it does the poor. For what exactly? To maintain the ridiculous wealth equality only seen elsewhere in the world in Oligopolies & Tyrannies?

MindzEye
08-25-2011, 08:27 PM
BS. the british riots show us that when large segments of the population don't have a real stake in a society, problems result.

How exactly is this an argument for maintaining massive wealth inequality? I don't think you're really working that point through to the end before drawing your conclusion from it.

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-25-2011, 08:28 PM
assuming "stake" means paying into the community kitty, the majority of the rioters were too young to be paying taxes, because they were too young to be making significant money. So unless you plan on taxing lawn-mowing jobs at 50% or giving all the local kids shop space on main street, I don't know what you're on about.

I thought it was just me who didn't see a parallel.

axlsalinger
08-25-2011, 08:42 PM
Umm...okay, now what? Is the suggestion really to tax the poor who already don't have anything? The answer is obvious, silly. If they're not dead, that must mean they are eating something or living somewhere, right? Why don't these moochers send the money they use to buy food or pay rent, to the IRS instead. This would be a much more palatable solution to Hannityboy than the rich paying 39% income tax instead of 36%.

lecoqsportif
08-25-2011, 08:48 PM
The poor should be stripped of what little property they have, incarcerated in debtor prisons, and serve as free labour in said prisons.

It's all about the morality of work.

MindzEye
08-25-2011, 09:04 PM
I just want to point something out quickly. A quick comparison of wealth equality (GINI coefficient) & the level of capital gains taxation


Canada
GINI - .32
CG% - 21.5%

Sweden
GINI - .23
CG% - 30%

US
GINI - .47
CG% - 10% Long term, 15% short term

Russia
GINI - .43
CG% - 0% if asset is owned longer than 3 years, 13% if less than 3 years

Germany
GINI - .27
CG% - 28%



aaaaand, do we see a pattern forming?

Habsy
08-25-2011, 09:11 PM
Ah, hindsight. Hindsight had me liking McCain long before Bush Jr. was made their favourite son. But McCain in 2008 was simply a puppet for the party, and not worthy of any mention or votes.
Clinton was already president for 8yrs, so her experience would have been better. (Say what you want about Bill, but she was the one truly in charge then). But she's a different kind of looney. I'm betting that if she won, we'd have an endless stream of Ms. Clinton quotes that would almost rival Quayle's claim to fame. Plus, I think she'd cave to the pressure of Faux News and the Tea Baggers much more easily.
Ron Paul was a wiser choice in 2008, but he was too human for the R's liking. Despite radical views in some areas, he's the most human person they have. However, we are talking about a party that literally stole the election away from Al Gore.
So the current talk of Romney being a good candidate is funny. He doesn't have a prayer. There's too many looneys in control of that asylum to let Romney take the reigns.
And they are fully and completely behind such lunatics as Palin and Bachman. Inaction or not, Obama's a virtual shoe-in given the idiots the other side is pushing to the top of the pile.
Yet another reason I'm pissed that Obama even bothered to try to include them in any decision thus far. They're far too nuts to even understand what he's proposing. Robert Ailes' puppets, the lot of them.

While I will agree most of the Pub candidates are basically meat puppets, no incumbent with high unemployment and an economy in serious recession is a "virtual shoe-in". You truly underestimate the American ability to be duped. Heck Obama did it, so did Bush.

Habsy
08-25-2011, 09:14 PM
You are also underestimating the polarizing force that comes with hating Obama. While the "loons" may dislike Romney, and they do, they find him far more palatable than Obama. There will be a certain amount of "not Obama" votes as there was against the Pubs and the anti-Bush backlash.

Habsy
08-25-2011, 09:16 PM
The poor should be stripped of what little property they have, incarcerated in debtor prisons, and serve as free labour in said prisons.

It's all about the morality of work.

Orwellian bastard!

johnunit
08-25-2011, 09:35 PM
You are also underestimating the polarizing force that comes with hating Obama. While the "loons" may dislike Romney, and they do, they find him far more palatable than Obama. There will be a certain amount of "not Obama" votes as there was against the Pubs and the anti-Bush backlash.

I 100% agree. Even from just hanging out on a few american-dominated internet forums the vitriol specifically against Obama is breathtaking. There will be a huge number of people that vote for whoever they think will get Obama out of office, which will be whoever the hell the Republicans nominate.

HabsAddict
08-26-2011, 05:41 AM
I posted this a couple of days ago after a discussion with ME. It's not dead accurate because I don't know what the exemtions are, it's simply a back of the napkin calculation.

I was going to attempt to take all federal, state and city taxes then look at the income levels by state, income group and race, when I saw some tables and the insane complexity, I decided I have better things to do with my life. If anyone wants to try, be my guest.

