MERGED: The Politics Thread

[JJ]

He said it.

If you believe people who are brain-dead, Barack Obama hasn't done jackshit since he came into office.  

=====================================
He almost got it right.

Barack HASN'T done jackshit since he came into office.
His followers ARE brain dead on new ideas.     (tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and .....)

[Real]

ok your mindless copy pasting is one thing, but youre just spamming now.

dont be a jackass.  read something and form some coherent thoughts of your own, or at least put all your links in one post.

what are you so riled up for anyways?  someone break down the door to check on your eggs? lol.

[stunning36hh]

I'd vote conservative to save our country.  With all of this spending, which most members here believe was necessary to save us from Bush's presidency, our fiscal health is deteriorating.  Do you hear about the Chinese hinting more and more frequently about dropping their US dollar holdings?  They've been murmuring since the end of the Bush administration.  Since they own well over a trillion dollars of our debt, they cannot suddenly drop their holdings, but it is getting harder and harder to sell long term treasury bonds at monthly auction (i.e., the promised interest rate on the bond has to be progressively raised).  Take this to the nth degree and you may begin to see that our last president and most assuredly this president have raped our futures.  Our dollars wont buy much when the necessary inflation begins.  And without inflation, we'll never pay off our national debt.  So I recommend buying capital goods/material goods.  Don't keep dollars, they're losing value daily.  It seems to me that we're headed into a nightmare storm.  I'd vote republican if they run conservatives, and tea-party if they run conservatives, but I wouldn't vote in a RINO. 

Most of the liberals on here believe the rich will fund everything.  Maybe they will, but if you look closely, the taxes to support all these programs will be hitting the middle class, because YOU CAN'T HURT THE RICH with taxes.  Look at Warren Buffet, a staunch liberal, he pays less in annual taxes than his secretary.  Pol pot and his band of teenage murderers wiped out the middle class in Cambodia decades ago, and unfortunately most liberal voters have unwittingly been working to wipe out the middle class.  Taxes don't mean much to the rich, they mean more to the middle class.  Take 4% more out of 10,000,000 or 4% more out of 80,000, who would notice 4% of 10,000,000?  But take a little over 3,000 out of the budget of the middle class and that hurts.  Is this not self evident, I guess not.  The middle class is one of the wonders of this country, and it is that group that generally works well over 40 hours a week for their slice of the American Dream.  The trillions of dollars Obama spent will come primarily out of the pockets of the middle class through inflation and taxes.  If you support that, keep voting for this destructive individual.

[Shara]

he's really reaching for sources isn't he?

[Siria]

dont be a jackass.  read something and form some coherent thoughts of your own, or at least put all your links in one post.

Coherent thoughts? Liberal Marxist blasphemy!

[3deroticer]

Zookie just list Obama accomplishment, just before "JJ" claim that he hasn't done anything?

I think he has us on ignore! At first I didn't think he was spamming, but I think you do have a point. When was the last time he debated with any of us, like he promise he would? When was the last time he ever link to his source? and how many time has he posted edited quote that were deceptive of the actual message, and got caught?

[TheZookie007]

Barack Obama Stimulus Plan -  HAD NO EFFECT AT ALL

(except to create government jobs and more debt )

If it created jobs, whether government or not, then by definition, it had an effect. Which proves that you must really be among those brain-dead people I referred to earlier, JJ. I mean, really. (Although for a brain-dead person, you really are pretty lively. Zombie?)

[TheZookie007]

Save our country from what? Stop using those insidious "code words" of the Southern Strategy, and speak your mind plainly. That's why I like it when people like Jim Russell come out and plainly say that they are racists. It's preferable to know who your enemy is, upfront, than have to deal with people who "smile in your face/all the while wanna take your place/they're backstabbers".

[rtpoe]

Please define "The Middle Class".

While you're at it, define "Rich" and "Poor".

[pedonbio]

Please define "The Middle Class".

While you're at it, define "Rich" and "Poor".

As we know, rtpoe, since foaming-at-the-mouth wingnuts haven't been listening for the past two years, the "middle class" is an individual making $250K or less per year, or a married couple making less that $500K per year, and "the rich" are those making more, which constitutes 1.3% of Americans.

This is, of course, a complete mystery to those who would rather rant than think.

Also, incidentally, I sincerely miss the presence of any true conservative voice in the national debate. Chris Buckley was pretty good until the wingnuts who now run his father's magazine fired him because he refused to equate "conservative" with "Republican".

