9 of 11
9
What Reganomics has accomplished.
Posted: 12 October 2013 02:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 121 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6041
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 12 October 2013 02:09 PM
Write4U - 12 October 2013 02:02 PM

Lest we forget about the tax increase on those who could most afford it, which is not even on the table, let alone mentioned today.

Not sure what you mean.  There was a small tax increase early in Clinton’s presidency, then a cut in the capital gains tax around 1996, IIRC.  The tax increase produced prosperity while the tax cut held back the economy, right?  wink

Those very people who don’t know ACA from Obamacare are the “well informed citizenry”? They hate Obamacare, but do like the “Affordable Care Act” which is so much more affordable. and does not “force” people to sign up.

Doesn’t Kimmel do that interview thing in NYC?  Buckle of the Bible belt, no doubt.

I have no prejudices against North, South, Red, Blue . But the last comment on the Kimmel show was a good natured, “you got me” from that NY woman, instead of threatening to shut down the entire government as we hear from the 3000 truckers rumbling down the cracked highways and crumbling bridges, “showing their opposition to Obama”, unaware that the best friend they have is Obama.

And, Bryan, Al Franken was a very smart, well informed “comedian”, which apparently is a disqualifier for “representative” in your book. Of course Reagan was an actor and eminently qualified to hold office.
Oddly California (8th largest economy in the world) under Brown seems to have managed to overcome the malaise and has a budget surplus today.  Strange how that works, cut expenses AND raising taxes on those who can afford it seems to be the correct formula. It worked under Clinton. And the states screaming the loudest receive the most Federal assistance. Tortured logic.

But alas, a Tax raise on the top 2% is “unthinkable”, even though they are the ONLY beneficiaries of the current financial woes and spend more money on false advertising and funding TEA party extremists. If only that money could have been used to repair infrastructure or build a few schools.

[ Edited: 13 October 2013 05:00 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2013 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 122 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 12 October 2013 02:20 PM
Bryan - 12 October 2013 02:09 PM
Write4U - 12 October 2013 02:02 PM

Lest we forget about the tax increase on those who could most afford it, which is not even on the table, let alone mentioned today.

Not sure what you mean.  There was a small tax increase early in Clinton’s presidency, then a cut in the capital gains tax around 1996, IIRC.  The tax increase produced prosperity while the tax cut held back the economy, right?  wink

Those very people who don’t know ACA from Obamacare are the “well informed citizenry”? They hate Obamacare, but do like the “Affordable Care Act” which is so much more affordable. and does not “force” people to sign up.

Doesn’t Kimmel do that interview thing in NYC?  Buckle of the Bible belt, no doubt.

I have no prejudices against North, South, Red, Blue . But the last comment on the Kimmel show was a good natured, “you got me” from that NY woman, instead of threatening to shut down the entire government as we hear from the 3000 truckers rumbling down the cracked highways and crumbling bridges, “showing their opposition to Obama”, unaware that the best friend they have is Obama.


Those very people who don’t know ACA from Obamacare are the “well informed citizenry”?

And, Bryan, Al Franken was a very smart, well informed “comedian”, which apparently is a disqualifier for “representative” in your book.

Al Franken’s smart.  He’s against the tax on medical devices.  That’s why I mentioned him.

Of course Reagan was an actor and eminently qualified to hold office.

And of course he was the California governor before serving as president.  But what we really need are presidents with qualifications like Obama’s.  Do you think there’s any chance you’ll get back to the topic?

Oddly California (8th largest economy in the world) under Brown seems to have managed to overcome the malaise and has a budget surplus today.  Strange how that works, cut expenses AND raising taxes on those who can afford it seems to be the correct formula. It worked under Clinton. And the states screaming the loudest receive the most Federal assistance. Tortured logic.

The tortured logic comes from those who ignore structural debt.  California has a great deal of debt to deal with.  Businesses will continue to leave California as taxes go up.

But alas, a Tax raise on the top 2% is “unthinkable”, even though they are the ONLY beneficiaries of the current financial woes and spend more money on false advertising and funding TEA party extremists. If only that money could have been used to repair infrastructure or build a few schools.