Here it is, slightly edited.

~~~~~~~~~~

Take 2008 for ALL federal tax.....Individual pay is 45%, Corporations pay is 12%. Payroll taxes are 36%. Excise 3%.

So the "poor" 50%.......they pay 3% of individual tax, excise is minuscule, corporations pay 12% and PART of the 36% payroll taxes. Of those, they pay.....

Statutory Payroll Tax Deductions

Federal Withholding Information
Federal Regular Withholding Formula here.
Federal Supplemental Withholding Formula here.
Personal exemption - $3,700 for 2011

Social Security (Old age, survivors, and disability insurance):
4.2% on $106,800 in 2011 for employee
6.2% on $106,800 in 2011 for employer
10.4% on $106,800 in 2011 for self employed

Medicare basic hospital insurance
1.45% on all wages (employee & employer)
2.9% on net earnings (self employed)

So in those 36% of those payroll taxes you claim the "poor" pay, in fact, it's co-pay between employer and employee. In SS it's more of a burden on the employer. Then you have the issue of how much of the total SS and Med is paid by the lower 50% versus the higher earners. At best, they pay HALF of the total because of co-pay and then half again because the higher earners hit the maximum thus paying more then the lower 50%. It's probably more like a third, but for the sake of argument, I'll leave it at half.

So in payroll taxes, the "50%" actually pay maybe, generoulsy 9% of the payroll taxes and 3% of the income tax. For a total of 12% of the ENTIRE federal tax. Probably more like 9-10% overall, but whatever.

I could ask my US buddies for even more clarification on exemptions/deductions/practices with their employees.......but to what end?

So tell me again, who pays the majority of the tax? Who has and will foot the majority of the tax debt? Are we done with the "50%" pay their share?

HabsAddict
08-26-2011, 05:58 AM
so assuming those numbers are compiled the same way and at the same time,

The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes and hold 42% of the wealth...

yeah, totally, brutally overtaxed.

It's not a direct comparison. Wealth is accumulated, taxes are paid when monies earned. If you accumulate $30,000 a year over 50 years, you have $1.5M, but you certainly didn't pay that level of tax when it was earned. On the other hand, you can have a guy earning $250K in NYC with the "cool" lifestyle and he wouldn't accumulate a dime.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 09:23 AM
so assuming those numbers are compiled the same way and at the same time,

The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes and hold 42% of the wealth...



yeah, totally, brutally overtaxed.

thank you. you just proved my point. where have i said they are OVERtaxed?? i havent. i said they are paying their share, and you just proved it with your own numbers.

they control around 40% of the wealth, and pay around 40% of the taxes. and that doesnt take into account the payroll and other taxes people with those kinds of incomes likely pay for the businesses they run and control.

JohnnyHolmes
08-26-2011, 09:59 AM
I don't understand the boner that any middle class guy has for the top 1% of the nation. Maybe they feel the need to be accepted by the super rich?

A need to belong to the right wing douche bag club? You feel like you are part of the in crowd if you bleat on endlessly about rich people, even though to them you are a servant at best, or more like a turd that needs to be stepped over?

The rich get rich by stealing from the poor. Look at Wall street. The banks. The auto industry.

The "poor" are getting a giant cock in the ass and losing their jobs while the Executives walk away with million dollar bonuses all for destroying their companies and the economy. They are criminals that belong in jail.

Sweet gig.

I wouldn't want to pay higher taxes either, nobody does. Wasteful spending is a huge problem, and the government could cut a lot of it out and pay their freaking debt if they really wanted to.

The problem is the entire system is rotten from the bottom to the top, and the inside to the out.

You basically have a group of elite people blowing smoke up each others' asses in a circle of futility that repeats endlessly.

The USA is broken. Nothing either party does is going to fix anything. It's just delaying the inevitable for as long as possible.

I believe that higher taxes will only result in more government waste and corruption. More money going into the pockets that it already goes into.

I don't have the answer, but I do know that it will never be found under the current farce of a political system.

Like my man Norman Einstein said, doing the same things and expecting different results is uber gay.

mbow30
08-26-2011, 10:50 AM
has rick perry apologized for what he said about bernanke?

he responded to obama's comments about him just not being experienced on the national scale (with mockery, i should add). but the guy accused the fed chairman of treason and intimated he would be shot in texas for, in essence, doing his job. it was a scary thing to hear from a presidential candidate. if i were obama i'd be all over it; not being diplomatic as he was in his interview with blitzer, but saying 'holy ****, this lunatic has threatened the fed chairman with violence, and he wants to be president?'

blacksheep
08-26-2011, 11:00 AM
and that doesnt take into account the payroll and other taxes people with those kinds of incomes likely pay for the businesses they run and control.
"Likely" pay? You don't even know what a business pays, or what loopholes "people with those kinds of incomes" can use that we can't.
You need to stop regurgitating talking points and learn the truth. The top wage earners are undertaxed, thanks to loopholes and offshore havens for their money, while they scream all day on TV and radio that the working class needs to foot their company's bills. Hell, I even pay your salary, and all your benefits, you puke. You've got a lot of nerve complaining.

blaghaus
08-26-2011, 11:17 AM
i'm not removing blame for mistakes made under the previous administration. W made his share. but hopeychange has made MORE, and it is nonsensical to suggest almost three years later now that he is still the key reason why the economy is a mess.

do you understand that when W left office, america's debt-to-GDP ratio was a little under 60%. in just three years under hopeychange, it has gone to over 100%. do you realize how frikkin' MASSIVE that is, and how catastrophic that is?

Nonsense really. I'm way off the Obama bandwagon, but he isn't in the same league of ineptitude as Bush, who eventually will be seen as probably the worst president, and almost definitely the worst two term president. His catalogue of mistakes is unparalleled.

blaghaus
08-26-2011, 11:25 AM
I also agree with Habsy's point about Obama's half assed approach. Very underwhelming.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 12:00 PM
Nonsense really. I'm way off the Obama bandwagon, but he isn't in the same league of ineptitude as Bush, who eventually will be seen as probably the worst president, and almost definitely the worst two term president. His catalogue of mistakes is unparalleled.

no, its not nonsense. go get the aug.15th edition of time and look at the graphic for yourself. i'd post it here but the site requires a paid subscription. the american debt-to-GDP ratio went up appreciably under 8 years of W. under just three years of hopeychange, it has gone up almost exponentially. it went from around 50% at the beginning of W to around 60% by the end of W. now, under 3 years of hopeychange, it has gone up to over 100%. that isn't "nonsense really", it's a catastrophe, and the lion's share of the blame for that has to go to the present administration.

blaghaus
08-26-2011, 12:12 PM
If Obama had the balls to get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts.....

UWHabs
08-26-2011, 12:20 PM
no, its not nonsense. go get the aug.15th edition of time and look at the graphic for yourself. i'd post it here but the site requires a paid subscription. the american debt-to-GDP ratio went up appreciably under 8 years of W. under just three years of hopeychange, it has gone up almost exponentially. it went from around 50% at the beginning of W to around 60% by the end of W. now, under 3 years of hopeychange, it has gone up to over 100%. that isn't "nonsense really", it's a catastrophe, and the lion's share of the blame for that has to go to the present administration.

Wikipedia has a slightly different take:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Based on that, Dubya's 8 years sent it from 56% to 84%, and Obamas has taken it from 84 to 93 (as of last year). Bush I think should be taking the blame for all the initial craziness, since Obama can't be blamed for what happened in the first couple months of office, but the recent mess should be held on his shoulders, for not having the balls to do what he needed to do to resolve these issues.