[Siria]

I'd vote conservative to save our country.

Voting conservative at this point is probably the worst possible option if "saving our country" is the goal, regardless of what you're attempting to save our country from.

There's essentially no enemy, no problem facing America that the Republicans have any credible desire to confront in any effectual way.

  With all of this spending, which most members here believe was necessary to save us from Bush's presidency, our fiscal health is deteriorating.

For all the talk of our allegedly terrible fiscal health, we're much more fiscally healthy than most other developed countries. Also, you're lying to yourself if you seriously think that the GOP has any interest in cutting spending in any meaningful way.

Most of the liberals on here believe the rich will fund everything.  Maybe they will, but if you look closely, the taxes to support all these programs will be hitting the middle class, because YOU CAN'T HURT THE RICH with taxes.

...Evidence? There's just so much data indicating the wrongness of everything in the second sentence here that it's leaving me a little speechless.

[TheZookie007]

But of course you can't hurt the rich with taxes. That's why they fight so hard against them I suppose?

</sarcasm>

[stunning36hh]

Siria, your first statement was opinion, you have one, I have one.  I'm interested in your facts though for the last two statements, it sounds like you have much data to support them and I'd like to see it.  Thanks.

[3deroticer]

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-why-elections-matter-one-gra

[Siria]

Siria, your first statement was opinion, you have one, I have one.  I'm interested in your facts though for the last two statements, it sounds like you have much data to support them and I'd like to see it.  Thanks.

Actually, my first statement was a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion.

What are the issues confronting America?
Internal

• The Economy -- Just about every economist in this country believes the country needs more fiscal stimulus, not less. Unlike non-economists who naively believe the Keynesian model is still in dispute, economists know that it is the framework on which a lot of modern theory is constructed. It isn't in dispute because there's a ton of evidence across history in many different countries standing as testimony to its truth.
• The Budget Deficit -- The GOP promises to cut the roughly $1.4 trillion budget deficit. How? They're not seriously talking about cutting the military, they really don't have the stomach to cut Social Security or Medicare, and they certainly aren't going to raise taxes. Eric Cantor's YouCut! website had a number of different proposals, which if you combined all of them might alter spending by as much as a billion--Several orders of magnitude too little. Paul Ryan's Roadmap for American Prosperity is the only such plan the GOP has  cooked up for fiscal health, and GOP leadership has distanced itself from it quite a bit. That doesn't even take into account that Paul Ryan's roadmap relies on extremely unrealistic assumptions about how the economy will behave with a much more regressive tax code.
• Health Care -- The GOP promises to repeal the health care law and replace it with "common sense solutions". Whatever that means. That of course, assumes it even matters, because it is literally impossible for them to accomplish this in this election cycle.
• Civil Rights -- The recent GOP manifesto "A Pledge to America" pays lip service to social conservatives but really doesn't specify any actual legislative goals. It mentions the subject once in the preamble and never again.

External

• Terrorism -- I don't see how keeping Gitmo open makes us any safer. I also don't see how trying terrorists in military tribunals makes us any safer, because civilian courts have a history of being better at getting convictions for terrorists.
• Iran -- The Republican plan here is... what? Go to war with Iran now?
• North Korea -- There isn't a Republican plan here at all.

As for statement number 2 (fiscal health)... Government debt, for comparative purposes, is generally expressed as a portion of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). The reason for this is that the GDP is the size of the country's economy and thus the "income" of the country. Saying you have a $200,000 mortgage on a house is different if you have a $30,000 income than if you have a $1 million income, after all. The same principle is true for countries.

List of developed countries by government debt (as a percentage of GDP):

Japan	189.30%
Italy	115.20%
Greece	113.40%
Singapore	113.10%
Iceland	107.60%
Belgium	97.60%
Israel	78.40%
Hungary	78.00%
France	77.50%
Portugal	76.90%
Canada	75.40%
Germany	72.10%
United Kingdom	68.10%
Netherlands	62.20%
Norway	60.60%
Ireland	57.70%
Spain	53.20%
United States	52.90%

Developed countries with lower debt than us: Croatia, Denmark, Poland, Finland, Switzerland, South Korea, New Zealand, Russia



As for statement 3 (taxing the rich)-- Tax loopholes give ways for the rich to cheat on their taxes. Close them and this problem does exist. They'd consider moving to other countries were it not for the fact that there really aren't any other developed countries for them to move to. The United States has the lowest taxes in the developed world, mainly because we (currently) do not have a VAT (and even our income taxes are fairly low).