A good portion of the lost tax revenue in 2009 came from shrunken tax revenues from the top 1 percent.  Why?  Because the rich folks were the ones holding onto most of those worthless mortgage-based investments that went belly up.  Rich people don’t have enough money to pay for all the stuff liberals want to buy.  They can *make* enough money to pay for quite a bit, but that depends on society keeping it possible for them to make a great deal of money.

Lop off the ridiculously wealthy top 1 percent and that tax burden will work its way down the line to the next group.  And the next.  And so on.

[ Edited: 12 October 2013 06:23 PM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2013 08:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 123 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 12 October 2013 06:05 PM

The tortured logic comes from those who ignore structural debt.  California has a great deal of debt to deal with.  Businesses will continue to leave California as taxes go up.

 

What’s the indicator of businesses leaving California? I’d like to keep informed of that.
Where are they going?  What types of businesses are leaving California?
Is there a registry of businesses that keeps track of who left and who stayed?

How do you know all of this?

I just heard a great piece of news too…
Business and wealthy people are overwhelmingly supportive of tax increases as the deficit goes up.
Just heard that.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2013 04:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 124 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6041
Joined  2009-02-26

Bryan,
Those very people who don’t know ACA from Obamacare are the “well informed citizenry”?

No those were victims of the misinformation spread by the TEA party and their sponsors. The point of those informal interviews was to demonstrate how “well informed the citizenry is. But before you blame Obama for not explaining ACA sufficiently, this is a result of the overwhelming spreading of misinformation.

And of course he was the California governor before serving as president.  But what we really need are presidents with qualifications like Obama’s.  Do you think there’s any chance you’ll get back to the topic?

And the topic is..?  What we are seeing IS the result of Reaganomics, also known as “trickle down” economics.  Seems that this strategy has NOT produced the “desired” effect. In fact the results are self evident. The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The stock market for the few at all time highs and the largest number of people “needing” assistance to put food on the table.  How well is that working?

But in California Brown seems to have managed to end up with a surplus after cutting expenses AND raising taxes just like Clintonomics (lifting all boats), which seems to stand alone as a successful strategy, right in between the Republican eras, all resulting in deficit spending, most of which ended up in the pockets of the very rich, and to trickle down only to the rich stockholders and vulgar bonuses to the Job providers, for raising profits by laying off workers. Job creators?

Logically that leads inevitably to an autocracy.  During slavery there was no unemployment, every slaved was “employed”. Unfortunately, none of them were “gainfully employed”.  Can we see a trend today?

And I stand by my earlier comment, this sedition by a few well funded “representatives of gerrymandered districts” will result in a calamity, for which Obama will undoubtedly be blamed as “not competent” to handle the situation. He is already being blamed for “shutting down” the government, even though he gave the Republicans everything they “demanded”. The Republicans refuse to fund their own budgets. Find me a significant difference between the Ryan budget and the Dems proposed current budget which meets the Repubs more than half way. But no, it is not enough, they want to go back to Darwinian natural selection.  How odd that ‘good Christians” would adopt an atheist (scientific) belief of how nature selects the “chosen to survive”, instead of Christ’s message of “helping the poor”.

Yes, “give us your poor, huddled masses”, so that we can exploit them and then deport them when the job is done, just as they want to ship Obama back to Kenya, where he can practice his economic “terrorism”, which BTW has resulted in the fastest drop in deficit spending than any previous Republican administration.

btw, Did you hear how we got bin Laden and just recently the no.2 terrorist?  As I recall, Bush said, “we don’t care about bin laden anymore” after promising to exercise this old Texan tradition of bringing in the “wanted dead or alive”. Seems Bush was not well suited for that job, even after spending hundreds of billions on “shock and awe” campaign, which was design to strike fear and terror in the hearts of those few “martyrs” who were looking forward to dying for the greater glory of Allah and Islam.

On topic? You bet I am on topic. Reaganomics does not work, when can you logically accept that fact?

[ Edited: 13 October 2013 05:07 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2013 07:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 125 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 13 October 2013 04:54 PM

Bryan,
Those very people who don’t know ACA from Obamacare are the “well informed citizenry”?