blacksheep
08-26-2011, 12:32 PM
no, its not nonsense. go get the aug.15th edition of time and look at the graphic for yourself. i'd post it here but the site requires a paid subscription. the american debt-to-GDP ratio went up appreciably under 8 years of W. under just three years of hopeychange, it has gone up almost exponentially. it went from around 50% at the beginning of W to around 60% by the end of W. now, under 3 years of hopeychange, it has gone up to over 100%. that isn't "nonsense really", it's a catastrophe, and the lion's share of the blame for that has to go to the present administration.
What you don't seem to get is that once you push the roller coaster cars off the top of the first hill, the process of falling fast has already begun. Bush Jr. gave that coaster it's last push, and you are now seeing the results, trying to blame it all on Obama.

blacksheep
08-26-2011, 12:34 PM
Link (http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-cantor-hurricane-disaster-relief-will-have-to-be-offset-by-spending-cuts-2011-8#ixzz1W9Z4cqZZ)


"We aren't going to speculate on damage before it happens, period," his spokesperson Laena Fallon told TalkingPointsMemo (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/cantor-spox-if-theres-hurricane-damage-costs-will-have-to-be-paid-for-with-spending-cuts.php?ref=fpa). "But, as you know, Eric has consistently said that additional funds for federal disaster relief ought to be offset with spending cuts."


If the storm causes damage while passing over highly populated areas as predicted, help from the federal government might not be quick in coming.



Just think, a couple of closed tax loopholes is all it would take to be prepared for Irene without borrowing. Nice to be held hostage by people who could buy your town.

zeke
08-26-2011, 12:36 PM
I actually agree with your overall point about half-measures, and I do send some mild criticism Obama's way on this front, but let's look at these examples one by one.

1. The stimulus - you have a lot of nerve to criticize Obama here. Who caused the problems that resulted in a need for the stimulus in the first place? The Republicans. Who agreed that the stimulus was needed in the first place? Everyone - Republicans and Democrats. Who had to take the brunt of the blame for implementing a government bailout that was unpopular? Obama. Who started whining about government spending being evil and out of control, after spending 8 years blowing massive amounts of money on credit without a plan to pay for it (ie. out of control), forcing Obama to go half-in when a much larger stimulus was needed? The Republicans.

2. Health care - This bill is nowhere near good enough, but Obama got a health care bill passed in the United States when nobody could before him, and nobody believed he could do it, right up until the week that he did it. Now take a wild guess as to who is responsible for a lot of the corporate advantages that are in the bill. I'll give you one guess.

3. Tax cuts - this was stupid on Obama's part (some of the tax cuts may be defensible, but he bent over backwards to appease the Republicans on this front and got little in return.)

4. Patriot Act - this is the one thing where I fully agree, Obama dropped the ball.

5. Gitmo & Irag-Afghan wars - You know how much I was against the Iraq War and Gitmo. But Obama listened to the generals and people on the ground who argued against an immediate withdrawal, which would probably have had catastrophic results, and he has drawn down forces substantially in both wars. I give him a mild pass there because it's one thing to have a strong ideology, but it's another thing for an intelligent person to evaluate the actual facts and listen to the experts even when what they say does not support what you want to do (see the previous regime for confirmation of what happens when you are incapable of doing so). Gitmo is less defensible but you know what a political hot potato this is.

nice summary.

I would add to #5 though - and point out that the 2 military actions which Obama was responsible from the start - BinLaden Assassination and Libya airstrikes - were models of efficiency snf diplomacy, and one can only assume that any Iraq or Afghani intervention started by Obama would have been much cleaner and more effective than the epic boondoggles the two Bush wars have been.

zeke
08-26-2011, 12:38 PM
BS. the british riots show us that when large segments of the population don't have a real stake in a society, problems result.
.

You couldn't possibly have this more backwards.

zeke
08-26-2011, 12:42 PM
Obama's proposed 1-2% tax bump for the top 1% is equivalent in increased revenue to taking 50% of all the wealth from the bottom-50%.

HabsAddict
08-26-2011, 12:50 PM
I don't understand the boner that any middle class guy has for the top 1% of the nation. Maybe they feel the need to be accepted by the super rich?

A need to belong to the right wing douche bag club? You feel like you are part of the in crowd if you bleat on endlessly about rich people, even though to them you are a servant at best, or more like a turd that needs to be stepped over?

The rich get rich by stealing from the poor. Look at Wall street. The banks. The auto industry.

The "poor" are getting a giant cock in the ass and losing their jobs while the Executives walk away with million dollar bonuses all for destroying their companies and the economy. They are criminals that belong in jail.

Sweet gig.

I wouldn't want to pay higher taxes either, nobody does. Wasteful spending is a huge problem, and the government could cut a lot of it out and pay their freaking debt if they really wanted to.

The problem is the entire system is rotten from the bottom to the top, and the inside to the out.

You basically have a group of elite people blowing smoke up each others' asses in a circle of futility that repeats endlessly.

The USA is broken. Nothing either party does is going to fix anything. It's just delaying the inevitable for as long as possible.

I believe that higher taxes will only result in more government waste and corruption. More money going into the pockets that it already goes into.

I don't have the answer, but I do know that it will never be found under the current farce of a political system.

Like my man Norman Einstein said, doing the same things and expecting different results is uber gay.

Classic room temperature IQ garbage. Did you write this all by yourself?

Let me know how many poor people create jobs or invest in projects.

HabsAddict
08-26-2011, 12:52 PM
Obama's proposed 1-2% tax bump for the top 1% is equivalent in increased revenue to taking 50% of all the wealth from the bottom-50%.

Actually, that's garbage you pulled out of your ass. But keep writing.

zeke
08-26-2011, 12:56 PM
Actually, no, it's not garbage pulled out of my ass.

It is fact.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 12:57 PM
as a teacher i come into contact with a pretty big cross section of humanity. i have taught kids of very, very high ability who have gone on to ivy league schools and absolutely kicked ass, and i have taught kids who have committed major violent crimes and who have gone on to long prison terms.

many of the people at the bottom rungs are there for a reason. yes, there are disadvantages that some have to overcome because of their race or social status, but i think by far kids who i see who struggle are there because:

-their parents are abominably bad parents
-they are lazy as spotted dogs
-they have no interpersonal skills
-the have no drive or ambition
-they don't care about much other than hanging out, getting into trouble, playing PS3, or getting drunk or high

most of those factors are self-inflicted. they aren't because the westons or the gateses, or the murdochs have billions and are holding them down. its because they have serious personal flaws that, unless they can overcome them, will doom them to being at the bottom of the ladder. and i can tell you- in many cases the school system invests tens of thousands of dollars and person-hours into trying to help these kids, and the above-mentioned flaws still get in the way.

zeke
08-26-2011, 01:01 PM
The tax bump would result in about $700b more revenue. The Bottom 50% of America controls approximately $1.4tr.

You do the math.

zeke
08-26-2011, 01:04 PM
Top-20%ile: 84% of American Wealth
20%-40%ile: 11%
40%-60%ile: 4%
60%-80%ile: 0.2%
80%-100%ile: 0.1%

Taxing the poor is clearly the way to balance the budget.

HabsAddict
08-26-2011, 01:23 PM
Federal budget 2008

2,700,000.000,000

individual pay......45%

therefore 1.2 trillion.

If the top 1% pay 40% then they pay 480 billion.

If you tax them 1% more. it's 5 billion.

If you tax them 2% more it's 10 billion.

Absolute zeke garbage. Actually, it's the kind of garbage that passes as intelligent thought to a lot in here.