Besides the economics of it, there's also history. Prior to the Reagan era, taxes on the rich were much higher than they are now--and even then, the wealthy families of Europe were moving here in droves, fully willing to pay our taxes.

[SamV]

...tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and ...

I think you got it wrong JJ  --

It's spend money that's borrowed from the Chinese and others.

Then cut taxes for the wealthiest by giving them even MORE BORROWED money.

So it should go: "... spend and tax cut and spend and tax cut and spend and tax cut and spend and tax cut and spend and tax cut and spend and tax cut and spend and tax cut and ...", ad infinitum, until only the richest Americans have all the money, and the lower and middle classes, along with the rest of the economy goes down the drain.

It seems JJ believes such a foolish modus operandi is the province of the Democrats alone, when in fact the Repubs can and are equally guilty of the same so to curry favor with their political and moneyed supporters.

[SamV]

In truth the federal income tax levels in this country have been a political rallying cry for one party over the other, mainly used to bash over the heads of their opponents. And the real shame is that the US generates more than enough wealth every year that there is little need to concern us over the current levels of deficit the government has run up, or for that matter the solvency of social security, medicare, etc.

But at the same time, no one, and I mean ON ONE in either party will sit down and have an honest and frank discussion with the American people about it. But then there is little opportunity of that when most people only get to hear from there representatives in 15 second sound bites on the evening news. And besides it's better to use the issue as a politically battering ram to frighten a lot of anxious people over it every time an election comes up.

I wonder how many Americans voters in this country are aware that during the 1950's this country experienced one of it's greatest periods of economic growth it had ever seen, as the US left the war years behind and the population increased dramatically. It was a time when lower economic class people were moving out of urban areas, becoming first time home owners in the new suburbs, purchasing cars, appliances, furniture, TVs, etc, and growing in to the first of what we in our time would call the comfortable middle class, and all thanks to well-paying jobs at all levels of business. At the same time rich US investors were more-or-less making a killing as Wall Street stocks took off. And during this time, under the Republican administration of Dwight Eisenhower, do you have any idea what the federal income tax rate was on the wealthiest Americans?

Here's a clue, it' wasn't the current 35 %, or even the 39.5 % rate that the US will be going to, if the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year. No it was 91 %!  Yeah - that's over two and a half times what the richest among us pay now - and yet those people were "steal" making out like bandits.

My point in all this is that we are now about to have another election and this one may have a greater impact on the future economic growth in this county than perhaps any other in the last three or four decades. Yet from what I see being shown in the way of political ads on the TV, and mostly financed by wealthy individuals and groups under names like "Americans for Prosperity" , "Club for Growth" and similar made up innocuous, flag-waving names, is a whole barrel of half-truths, if not out-right lies, all so some people can keep their own pockets lined, rather than benefit the country in the least. (BTW I love the way they say "we" in these ads, implying in some way that the people paying for the ads are part of the populous who are suffering the most in these current economic conditions, when I know damn well what they really mean is "me"! )

My major concern because of all this propaganda, is that if the Libertarians and the "no-knowings" tea party candidates running as Republicans get in and take over the US Congress. And once there they might do something stupid, in the same way the Congress after the 1929 stock market crash did, that the older, more "main-stream" Repubs who will still be in office can't stop, and thus end-up crashing the economy again. The only saving grace we may have this time to prevent it, is having Obama in the White House. Here's hoping the Prez won't be afraid to use his veto power when the time comes that he has to.

[TheZookie007]

I'm curious though:

I wonder how many Americans voters in this country are aware that during the 1950's this country experienced one of it's greatest periods of economic growth it had ever seen, as the US left the war years behind and the population increased dramatically. It was a time when lower economic class people were moving out of urban areas, becoming first time home owners in the new suburbs, purchasing cars, appliances, furniture, TVs, etc, and growing in to the first of what we in our time would call the comfortable middle class, and all thanks to well-paying jobs at all levels of business. At the same time rich US investors were more-or-less making a killing as Wall Street stocks took off. And during this time, under the Republican administration of Dwight Eisenhower, do you have any idea what the federal income tax rate was on the wealthiest Americans?

Here's a clue, it' wasn't the current 35 %, or even the 39.5 % rate that the US will be going to, if the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year. No it was 91 %!  Yeah - that's over two and a half times what the richest among us pay now - and yet those people were "steal" making out like bandits.

What was the rate of inflation back then, and did that have any impact on this tax rate figure?