No those were victims of the misinformation spread by the TEA party and their sponsors. The point of those informal interviews was to demonstrate how “well informed the citizenry is. But before you blame Obama for not explaining ACA sufficiently, this is a result of the overwhelming spreading of misinformation.

By who, who by?  You just get to make it up regardless of the evidence, right?

It’s Jimmy Kimmel, W4U.  He’s not trying to show how people are informed or ill-informed.  He’s doing a comedy show.  And it was Hollywood, not NYC.  Still, a well-known den of conservatism.

And of course he was the California governor before serving as president.  But what we really need are presidents with qualifications like Obama’s.  Do you think there’s any chance you’ll get back to the topic?

And the topic is..?

Reaganomics, which Reagan invented (or something)?

What we are seeing IS the result of Reaganomics, also known as “trickle down” economics.

Yes, and here we go again.  Wasn’t it you who spent time saying Obamanomics is better before going on to argue that Reaganomics is Keynesian (as is Obamanomics)?  Is it trickle-down or is it Keynesian?  Make up your mind.

Seems that this strategy has NOT produced the “desired” effect. In fact the results are self evident. The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Until Obama, the trend was for the rich to get richer and for the poor to get richer also.  Perhaps that’s what makes Obamanomics so great.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6416

The stock market for the few at all time highs and the largest number of people “needing” assistance to put food on the table.  How well is that working?

Is it Keynesian policy or supply-side economics we should blame?  Or the infernal combination of the two?

But in California Brown seems to have managed to end up with a surplus after cutting expenses AND raising taxes just like Clintonomics (lifting all boats), which seems to stand alone as a successful strategy, right in between the Republican eras, all resulting in deficit spending, most of which ended up in the pockets of the very rich, and to trickle down only to the rich stockholders and vulgar bonuses to the Job providers, for raising profits by laying off workers. Job creators?

It sounds like you’re making stuff up off the top of your head.  California’s a long way from getting out of the woods (debt).  Other states, such as Wisconsin, have done a better job of turning state finances around.  And doesn’t everyone know by now that Clinton rode the tech bubble to prosperity?  Beyond that, check the numbers.  I’ve already pointed out that the boost to income tax rates was followed in a few years by a cut to the capital gains tax.  Why do you just ignore this information and repeat your former talking points?  The deficit came down because of two things:  slower spending growth (Keynesians wail!) and strong economic growth, with the latter providing increased tax revenue *regardless of tax increases*.  You see the latter pattern repeated under Bush.  Before 2008, the deficit was shrinking under Bush.  Lower taxes, but higher tax revenues from decent economic output.

Logically that leads inevitably to an autocracy.

By the logic of the slippery slope fallacy?  Explain.

During slavery there was no unemployment, every slaved was “employed”. Unfortunately, none of them were “gainfully employed”.  Can we see a trend today?

I see a trend for you to use silly arguments.  There was unemployment during the days of slavery, though I don’t believe there was a BLS around to track it.

And I stand by my earlier comment [...]

Right.  You repeat yourself without addressing the counterargument.

Yes, “give us your poor, huddled masses”, so that we can exploit them and then deport them when the job is done, just as they want to ship Obama back to Kenya, where he can practice his economic “terrorism”, which BTW has resulted in the fastest drop in deficit spending than any previous Republican administration.

Didn’t I already explain this one, too?  Do you read with your eyes closed or what?

The deficit is shrinking for two primary reasons.  1)  Stimulus spending is going away (it was done over a period of time rather than all in 2009), 2) the evil “Republican Sequester.”  We haven’t had the debt and the deficit higher than the warning levels the EU sets for its member nations since WW2.  And I think you’ve got your talking point wrong.  Calvin Coolidge was an outstanding deficit cutter after Wilson ran up a big debt for WW1.  The debt went down from the time Coolidge to office to the time he left, which hasn’t been repeated since.  Obama’s amazing deficit reductions are accompanied by rising debt.

btw, Did you hear how we got bin Laden and just recently the no.2 terrorist?

Right, because of Obama’s focus on, as Vice-president Biden said, a “three-letter word, J-O-B-S, jobs!”