~~~~~~~

What is "rich"? The top 1% of average pay is 388K.

Wow 388K. Which means doctors, lawyers, small business owners, etc.

A lot of you think that rich is simply big fat bankers. Well, that's your problem.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget

axlsalinger
08-26-2011, 01:48 PM
And your problem is that you think people who struggle to pay their rent and put food on the table, and have no savings, are lazy and should pay more taxes and have less or no access to government services (even though that would have a great effect on their lifestyle which is meagre and precarious to begin with), whereas it is a terrible injustice and blatant socialism for somebody making an average of $388,000 to pay 39% income tax instead of 36% (despite the fact that this would have virtually no affect on their lifestyle).

Even in spite of the evidence during the Clinton years that these people, along with a much higher percentage of the rest of the population, did just fine.

JohnnyHolmes
08-26-2011, 02:00 PM
Where are all the jobs that the rich are creating?

Besides China, India and Indonesia.

axlsalinger
08-26-2011, 02:06 PM
Taiwan, Philippines and the Cayman Islands?

JohnnyHolmes
08-26-2011, 02:10 PM
No. The Philippines exports workers, not anything else. Taiwan is China, and Cayman is a laundry machine.

Rich people don't create jobs, unless Perry is counting all the illegal Mexicans working in Texas.

Volcanologist
08-26-2011, 02:12 PM
Yup, poor people are at the bottom because they simply won't pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

axlsalinger
08-26-2011, 02:17 PM
No. The Philippines exports workers, not anything else. Taiwan is China, and Cayman is a laundry machine.

Rich people don't create jobs, unless Perry is counting all the illegal Mexicans working in Texas.Well, it was a joke that apparently you didn't get. But yes jobs are outsourced to the Philippines, Taiwan is not part of China (it depends on who you ask), and the rich definitely do create jobs, let's say in the "financial sector", in the Cayman Islands.

northernlou
08-26-2011, 02:28 PM
Obama cuts his vacation short (http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0811/coming_home_3c8bd4fa-eca3-4b78-8bc3-30f4b1b700d9.html)


NEYARD HAVEN, Mass. - Hurricane Irene accomplished what an uprising in Libya and a sour economy could not: Force President Barack Obama to cut his Martha Vineyard's vacation short.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest announced Friday that Obama would return to Washington tonight, saying the president "felt it was prudent to be at the White House" as the hurricane makes landfall.

