Page 117 of 129 FirstFirst ... 1767107115116117118119127 ... LastLast
Results 1,161 to 1,170 of 1288

Thread: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

  1. #1161
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    98053
    Last Seen
    04-19-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    264

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    It took a lot of time to do what you just did that refuted absolutely nothing. That is what liberals do when they cannot defend their actual results. You absolutely deserve Barack Obama but the majority in this country do not. We will see on Tuesday which one of us is correct. Does rhetoric always trump results? In the liberal world the answer is yes.
    The reason that I didn't refute anything was that there was nothing to refute. I have provided evidence that the results of the Obama administration is comparable to the results in the Reagan administration under similar circumstances. You have not provided any data to refute that, just opinion. I have provided data that tax cuts do not always result in immediate improvements in employment. You have not provided any data to refute that, just opinion. I have provided data that says that the performance of Obama can be favorably compared to any administration facing a situation that is even remotely comparable to the current situation (Reagan being the most recent). I have provided data that, if there is blame to be placed, there is as much that belongs in the laps of Republicans as in Democrats'. What I get from you is rantings about my adherence to an ideology.

    I suspect that there will be a major shift toward the Republicans in the mid-terms which would be OK, under normal circumstances. I do have concern about how many reactionaries are in a position to win, especially in the Senate where we have to live with our mistakes for 6 years. I prefer those who are interested in governing from the center, not from either fringe. In some things, I tend more to the left; and in others, more to the right. However, when someone is anti-government, I find it hard to imagine that they will know what makes good government. Platitudes are not policy.

    Unlike you, I don't have a need to demonize any political party or President. I think that Reagan's notion of trickle-down economics was a ruse to cut taxes on his wealthy buddies but he did manage to spend the Soviet Union into bankruptcy which was a good thing. He increased the deficit but that might have been necessary to break the stagflation that was gripping the country. I note that he did not turn things around in the first 18 months of his administration, but that certainly didn't make him evil and I didn't accuse him of lying to us. Effecting something as large as the US economy takes time.

    I don't think that Bush was a bad person, but he wasn't that smart and he allowed himself to be lead astray. On Iraq, it was by some not-very-nice people (e.g., Chenney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz). Bush also had the Rove problem. Rove was for ideological purity in the WH which prevented Bush from getting balanced inputs. This lead to some unfortunate results (like hiring an administrator for FEMA based on his politics and not his competence - it turns out that the more capable people are not all that dogmatic so filtering based on dogma is a bad way to populate an administration). However, that doesn't make those people evil, just not all that smart.

    You have looked at the data that I have provided as an attempt to defend Obama. That was not the intent. The intent was to challenge your assertions. Cherry picking data to make a point and demonize opponents is intellectual fraud and I am calling you on it.

  2. #1162
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    59,788

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by zip98053 View Post
    The reason that I didn't refute anything was that there was nothing to refute. I have provided evidence that the results of the Obama administration is comparable to the results in the Reagan administration under similar circumstances. You have not provided any data to refute that, just opinion. I have provided data that tax cuts do not always result in immediate improvements in employment. You have not provided any data to refute that, just opinion. I have provided data that says that the performance of Obama can be favorably compared to any administration facing a situation that is even remotely comparable to the current situation (Reagan being the most recent). I have provided data that, if there is blame to be placed, there is as much that belongs in the laps of Republicans as in Democrats'. What I get from you is rantings about my adherence to an ideology.

    I suspect that there will be a major shift toward the Republicans in the mid-terms which would be OK, under normal circumstances. I do have concern about how many reactionaries are in a position to win, especially in the Senate where we have to live with our mistakes for 6 years. I prefer those who are interested in governing from the center, not from either fringe. In some things, I tend more to the left; and in others, more to the right. However, when someone is anti-government, I find it hard to imagine that they will know what makes good government. Platitudes are not policy.

    Unlike you, I don't have a need to demonize any political party or President. I think that Reagan's notion of trickle-down economics was a ruse to cut taxes on his wealthy buddies but he did manage to spend the Soviet Union into bankruptcy which was a good thing. He increased the deficit but that might have been necessary to break the stagflation that was gripping the country. I note that he did not turn things around in the first 18 months of his administration, but that certainly didn't make him evil and I didn't accuse him of lying to us. Effecting something as large as the US economy takes time.