As I recall, Bush said, “we don’t care about bin laden anymore”

Your recollection is awry and out of context.

after promising to exercise this old Texan tradition of bringing in the “wanted dead or alive”. Seems Bush was not well suited for that job, even after spending hundreds of billions on “shock and awe” campaign, which was design to strike fear and terror in the hearts of those few “martyrs” who were looking forward to dying for the greater glory of Allah and Islam.

Fling it all at the wall.  Something’s got to make up for the unemployment rate being over 7 percent.

On topic? You bet I am on topic. Reaganomics does not work, when can you logically accept that fact?

I’m still waiting for you to settle on whether Reagan’s policies were supply-side or Keynesian.  Are you ready to make your choice?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2013 11:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 126 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6041
Joined  2009-02-26

It is you who is doing the apologetics. The numbers show the opposite of what you are saying. And now we have a completely dysfunctional government, but let’s blame Obama for that economic “road to recovery” and the resulting job losses, why don’t we?

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2013 10:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 127 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 13 October 2013 11:23 PM

It is you who is doing the apologetics. The numbers show the opposite of what you are saying.

Baloney.  If you think I’m wrong with any of my numbers then back up what you’re saying.  I’m using the numbers from (Obama’s) White House Office of Management and Budget.

And you can do the same thing and prove yourself wrong.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

Don’t believe that Clinton signed a cut in the capital gains tax into law?  Really?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

And now we have a completely dysfunctional government, but let’s blame Obama for that economic “road to recovery” and the resulting job losses, why don’t we?

Obama’s (largely) to blame for dysfunctional government because he’s needlessly divisive.  He’s to blame for the slow economic recovery because he gave Congress (Congressional Democrats) free reign to put together a stimulus bill made up mostly of pet liberal wishes and pork, with the idea that government spending stimulates the economy MOL regardless of how it spends the money.

But the immediate question here is your assessment of Reaganomics.  Was it trickle-down or was it Keynesian?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2013 05:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 128 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6041
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 14 October 2013 10:46 AM
Write4U - 13 October 2013 11:23 PM

It is you who is doing the apologetics. The numbers show the opposite of what you are saying.

Baloney.  If you think I’m wrong with any of my numbers then back up what you’re saying.  I’m using the numbers from (Obama’s) White House Office of Management and Budget.

And you can do the same thing and prove yourself wrong.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

Don’t believe that Clinton signed a cut in the capital gains tax into law?  Really?

Was it necessary in order to stimulate investment in new technology (the internet)? Obama wanted to do the same thing with “green” energy and all we hear is about the failure of one company, so let’s just forget about green energy, let’s build that monstrous pipeline from Alaska and invest in fracking for more fossil fuels.

And now we have a completely dysfunctional government, but let’s blame Obama for that economic “road to recovery” and the resulting job losses, why don’t we?

Obama’s (largely) to blame for dysfunctional government because he’s needlessly divisive.  He’s to blame for the slow economic recovery because he gave Congress (Congressional Democrats) free reign to put together a stimulus bill made up mostly of pet liberal wishes and pork, with the idea that government spending stimulates the economy MOL regardless of how it spends the money.

Which pet projects (like a bridge to nowhere)?  And history has shown that in time of financial crisis government stimulus spending works if they are applied to provide jobs.  Of course Obama’s plan for infrastructure repair was thwarted by Repubicans.

But the immediate question here is your assessment of Reaganomics.  Was it trickle-down or was it Keynesian?

wiki

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy – predominantly private sector, but with a role for government intervention during recessions.

and

Today, “trickle-down economics” is most closely identified with the economic policies known as “Reaganomics” or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan’s budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the “supply-side economics” is the trickle-down idea: “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.

The numbers still show that Clinton left a healthy economy and it was all down-hill from there.  Comes Obama (you know that black guy who rode all his advantages to the top), and we know what happened in congress (that separate branch of government).

Obama did his job, it is congress that failed (and continues to fail) the nation.

And why should I believe Forbes Magazine over Politifact which you so easily dismissed.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Note that Obama was re-elected (by a healthy margin) on his performance, to the great dismay of the TEA party.

Bryan, you speak of a “divisive” Obama, but when he was elected the first time I shall never forget the words “we shall do everything in our power to bring this president down” by a republican leader of congress even before Obama stepped foot in the White House. Those words cannot be erased or conveniently forgotten. Intent was declared and actions speak for themselves.