A spokesman for first lady Michelle Obama said she and the Obama’s two daughters will return with him.

Obama was expected to depart at 11 a.m. Saturday.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 03:25 PM
And your problem is that you think people who struggle to pay their rent and put food on the table, and have no savings, are lazy and should pay more taxes

wrong. no. nada. nope. negatory.

people like me do NOT think those people should pay more taxes. we think we should ALL be paying no more taxes than we do right now.

axlsalinger
08-26-2011, 03:39 PM
Well, that is just as ludicrous as anything else you have to say about politics, because there currently isn't enough money to pay for everything. It HAS TO come from somewhere. Cutting spending is a big piece of the puzzle, but it's not a one-piece puzzle.

While you were cheerleading the "tax cuts and wars for everybody!" during the Darth "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney Administration, when they kicked the payment plan down the road, it still has to be paid for, at some point.

johnunit
08-26-2011, 03:39 PM
wrong. no. nada. nope. negatory.

people like me do NOT think those people should pay more taxes. we think we should ALL be paying no more taxes than we do right now.


Ok, but in the American system where cuts cannot cover the shortfall, at least without massive reforms, that's not really an option. Taxes were lowered aggressively (on a certain segment of the population), and then overall revenue dropped for other reasons. Raising someone's taxes is pretty much inevitable if a similar quality of life is to be maintained in the US.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 03:46 PM
Well, that is just as ludicrous as anything else you have to say about politics, because there currently isn't enough money to pay for everything.

people like you just don't get it. the point is that there isn't enough money to "pay for everything" because the gov't is trying to do just that- pay for everything. fiscal hawks like me have argued consistently that what has to happen is that gov'ts have to STOP SPENDING MONEY. period. eliminate billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies to business. eliminate billions of dollars in wasteful and redundant program spending. raise the retirement age. it was a catastrophically bad time to create the biggest new entitlement program in generations. etc. etc. etc.

zeke
08-26-2011, 04:11 PM
Federal budget 2008

2,700,000.000,000

individual pay......45%

therefore 1.2 trillion.

If the top 1% pay 40% then they pay 480 billion.

If you tax them 1% more. it's 5 billion.

If you tax them 2% more it's 10 billion.