    I don't think that Bush was a bad person, but he wasn't that smart and he allowed himself to be lead astray. On Iraq, it was by some not-very-nice people (e.g., Chenney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz). Bush also had the Rove problem. Rove was for ideological purity in the WH which prevented Bush from getting balanced inputs. This lead to some unfortunate results (like hiring an administrator for FEMA based on his politics and not his competence - it turns out that the more capable people are not all that dogmatic so filtering based on dogma is a bad way to populate an administration). However, that doesn't make those people evil, just not all that smart.

    You have looked at the data that I have provided as an attempt to defend Obama. That was not the intent. The intent was to challenge your assertions. Cherry picking data to make a point and demonize opponents is intellectual fraud and I am calling you on it.
    What you ignored were the conditions of the economy when Reagan, Bush, and Obama took office and the policies that they implemented. Your opinions hardly reconcile with reality. I cherry picked nothing, the facts are there for you to see. It is your responsibility to interpret the facts and the policies that generated those facts. My interpretation led me to my conclusion that Reagan and Bush were pro private sector and Obama was pro public sector. The next two years will tell the difference and will prove which policy is right. If you are right the public sector growth will continue as will the drain on the taxpayers. If I am right we will have great economic growth due to consumer spending with less drain on the taxpayer.

    Obama has never held a private sector job and his only experience is a community agitator. He fulfills that job quite well. Obama may have a smart teleprompter but Obama is hardly smart. I will take Bush's street smarts any day over what we have right now and the results trump the Obama rhetoric.

    Reagan took office with a misery index in the 20's, Obama's was less than 5. Obama's results one year after the recession ended is worse than any other President coming out of a recession and it is due to his policies. You can continue to buy the rhetoric but I will continue to focus on the results and the policies.

    Obama policies took over GM/Chrysler, an 800+ billion stimulus plan, world wide appeasement and his apology tour, proposed cap and trade, and when jobs were supposed to be his top priority he implemented Obamacare which is a job killer. Compare that to what Reagan or Bush did when we were losing jobs and had slow economic growth? Results matter as do policies implemented. On all occasions I support the Reagan and Bush policies and soundly reject Obama. Let's see what the public thinks on Tuesday.

  3. #1163
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    98053
    Last Seen
    04-19-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    264

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What you ignored were the conditions of the economy when Reagan, Bush, and Obama took office and the policies that they implemented. Your opinions hardly reconcile with reality. I cherry picked nothing, the facts are there for you to see. It is your responsibility to interpret the facts and the policies that generated those facts. My interpretation led me to my conclusion that Reagan and Bush were pro private sector and Obama was pro public sector. The next two years will tell the difference and will prove which policy is right. If you are right the public sector growth will continue as will the drain on the taxpayers. If I am right we will have great economic growth due to consumer spending with less drain on the taxpayer.
    I ignored nothing. I did examine the facts and they don't correlate with the interpretation that you put on them. Now, you jump to the conclusion that these facts are evidence of some private sector bias. They are no such thing. In all cases, these Presidents have acted to try to help the private sector. They all did the same kinds of things. They have had similar results.

    [QUOTE/]Obama has never held a private sector job and his only experience is a community agitator. He fulfills that job quite well. Obama may have a smart teleprompter but Obama is hardly smart. I will take Bush's street smarts any day over what we have right now and the results trump the Obama rhetoric. [/QUOTE]

    "Bush's street smarts"??? Bush was born with a silver/gold spoon and lived off the kindness of others (mostly people who were trying to incur favor with his father). I don't fault him for the conditions of his birth and if I had the same opportunities as he, I would take them. However, saying that anything in his life gave him street smarts is just completely delusional.

    On the other hand, Obama ended up as President before he was really ready. He does not know how to use public opinion to put pressure on the opposition. His tendency is toward accommodation which is not serving him well when the opposing has a stated goal of assuring the failure of the Obama administration. There is no accommodation to be had. However, Obama did not learn from Reagan or Bush that you basically have to be in campaign mode all the time and be in constant communication with the public. Obama is a smart guy but he has weaknesses as a leader. I would have preferred Hillary.