[ Edited: 14 October 2013 05:54 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2013 08:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 129 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Write4U - 14 October 2013 05:35 PM
Bryan - 14 October 2013 10:46 AM
Write4U - 13 October 2013 11:23 PM

It is you who is doing the apologetics. The numbers show the opposite of what you are saying.

(clipped)

Note that Obama was re-elected (by a healthy margin) on his performance, to the great dismay of the TEA party.

Bryan, you speak of a “divisive” Obama, but when he was elected the first time I shall never forget the words “we shall do everything in our power to bring this president down” by a republican leader of congress even before Obama stepped foot in the White House. Those words cannot be erased or conveniently forgotten. Intent was declared and actions speak for themselves.


They’ve stayed true to their promise, too. About the only one thary’ve ever stayed true to.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2013 11:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 130 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 14 October 2013 05:35 PM
Bryan - 14 October 2013 10:46 AM
Write4U - 13 October 2013 11:23 PM

It is you who is doing the apologetics. The numbers show the opposite of what you are saying.

Baloney.  If you think I’m wrong with any of my numbers then back up what you’re saying.  I’m using the numbers from (Obama’s) White House Office of Management and Budget.

And you can do the same thing and prove yourself wrong.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

Don’t believe that Clinton signed a cut in the capital gains tax into law?  Really?

Was it necessary in order to stimulate investment in new technology (the internet)?

You should always avoid answering the questions I pose to you (see bold text above).

As I’ve written before, the economy’s too complex to count on for innovation on demand.  It happens when it happens.  It was the expansion of computer technologies, building on the late 1970s and 1980s, that paved the way for the Internet explosion (Microsoft, Apple).  But cutting capital gains taxes definitely allows for better flow of capital to where entrepreneurs think it’s needed.

Obama wanted to do the same thing with “green” energy

Ah, yes the Entrepreneur in Chief.  No, it’s not the same thing for the government to decide where investments should go. 

and all we hear is about the failure of one company, so let’s just forget about green energy, let’s build that monstrous pipeline from Alaska and invest in fracking for more fossil fuels.

We have multiple failures, actually.  The companies fail largely because the technology is not yet mature.  Throwing money at a specific problem doesn’t solve it until the technology is mature.

Which pet projects (like a bridge to nowhere)?

http://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-stimulus-bit-pork-lot-opportunism

And history has shown that in time of financial crisis government stimulus spending works if they are applied to provide jobs.

Where?  The Great Depression?  Ever look at the unemployment numbers from the 1930s?  Or do you simply rely on legend?

Of course Obama’s plan for infrastructure repair was thwarted by Repubicans.

Huh.  That’s funny, ‘cause Obama said that Republicans were always there for ribbon-cutting ceremonies for projects completed with stimulus funds.  He must have been talking just about the one or two that were completed despite Republican efforts.  Seriously, don’t you tire of just making stuff up?  Obama admitted that most of the projects weren’t as shovel-ready as they’d hoped.  And part of that probably comes down to opposition from hard left environmentalists.  There aren’t many construction projects environmentalists favor.  They’ll tie you up in court and make you pay for study after study before breaking ground on new construction.

But the immediate question here is your assessment of Reaganomics.  Was it trickle-down or was it Keynesian?

wiki

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy – predominantly private sector, but with a role for government intervention during recessions.

and

Today, “trickle-down economics” is most closely identified with the economic policies known as “Reaganomics” or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan’s budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the “supply-side economics” is the trickle-down idea: “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.

I’m sure I have the talent to look up “trickle-down economics” on my own, thank you.  Do us all a favor and try to answer the question:

The immediate question here is your assessment of Reaganomics.  Was it trickle-down or was it Keynesian?

The numbers still show that Clinton left a healthy economy and it was all down-hill from there.

The numbers show a weakening economy, and everybody now knows that the Clinton economy was based on the tech bubble, which was starting to deflate during the election year.  Unemployment was edging up under Clinton.  I appreciate your spin effort, but that’s what it is, after all.

Comes Obama (you know that black guy who rode all his advantages to the top), and we know what happened in congress (that separate branch of government).