[Siria]

I'm curious though:
What was the rate of inflation back then, and did that have any impact on this tax rate figure?

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=4

[JJ]

THREE WORST PRESIDENTS SINCE 1900 ?

Yeo !   

[JJ]

He actually said it.

"It seems JJ believes such a foolish modus operandi is the province of the Democrats alone, when in fact the Repubs can and are equally guilty of the same so to curry favor with their political and moneyed supporters."

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

Wrong.

This is the old Liberal argument to justify spending and taxing to death.

The "Republicans are almost as bad as the Democrats at it" so therefore, it makes no difference who is in office.

This kind of thinking brings you Greece, as well as the land of fruits and nuts - California, and soon to arrive, a bankrupt and completely broken down state of New York.  (especially if the state yet again sends a liberal Democrat named Cuomo back to run the state governor's mansion).

[pedonbio]

I'm curious though:
What was the rate of inflation back then, and did that have any impact on this tax rate figure?

Inflation was low, and had no bearing on tax rates.

The rates in the higher brackets are common in other industrialized democracies. In the 1930s Americans really did make a conscious choice to establish a middle class. That meant making the assembly of ever-larger hereditary fortunes impossible. In order to prevent that it is necessary to have a top rate of at least 70%. The choice was to either have high taxation, or make inheritance impossible. The United States chose the former course. At the time estate tax rates, after the generous exemptions, were taxable at income rates.

During Eisenhower's term economists argued over whether the 70% rate was high enough to prevent the assembly of fortunes large enough to distort the economy, so the rates were boosted to a top rate of 91%. During Johnson's term it was lowered to 70% again.

Other industrialized democracies have solved the problem by using a separate rate schedule for estate taxation. Japan, for example, has a top estate tax rate of 98%.

Many people think income and estate taxation are to raise revenue. The much more important function is to prevent aristocracy.

[pedonbio]

One of the many things that has changed during my lifetime is the American public attitude toward taxes. Before the 1980s we didn't talk about taxes much; every public action cost money, and taxes were the way we paid for it. There was a certain pride in paying taxes, because it meant that one had a rising income, and one was contributing more to the social well-being of all of us. There was a small group of whiners, mostly the people who had spent their lives hating FDR, who complained about taxes. But they complained about everything--The space program, topless dancing, and rock music.

[gOOber]

 

[pedonbio]

Darn! We didn't impeach him, so I guess the republic wasn't saved! 

[pedonbio]

For the enlightenment of our members under fifty or so, gOOb and I just had an exchange that says (correct me if I'm wrong, gOOb), "Regardless of your politics, some folks are going to tell you that the sky is falling, the enemy is at the gate, and the republic is in peril, and the answer is (this) or (that). The first couple of times you'll believe 'em and worry about it. But if you haven't caught on by the time you're fifty, maybe you should go back to school."

[SamV]

Yeah, but the schools are part of the problem.

At least that's apparent when you get people like Christine O'Donnell whose experience with the education system has left her rather ill informed in a variety of areas, but especially science, religion, sex, etc.

I'd say Christine perhaps missed too many classes by spending too much time under the bleachers, except she freely admits she's opposed to that too. 

[SamV]

He actually said it.

"It seems JJ believes such a foolish modus operandi is the province of the Democrats alone, when in fact the Repubs can and are equally guilty of the same so to curry favor with their political and moneyed supporters."

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

Wrong.

This is the old Liberal argument to justify spending and taxing to death.

The "Republicans are almost as bad as the Democrats at it" so therefore, it makes no difference who is in office.

This kind of thinking brings you Greece, as well as the land of fruits and nuts - California, and soon to arrive, a bankrupt and completely broken down state of New York.  (especially if the state yet again sends a liberal Democrat named Cuomo back to run the state governor's mansion).

I'm afraid that you're as wrong about that JJ, as you are to think that's "an old Liberal" argument, when I've personally heard conservatives (true ones, not the conservatainers that inhabit FOX News and else where) voice the same.