Absolute zeke garbage. Actually, it's the kind of garbage that passes as intelligent thought to a lot in here.

~~~~~~~

What is "rich"? The top 1% of average pay is 388K.

Wow 388K. Which means doctors, lawyers, small business owners, etc.

A lot of you think that rich is simply big fat bankers. Well, that's your problem.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget

You should really stop questioning my facts. It only makes you look silly, because I don't lie.

You want to assume I make up things, when in fact I just know more things than you do, because I read stuff.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/08/10/super-committee-obamas-opening-bid-on-taxes/


The president’s budget proposal limits itemized deductions to 28 percent even if you currently pay taxes at a 35 percent marginal rate. The top marginal rate goes up to 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire. Using the CBO current law baseline the 28 percent limitation on itemized deductions would yield – you guessed it – more tax revenue and more deficit reduction. Nearly $300 billion. Add in $40 billion from oil and gas, $20 billion from hedge funds, $3 billion on corporate jets. All without touching the CBO baseline. Then there’s $309 billion in “Other Loophole Closers” in Obama’s budget and you’re soaking the rich to the tune of over $700 billion.

now your brilliant math you just posted there....you know where that came from? that's right - your ass.

zeke
08-26-2011, 04:14 PM
people like you just don't get it. the point is that there isn't enough money to "pay for everything" because the gov't is trying to do just that- pay for everything. fiscal hawks like me have argued consistently that what has to happen is that gov'ts have to STOP SPENDING MONEY. period. eliminate billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies to business. eliminate billions of dollars in wasteful and redundant program spending. raise the retirement age. it was a catastrophically bad time to create the biggest new entitlement program in generations. etc. etc. etc.

the budget was balanced during the last democratic administration.

obviously there IS enough money to pay for everything.

zeke
08-26-2011, 04:17 PM
and did KB really just call himself a "hawk"?

hilarious.

zeke
08-26-2011, 04:17 PM
"I'm not an ignorant loudmouthed moron....I am a HAWK!!! scraaawwwww!!!"

MindzEye
08-26-2011, 04:20 PM
:lol

LeafGm
08-26-2011, 04:23 PM
Are you kidding zeke? KB is most definitely a hawk. He just didn't specify what type of Hawk he is....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v137/TheBlackAce/chickenhawk.jpg

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 04:31 PM
if you've never served in uniform i submit again that you have no right calling someone who did a "chickenhawk".

LeafGm
08-26-2011, 04:34 PM
if you've never served in uniform i submit again that you have no right calling someone who did a "chickenhawk".
Was this your uniform KB?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v137/TheBlackAce/CubScout_sm1.jpg

Must have seen some rough combat. It can get pretty hairy when you're going door to door with those chocolates.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 04:44 PM
if you've never served in uniform you don't have the right to belittle someone who did. i have almost never made a point of mentioning my own military service because i was fortunate enough to have served during a very quiet period in the world, but when people throw out words like "chickenhawk" i'm gonna respond.

if you've never worn a uniform and trained for combat in the service of your nation, you have no business calling someone who did a chickenhawk.

LeafGm
08-26-2011, 04:51 PM
Being an army barber or working in the mess hall in the army reserve on weekends many years ago doesn't make you any less of a chickenhawk, dude.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 04:53 PM
didn't do either of those things.

johnunit
08-26-2011, 04:55 PM
right.

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/41597_2306433266_4613_n.jpg

SundinsTooth
08-26-2011, 05:01 PM
reserves count.

axlsalinger
08-26-2011, 05:14 PM
people like you just don't get it. the point is that there isn't enough money to "pay for everything" because the gov't is trying to do just that- pay for everything. fiscal hawks like me have argued consistently that what has to happen is that gov'ts have to STOP SPENDING MONEY. period. eliminate billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies to business. eliminate billions of dollars in wasteful and redundant program spending. raise the retirement age. it was a catastrophically bad time to create the biggest new entitlement program in generations. etc. etc. etc.It really is amazing how wrong you are about everything. Every right wing politician ever has brought up on this fantasy of cutting "billions" of dollars of waste, but I've got some news for you. Over here, in reality, it just doesn't exist. You're cutting real jobs, real programs, useful subsidies, etc. etc. etc. etc. Now yes, some of these programs and subsidies can and will need to be cut. And once you understand that it doesn't hurt millionaires in the slightest to pay 39% instead of 36% tax, and close corporate loopholes so that corporations don't get away with paying zero taxes, then the job of balancing the budget can be adequately addressed.

And if you want to head in the direction of what it was a "catastrophically bad time" for, the deficit can wait a couple of years until the economy turns around. What can't wait, are the millions of people who are unemployed, and desperately need a job so that they can feed their families and pay their bills. Playing politics during a serious recession, and risking it taking a turn for the worse because you don't like the president, was absolutely done at the most catastrophically bad time.

MindzEye
08-26-2011, 05:36 PM
Unless you've seen combat, you can be called a chickenhawk.

George Bush Jr was a chickenhawk and he flew fighter jets during Vietnam (he flew them over Texas...but it was during Vietnam)

So basically...combat experience, or STFU.

mbow30
08-26-2011, 05:40 PM
Classic room temperature IQ garbage. Did you write this all by yourself?

Let me know how many poor people create jobs or invest in projects.

well if they are poor then they do not have the money to pay people to work for them, or to invest in 'projects'.

Volcanologist
08-26-2011, 05:41 PM
"I'm not an ignorant loudmouthed moron....I am a HAWK!!! scraaawwwww!!!"

:smilielol5:

axlsalinger
08-26-2011, 05:41 PM
You have to understand bizarro world, M.E., where everything in reality is exactly the opposite. For example, in KB's world, Bush was a war hero and John Kerry was the chickenhawk.

mbow30
08-26-2011, 05:42 PM
wrong. no. nada. nope. negatory.

people like me do NOT think those people should pay more taxes. we think we should ALL be paying no more taxes than we do right now.

and as a canadian living in ottawa you are paying more taxes than people making the same income who live in the states, so i guess that means you think american taxes should go up.

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-26-2011, 05:50 PM
if you've never served in uniform you don't have the right to belittle someone who did. i have almost never made a point of mentioning my own military service because i was fortunate enough to have served during a very quiet period in the world, but when people throw out words like "chickenhawk" i'm gonna respond.

if you've never worn a uniform and trained for combat in the service of your nation, you have no business calling someone who did a chickenhawk.

you've never practised law but it doesn't stop you from ripping the legal system or lawyers

blacksheep
08-26-2011, 05:50 PM