Because racists and stuff.  That’s never been a serious argument, but it’s always a tremendous distraction.  Fine work in remembering to include it.  The House was controlled by Democrats when Obama took office.  Republicans in the House could do nothing to stop Democrats from legislating as they pleased during 2009, and for most of that same year Republicans in the Senate were equally powerless.  I keep pointing this stuff out and you keep ignoring it. 

Obama did his job, it is congress that failed (and continues to fail) the nation.

Are you a talking point machine or what?  You wanted to give Obama credit for state government workers losing their jobs.  Remember how Obama cut government and we weren’t giving him credit?

And why should I believe Forbes Magazine over Politifact which you so easily dismissed.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

I have good reason for not taking PolitiFact seriously.  I study it closely—it’s nearly a vocation (I helped start the “PolitiFact Bias” website, for example).  What reason do you have for questioning the information in Forbes other than disliking the conclusion?

Note that Obama was re-elected (by a healthy margin) on his performance, to the great dismay of the TEA party.

Noted.  What’s your point?  That the House no longer has keeping Obama to one term as its objective?

Bryan, you speak of a “divisive” Obama, but when he was elected the first time I shall never forget the words “we shall do everything in our power to bring this president down” by a republican leader of congress even before Obama stepped foot in the White House. Those words cannot be erased or conveniently forgotten. Intent was declared and actions speak for themselves.

Google says:
No results found for “we shall do everything in our power to bring this president down”.

Perhaps those words can never be erased or conveniently forgotten, but apparently they can be invented.

And you’re off on the date, also.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

Goodbye, incredibly weak argument against Obama’s divisiveness.  Maybe you’ll explain why Obama also got the date wrong?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2013 11:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 131 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Lois - 14 October 2013 08:05 PM


They’ve stayed true to their promise, too. About the only one thary’ve ever stayed true to.

Lois

Lois, you bought the tale that a Republican vowed to bring Obama down before he even took office?  Say it isn’t so.

It’s the Center For Inquiry, people.  Let’s have some healthy skepticism.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 October 2013 06:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 132 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6041
Joined  2009-02-26

ok Bryan, I’ll accept your knowledge of historical events and you have corrected a few dates. Thank you.

Now, allow me a question to you, “What do you think about Reaganomics?

And for your library of historical events, you may be interested in this little “middle of the night” Republican strategy for winning (winning what?)

On the House floor, Congressman Chris Van Hollen decided to get a clarification on the rules of the shutdown. Apparently, normally any congressperson can call for a vote on any bill at any time. But just before the shutdown happened, the GOP quietly passed a measure that said only House Majority Leader Eric Cantor can call for the shutdown to end (unless he gives a designee permission). Not even the most senior GOP congressperson, Speaker of the House John Boehner, is allowed to do it, without permission from his own guy.

Here’s the thing. Democrats are not always right. Neither are Republicans. The political system is messed up from top to bottom. But this is just crazy. The guy in charge of the GOP can’t end the shutdown. Watch and see. At 5:00, we get to the reality of the situation.

http://www.upworthy.com/congress-did-something-so-spectacularly-creepy-that-its-too-unbelievable-to-make-up?c=fea

[ Edited: 15 October 2013 08:36 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 October 2013 01:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 133 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 15 October 2013 06:25 PM

ok Bryan, I’ll accept your knowledge of historical events and you have corrected a few dates. Thank you.

I’m a bit disappointed you’re still not answering my question.

Now, allow me a question to you, “What do you think about Reaganomics?

I think supply-siders have the better argument than the Keynesians.  I think Keynesian approaches work, but I think they exact a price that probably isn’t worth it in most cases.  We should try supply-side economics for real some day.  As you accidentally pointed out, we got a mix of supply-side and Keynesian policy during the Reagan administration.

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

And for your library of historical events, you may be interested in this little “middle of the night” Republican strategy for winning (winning what?)

On the House floor, Congressman Chris Van Hollen decided to get a clarification on the rules of the shutdown. Apparently, normally any congressperson can call for a vote on any bill at any time. But just before the shutdown happened, the GOP quietly passed a measure that said only House Majority Leader Eric Cantor can call for the shutdown to end (unless he gives a designee permission). Not even the most senior GOP congressperson, Speaker of the House John Boehner, is allowed to do it, without permission from his own guy.