{Added} And BTW, my comment citing the Repubs and the Dems wasn't so much about "what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander", or a tit for tat allegation, but the foolishness of both parties to operate our federal tax system for political purposes. So rather than dealing with something that is this important honestly with the electorate so they can make informed decisions regarding it; both parties instead treat it like some kind of game to score political points against the opposition while completely mudding the waters over it. And when Congress does make changes to it; they turn around and depending on the party passed the legislation either convince their constituents how it's all a benefit to them, or the worse thing to ever happen. But the truth of the matter is that most times regardless of the party, the changes made in the tax system is a benefit only for the moneyed individuals and groups who finance their campaigns. And if all that want over your head in my earlier post, then I'm sorry you didn't get it. {end edit}

I think JJ someday you'll probably grow up and finally wise up. But until then why don't you take a look over at the last dozen posts in the Right Wing Tavern thread, if you haven't already done so. You might learn something that puts a few holes in your hypothesis about taxes, and that only cuts can grow the US economy. But then that's the thing about history and the niggling facts that make it up, and not idle suppositions by a lot of no-nothings.

[DruulEmpire]

One of the better jokes I heard lately:

The right claims that the left is always invoking class warfare, but the right seems to be at war with anyone who attended class.

[Palomine]

He actually said it.

"It seems JJ believes such a foolish modus operandi is the province of the Democrats alone, when in fact the Repubs can and are equally guilty of the same so to curry favor with their political and moneyed supporters."

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

Wrong.

This is the old Liberal argument to justify spending and taxing to death.

The "Republicans are almost as bad as the Democrats at it" so therefore, it makes no difference who is in office.

This kind of thinking brings you Greece, as well as the land of fruits and nuts - California, and soon to arrive, a bankrupt and completely broken down state of New York.  (especially if the state yet again sends a liberal Democrat named Cuomo back to run the state governor's mansion).

I do my best to stay out of these political discussions as much as possible... especially during the past few years, but now and then the temptation is TOO great to be quiet. JJ, as a longtime resident of BOTH New York and California, I'll be the first to admit that their state/local governments are capable of some pretty impressive foolishness. Of course, that capability isn't limited to NY and CA... IMO, MOST any group of people of two or more (which includes all governments by definition) is going to make some big mistakes: that whole 'larger the group, lower the average IQ' thing in action.

Anyway, I just wanted to pop a hole in your latest Faux Nooz brainwashing bubble about how big bad liberal states like NY and CA are doomed to financial ruin specifically due to their pathetic progressive tax and spend ways. Of course, Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck or whichever multimillionaire propagandist you're parroting this time didn't bother to mention how much MORE these blue states PAY in federal taxes vs. what they receive in federal aid as compared to red states. Though these figures are six years old, I'll wager the situation today is almost exactly the same: on average, BLUE states (i.e.: liberal, socialist, democratic) pay INTO the federal kitty FAR MORE than they get back, WHEREAS RED states (i.e.: conservative, patriotic, republican) TAKE FROM the federal government FAR MORE than they contribute.
 
The numbers:

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)



States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Details here: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html ...this ongoing (and cumulative) imbalance can't help but affect the fiscal outcomes: all else being equal, if you are required to pay significantly more than your neighbor for the exact same goods and services, chances are that at year's end, his bank balance is going to be in better shape than yours. I'm not saying this is the sole determinant/contributing factor to any particular state budget situation, but to ignore it is to simply abandon any attempt at reason, independent thought or credibility (as your Faux Nooz pontiffs gleefully do on a daily basis).

Wake up JJ and think for yourself... just for a change... who knows, you might like it!

[mofoapoo]

i dont even think JJ reads the responses.  They so brutally destroy his arguments, it's kinda sad to watch him try.

It's like he's plugging his ears and screaming at people.

[3deroticer]

[CarlTL]

That's just insulting to Sergeant Schultz

[rtpoe]

Going way back in the thread...

With regards to the definition of "Middle Class"... So the upper limit is an income of $250,000, and the lower limit is presumably the poverty threshhold (around $25,000 for a household of four people)? That's one hell of a big range. Where does anyone get the idea that the Middle Class is being squeezed?

Personal note: I was one of three k1ds in a single-parent household. I have *always* been a renter (even in my youth, my family rented one floor of a two-family house). I have *never* made more than $40,000 a year (the average was closer to $25,000), and I don't expect to ever own a home or have a six-figure income.

There's not a chance in hell I'm going to ever consider someone with an income over $100,000 as anything BUT rich.

"Middle Class" my ass.

[rtpoe]

And with regards to Palomine's reporting, do not forget that almost every state has some form of balanced budget requirement that inhibits their fiscal flexibility. A state simply cannot instantly fix its budget woes by deficit spending like the Federal government.

And before you say "A Balanced budget? That's a good thing!", what do you do when revenues are dropping as part of the overall economic slump but you still have to pay all your state employees (not just gov't office drones, but state police, state highway, state parks, state colleges...) their union-mandated salaries?