and as a canadian living in ottawa you are paying more taxes than people making the same income who live in the states, so i guess that means you think american taxes should go up.
KB doesn't pay taxes. We pay his, plus our own.

LeafGm
08-26-2011, 06:50 PM
Unless you've seen combat, you can be called a chickenhawk.

George Bush Jr was a chickenhawk and he flew fighter jets during Vietnam (he flew them over Texas...but it was during Vietnam)

So basically...combat experience, or STFU.
This.

Volcanologist
08-26-2011, 07:05 PM
So let's review...self-loathing civil servant, who masturbates to Ronald Reagan and the ultra-militaristic right wing yet has not even fired a shot in anger, much less had one fired at him.

I say double chickenhawk...with fries and a medium coleslaw.

mbow30
08-26-2011, 07:07 PM
i don't see how americans can rally behind somebody like rick perry. it scares the shit out of me that he might be the republican nominee, to be honest

TheCountofMonteCristo
08-26-2011, 07:21 PM
You should be barred from running for Pres is you do not believe in evolution

MindzEye
08-26-2011, 07:21 PM
A few things really...first, the dominionist religious movement is quite strong and it drags the rest of the evangelical movement around by it's ear, and they're going to support either PArry or Bachmann come hell or high water. Next is something Habsy mentioned recently, I've mentioned recently and I think a few others have as well. There's a lot of flat out Anti Obama hatred right now, and though it is most popular within the camp that will be supporting PArry or Bachmann, it's not just limited to that camp. We could sit here and throw around ideas (both with merit and without) concerning exactly what they're angry about, but the anger is there. Then, as an extension of that, the economy flat out sucks, and again...we could throw around ideas as to why. Some of those will condemn Obama, some will exonerate him, but the fact of the matter is that the economy does suck and he's the one running the show so he'll take flak for that regardless.

So, I don't see it so much as a matter of American's rallying behind PArry (or Bachmann...who's just as loony) so much as it is Americans being ****ing grumpy in general right now and any change, to some, is a good one.

MindzEye
08-26-2011, 07:32 PM
You should be barred from running for Pres is you do not believe in evolution

This.


Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised. - Woodrow Wilson 1912

TimHorton
08-26-2011, 07:38 PM
The most amazing thing about the Wilson quote is that he was a double-religious bastard personally.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 07:46 PM
Unless you've seen combat, you can be called a chickenhawk.

George Bush Jr was a chickenhawk and he flew fighter jets during Vietnam (he flew them over Texas...but it was during Vietnam)

So basically...combat experience, or STFU.

oh bull$hit. complete BS. there were years and years and years when lots of people in the US and canada had no hope in hell of seeing combat. does that make them chickenhawks? if you sign up and train and put yourself in the position of putting yourself in harm's way, you earn the right to not be called chickenhawk by people who didnt.

and i know you retards are trying to hammer away at this point because you think its getting to me, but i can assure you, it aint. its actually pretty funny how frikkin' goofy you people get. zeke takes one phrase out of a post i made and makes fun of it, and you clowns jump in for two pages of nonsensical insults.

you guys are like a group of 7 year old boys. if one of you says "poop" or "penis" you all carry on hysterically for an hour saying "poop" or "penis" and giggling hysterically.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 07:48 PM
you've never practised law but it doesn't stop you from ripping the legal system or lawyers

huhn??! show me where i have ripped lawyers. i have family members who are lawyers. my best friend is a lawyer.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 07:50 PM
i don't see how americans can rally behind somebody like rick perry. it scares the shit out of me that he might be the republican nominee, to be honest

yeah. next they might be voting for a community activist and 2-year part-time senator for president. oh wait....

MindzEye
08-26-2011, 08:06 PM
oh bull$hit. complete BS. there were years and years and years when lots of people in the US and canada had no hope in hell of seeing combat. does that make them chickenhawks?

If they endlessly advocate war...yes, yes it does.

If you don't have combat experience, where someone on the other side, with a gun, is trying to kill you and yet you're rabidly pro military intervention for anything that can even remotely be considered in 'western interests', then yes. You're a chickenhawk.

The epithet, when originally used, was intended to denigrate someone who was willing to send troops to war without having the faintest ****ing clue what war was themselves.

MindzEye
08-26-2011, 08:09 PM
yeah. next they might be voting for a community activist and 2-year part-time senator for president. oh wait....

But, he believes in Evolution where those twits don't. Surely that counts for something.


Question KB...do you believe in Evolution?

da_next_kid
08-26-2011, 08:50 PM
Evolution isn't a matter of belief IMO. It happens, if you deny it, you're just misinformed.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 08:52 PM
If they endlessly advocate war...yes, yes it does.



i havent "endlessly advocated for war". i have advocated for an appropriate and necessary response to direct attacks on the US, its allies, and our interests. on 9/10 i wouldnt have dreamt of attacking iraq or afghanistan, but we all know what happened on 9/11. things changed. a vicious and cruel attack that killed 3000 people and 23 canadians needed a response. a rising tide of fanatical islam needed to be confronted. i think the decline of al qaeda and the wave of muslim revolutions in the 10 years since those events are fruits of that appropriate response. sitting there and saying "you got me" and doing nothing was never an option.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 08:56 PM
Question KB...do you believe in Evolution?

i think there is room for both the scientific and the religious explanations for creation. do i believe in the literal story of creation in genesis? no. but i think there was a higher power behind the creation of the universe and from that spark of creation species grew and evolved. mathematicians and physicists might be able to tell you about something called "planck time". its a point in time prior to which all of our calculations, formulas, and theories about time and space break down and can't be computed. before planck time is room for god. after planck time there is room for science and the laws of physics.

as much as lefties want to believe otherwise, you aren't an idiot if you believe in god and believe that he had a role in the creation of the universe.

MindzEye
08-26-2011, 09:01 PM
i havent "endlessly advocated for war". i have advocated for an appropriate and necessary response to direct attacks on the US, its allies, and our interests. on 9/10 i wouldnt have dreamt of attacking iraq or afghanistan

What did 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

Guns blazing has been your argument for everything over the years. You wanted military intervention against Iran (and endlessly belittled me and called me all sorts of names for disagreeing) when I supported an asymmetric approach (including diplomacy, the use of intelligence assets, etc). You always want military intervention.


i think the decline of al qaeda and the wave of muslim revolutions in the 10 years since those events are fruits of that appropriate response.