Here’s the thing. Democrats are not always right. Neither are Republicans. The political system is messed up from top to bottom. But this is just crazy. The guy in charge of the GOP can’t end the shutdown. Watch and see. At 5:00, we get to the reality of the situation.

http://www.upworthy.com/congress-did-something-so-spectacularly-creepy-that-its-too-unbelievable-to-make-up?c=fea

There is no coherent Republican strategy regarding the partial government shutdown, so far as I can see.  But the overall original goal is laudable:  Try to force the president to the table to get some progress done on entitlement reform.  That’s the long-term budget problem that threatens the American future.  Obama will even admit it from time to time and pledge his willingness to address the problem.  Yet we’re still waiting to see an idea other than “raise taxes” (along with the soft cap on Medicare spending we noted earlier).

Three cheers for your ability to keep dodging questions.  I also asked one about Obama himself spreading the notion that Congress aligned against him as he took office.  Obama’s smart.  But he can’t figure out McConnell made the statement two years into his presidency?  Let me spell it out for you.  It the was Great Divider doing what he does best:  dividing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 October 2013 02:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 134 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6041
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 16 October 2013 01:54 AM
Write4U - 15 October 2013 06:25 PM

ok Bryan, I’ll accept your knowledge of historical events and you have corrected a few dates. Thank you.

I’m a bit disappointed you’re still not answering my question.

Now, allow me a question to you, “What do you think about Reaganomics?

I think supply-siders have the better argument than the Keynesians.  I think Keynesian approaches work, but I think they exact a price that probably isn’t worth it in most cases.  We should try supply-side economics for real some day.  As you accidentally pointed out, we got a mix of supply-side and Keynesian policy during the Reagan administration.

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

And for your library of historical events, you may be interested in this little “middle of the night” Republican strategy for winning (winning what?)

On the House floor, Congressman Chris Van Hollen decided to get a clarification on the rules of the shutdown. Apparently, normally any congressperson can call for a vote on any bill at any time. But just before the shutdown happened, the GOP quietly passed a measure that said only House Majority Leader Eric Cantor can call for the shutdown to end (unless he gives a designee permission). Not even the most senior GOP congressperson, Speaker of the House John Boehner, is allowed to do it, without permission from his own guy.

Here’s the thing. Democrats are not always right. Neither are Republicans. The political system is messed up from top to bottom. But this is just crazy. The guy in charge of the GOP can’t end the shutdown. Watch and see. At 5:00, we get to the reality of the situation.

http://www.upworthy.com/congress-did-something-so-spectacularly-creepy-that-its-too-unbelievable-to-make-up?c=fea

There is no coherent Republican strategy regarding the partial government shutdown, so far as I can see.  But the overall original goal is laudable:  Try to force the president to the table to get some progress done on entitlement reform.  That’s the long-term budget problem that threatens the American future.  Obama will even admit it from time to time and pledge his willingness to address the problem.  Yet we’re still waiting to see an idea other than “raise taxes” (along with the soft cap on Medicare spending we noted earlier).

And you believe this is the time to address all your concerns?  And what does the president have to do with legislation? I always thought that the President lays out his vision and Congress debates the merits before submitting a Bill for the president to sign or veto.
As you stipulated the president has admitted from “time to time and pledge his willingness to address the problem.” I see nothing divisive about that wrong with that. Do you?

Three cheers for your ability to keep dodging questions.  I also asked one about Obama himself spreading the notion that Congress aligned against him as he took office.  Obama’s smart.  But he can’t figure out McConnell made the statement two years into his presidency?  Let me spell it out for you.  It the was Great Divider doing what he does best:  dividing.

Yes just look what Obama has done to the Republican caucus, divide, divide….!!!?  I don’t see the Dems divided, do you?

And to answer your question, I don’t give a hoot what you call it. But I have a gut feeling that if the vulgar amounts of money (billions)  now being spend on elections was applied to social programs and to provide jobs, the economy would do a lot better.