Well...Al Qaeda's operational capacity was always overblown. (and no...you don't get the 9/11 cop out rebuttal here without examining facts about how they received their student visas, and where they were trained. Questions I have the answers for, but answers that raise further questions neither of us have the answers for), and no, the Arab spring had nothing to do with that approach, that you continue to assert that it did shows your complete lack of understanding on the region.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 09:03 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 09:04 PM
the Arab spring had nothing to do with that approach, that you continue to assert that it did shows your complete lack of understanding on the region.

if you think the events in lebanon, syria, libya, egypt, tunisia, etc etc are completely unrelated to the last 10 years of western intervention in the region, you're completely retarded or willfully obtuse.

lecoqsportif
08-26-2011, 09:06 PM
oh bull$hit. complete BS. there were years and years and years when lots of people in the US and canada had no hope in hell of seeing combat. does that make them chickenhawks? if you sign up and train and put yourself in the position of putting yourself in harm's way, you earn the right to not be called chickenhawk by people who didnt.

and i know you retards are trying to hammer away at this point because you think its getting to me, but i can assure you, it aint. its actually pretty funny how frikkin' goofy you people get. zeke takes one phrase out of a post i made and makes fun of it, and you clowns jump in for two pages of nonsensical insults.

you guys are like a group of 7 year old boys. if one of you says "poop" or "penis" you all carry on hysterically for an hour saying "poop" or "penis" and giggling hysterically.

Well, tough guy, I did serve (by your definition) I think you're the worst kind of chicken hawk. Screaming to bomb everything and everyone that makes you wet your bed. Thoughtless, blubbering warmongering. Grow a set, stiff upper lip. and learn when to use force properly for f*ck sakes.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 09:06 PM
"The physical significance of the Planck length is a topic of research. Because the Planck length is so tiny, there is no hope of directly probing this length scale in the foreseeable future. Research on the Planck length is therefore mostly theoretical."

this is the space required for god.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 09:08 PM
Well, tough guy, I did serve (by your definition)

well, bully for you then. you won't see me calling you a chickenhawk. but i'm going to disagree strongly with you, and people like you, who have suggested over the last 10 years that a military response to 9/11 wasn't required.

Habsy
08-26-2011, 09:10 PM
has rick perry apologized for what he said about bernanke?

he responded to obama's comments about him just not being experienced on the national scale (with mockery, i should add). but the guy accused the fed chairman of treason and intimated he would be shot in texas for, in essence, doing his job. it was a scary thing to hear from a presidential candidate. if i were obama i'd be all over it; not being diplomatic as he was in his interview with blitzer, but saying 'holy ****, this lunatic has threatened the fed chairman with violence, and he wants to be president?'

Have you ever been to Texas? I mean outside the major urban centers? Heck even in the major cities they are a strange breed.

MindzEye
08-26-2011, 09:14 PM
if you think the events in lebanon, syria, libya, egypt, tunisia, etc etc are completely unrelated to the last 10 years of western intervention in the region, you're completely retarded or willfully obtuse.

You clearly don't understand the history of the region.

Habsy
08-26-2011, 09:17 PM
If Obama had the balls to get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts.....

There is no other recourse but to raise taxes. As much as I abhor even thinking it I cannot see another way out of this disgusting mess we are in. You need to increase revenue and decrease spending. Period. Anyone with half a brain can see that. The country is sick and the medicine tastes bad but it is the medicine it needs.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 09:17 PM
if you think the events in the region in the last year are unrelated to western intervention in the middle east, you are retarded or willfully obtuse.

lecoqsportif
08-26-2011, 09:19 PM
"The physical significance of the Planck length is a topic of research. Because the Planck length is so tiny, there is no hope of directly probing this length scale in the foreseeable future. Research on the Planck length is therefore mostly theoretical."

this is the space required for god.


"The time will come when diligent research over long periods will bring to light things that now lie hidden. A single life time, even though entirely devoted to research, would not be enough for the investigation of so vast a subject. . . . And so this knowledge will be unfolded through long successive ages. There will come a time when our descendants will be amazed that we we did not know things that are so plain to them. . . . Many discoveries are reserved for ages still to come, when memory of us will have been effaced. Our universe is a sorry little affair unless it has in it something for every age to investigate . . . . Nature does not reveal her mysteries once and for all."

— Seneca, Natural Questions Book 7, c. first century.

Habsy
08-26-2011, 09:21 PM
nice summary.

I would add to #5 though - and point out that the 2 military actions which Obama was responsible from the start - BinLaden Assassination and Libya airstrikes - were models of efficiency snf diplomacy, and one can only assume that any Iraq or Afghani intervention started by Obama would have been much cleaner and more effective than the epic boondoggles the two Bush wars have been.

You can assume all you want but you know that logic is flawed. Bin Laden and Libya are exclusive of the Iraq/Afghan incursions. "much cleaner and more effective" is not exactly a quantifiable statement either, it is highly subjective.

Besides, I didn't see Obama do this...

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGIaVd_YYhkM0ariI0Gc3EWQmBO1-GGDyjwVXMyadllU34fgHY

So it couldn't have been that great.

Habsy
08-26-2011, 09:24 PM
Where are all the jobs that the rich are creating?

Besides China, India and Indonesia.

I opened a restaurant and created 51 jobs. That restaurant is not in China, India or Indonesia either.

Habsy
08-26-2011, 09:25 PM
Yup, poor people are at the bottom because they simply won't pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

let's be honest, some won't.

theREALkoreaboy
08-26-2011, 09:25 PM
well, then you're an evil greedy bastard who isnt paying your fair share and you need to be taxed back to the stone ages to support massive entitlement programs for the millions of americans who don't pay taxes.

lecoqsportif
08-26-2011, 09:26 PM
well, bully for you then. you won't see me calling you a chickenhawk. but i'm going to disagree strongly with you, and people like you, who have suggested over the last 10 years that a military response to 9/11 wasn't required.

Well, that's because I'm not a chickenhawk. I believe the military use should be used as a very last resort when a clear, closed-ended mission is at hand. The "general war on terror" is just as stupid as a "war on drugs". How does a conventional warfare fight a non-governmental ideology? Not very well. I think Afghanistan was the right mission, but totally botched. Iraq was pure idiocy.

And you're not giving the Arabs nearly enough credit for what happened this year. I don't recall Darth Cheney et al invading Tunisia... and yet it they who inspired recent events, period.