But now it is my turn to insist you answer my question, instead of admitting that the republican caucus is in total disarray. Now even the Speaker of the House has to get approval from 40 idiots before he can even bring a bill to the floor, which is the job of the Speaker.  Are you accusing Obama for engineering that divisive disaster also or is it the republican caucus who has no clue what they are about to do and claiming that their strategy is going to provide jobs and lower the national debt?  Utter madness!!!!!

[ Edited: 16 October 2013 03:06 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 October 2013 11:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 135 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 16 October 2013 02:52 AM

And you believe this is the time to address all your concerns?

I have many concerns apart from entitlement reform, yet entitlement reform is the only one I mentioned.  I’m not sure what you’re talking about.  The CBO says delaying reform exacerbates the problem.  Obama’s been talking about it for five years.  Hey, why not just talk about it for three more years and hope the next administration will do something about it?

And what does the president have to do with legislation?

Are you serious?

Presidents do not pass legislation, apart from signing it into law, but the executive branch can and does propose specific legislation and can its weight behind it.  Can you imagine if OFA started an ad campaign supporting entitlement reform (heh)?

I always thought that the President lays out his vision and Congress debates the merits before submitting a Bill for the president to sign or veto.

That’s accurate, albeit oversimplified.  As pointed out above, the executive branch can certainly suggest specific legislation and ask Congress to vote on it.  And the executive branch can involve itself in negotiations designed to get the bill passed.  Remember how Joe Biden served as the key to breaking the tax reform impasse back near New Year’s?

As you stipulated the president has admitted from “time to time and pledge his willingness to address the problem.” I see nothing divisive about that wrong with that. Do you?

Hey, you left out the part about his insistence on raising taxes to solve the problem.  He’s holding retirement reform hostage or something, right?  Look, I’m sure you can find an “an” “but” or “or” coming out of the president’s mouth that isn’t divisive.  But why play that silly game?  The broad strokes of his management of is office state “Do it my way.”  In this thread, President Obama has his supporters claiming that he compromised by cutting the budget even though cutting the budget was supposedly one of the president’s own goals.  Clearly, the man’s a genius.

Three cheers for your ability to keep dodging questions.  I also asked one about Obama himself spreading the notion that Congress aligned against him as he took office.  Obama’s smart.  But he can’t figure out McConnell made the statement two years into his presidency?  Let me spell it out for you.  It the was Great Divider doing what he does best:  dividing.

Yes just look what Obama has done to the Republican caucus, divide, divide….!!!?  I don’t see the Dems divided, do you?

The Democrats have many divisions, but not when it comes to the present situation in Congress.  As Obama has nothing to gain by dividing the Democrats, I don’t see any point to your comment.  If he wanted them divided I have little doubt he could do it.

And to answer your question, I don’t give a hoot what you call it.

I didn’t ask any question about your opinion of what I call it.  Seems like the only questions of mine you’ll answer are ones I don’t ask.  Thanks.

But I have a gut feeling that if the vulgar amounts of money (billions)  now being spend on elections was applied to social programs and to provide jobs, the economy would do a lot better.

The only way to accomplish that end that is to give regularly to OFA.  wink

But now it is my turn to insist you answer my question, instead of admitting that the republican caucus is in total disarray.

lol You’re precious.  I’ve provided an answer to each of your questions and you’ve answered none of mine.

Now even the Speaker of the House has to get approval from 40 idiots before he can even bring a bill to the floor, which is the job of the Speaker.  Are you accusing Obama for engineering that divisive disaster also or is it the republican caucus who has no clue what they are about to do and claiming that their strategy is going to provide jobs and lower the national debt?  Utter madness!!!!!

Utter madness?  Are you answering your question for me?

Your question consists of a false dilemma.  I’m not claiming Obama is responsible for dividing the Republicans on the “government shutdown” issue.  Maybe he’s somehow responsible, but that would be a deep “inside baseball” issue.  The Republican’s have/had multiple ideas about what to do and failed to achieve unity in pursuing the goal.  Looks like we may have to wait at least one more president to achieve entitlement reform.  Keep the train moving full speed ahead.  Later we’ll send out a team to build a bridge over the chasm we’re approaching.

By the way, do you think Reaganomics was Keynesian, supply-side or what?

Profile
 
 
   
9 of 11
9
 
‹‹ Service Equity      Atheists In Congress ››