    Reagan took office with a misery index in the 20's, Obama's was less than 5. Obama's results one year after the recession ended is worse than any other President coming out of a recession and it is due to his policies. You can continue to buy the rhetoric but I will continue to focus on the results and the policies.
    I thought that we went through this already. I didn't buy any rhetoric, I looked at the data. The data does not support your assertions. In the first year of the Reagan administration, unemployment when up to 9.7% and the GDP when negative, by a bunch. In the first years of the Bush administration, the economy tanked and it took several years to turn things around. It seems that you are the one who is ignoring the data because it conflicts with your dogma.

    Obama policies took over GM/Chrysler, an 800+ billion stimulus plan, world wide appeasement and his apology tour, proposed cap and trade, and when jobs were supposed to be his top priority he implemented Obamacare which is a job killer. Compare that to what Reagan or Bush did when we were losing jobs and had slow economic growth? Results matter as do policies implemented. On all occasions I support the Reagan and Bush policies and soundly reject Obama. Let's see what the public thinks on Tuesday.
    I did compare what Obama did in comparison to Reagan and Bush. The data says that the first part of their administrations were hard on the country but that things eventually got better. Bush got an economy that was in turning in great results and it tanked at the beginning of his administration. Reagan got an economy that was limping along and he imposed some austerity that caused a temporary increase in unemployment and a decline in the GDP. Eventually, things got better. Obama inherited an economy that was already in the tank and has taken action to make things better. The evidence is that things are getting better, but, like the Great Depression, things were so bad that recovery is likely to be slow.

    The fact that I find that the data does not agree with your assertions does not mean that I'm an ideologue. The fact is that you have offered no rebuttal to any data that I've posted in reply to your assertions. Instead offering specific information to prove your point, you jump to something else. You seem to have no ability to focus on a specific train of thought and analyze an issue. Can you explain why Obama is the anti-Christ that you seem to say he is when there is a great deal of similarity between what has happened at the start of his administration and what happened at the beginnings of the Reagan and Bush administrations? Saying that we should look at the entire 8 years of the Reagan administration and a selected part of the Bush administration (leaving out the beginning and the end) but only look at the start of the Obama administration seems to be a clear case of cherry picking data to try to support a pre-determined conclusion. You have decided that Obama is evil and you are going to find/manufacture the data to "prove" it. Like I said before, this smacks of lack of intellectual integrity.

    BTW, current misery index is 10.74.
    In 1980 (Carter's last year) it was 20.76. In 1981 (Reagan's first year) it was 17.97, an improvement of 13%.
    In 2000 (Clinton's last year) it was 7.35, In 2001 (Bush's first year), the index was 7.59, a worsening of 8%.
    In 2008 (Bush's last year) it was 9.61%. In 2009 (Obama's first year) the index was 8.92, an improvement of 7.2%.
    Between the end of Bush's administration and now, the index is worse by 11.7%.
    Between the start and end of the Bush administration, the index was up 30%.
    In the Reagan administration, the index never was better than 8.91 (1986), which is 17% better than it is now.
    When looking at the misery index, I'm perplexed as to how an impartial observer would conclude that is shows that Obama is going a horrible job.
    Also, even though I'm not sure that it proves anything, the numbers show that the misery index goes up in 3 of the last 6 Republican administrations and in 2 of the last 5 Democratic administrations (I think that it is too soon to include Obama in this statistic as we have not reached the end of his administration).

    Finally, what you call an "apology tour" I call showing the world that we really aren't the bullies that the Bush administartion made us out to be. Bush's attitude of "you are either with or us or against us" was childish. Bush was churlish because the other countries wouldn't join him in attacking Iraq. The other countries were asking for proof that the WMDs existed. Bush said "trust me, they are there." The other contries said, "we can't trust you on this because you are asking us to send our troops into harms way and we can't find any evidence that these WMDs exist." Since the WMDs didn't actually exist, Bush could only resort to an approach that only works in school yards.

  4. #1164
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    59,788

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    zip98053;1059073010]I ignored nothing. I did examine the facts and they don't correlate with the interpretation that you put on them. Now, you jump to the conclusion that these facts are evidence of some private sector bias. They are no such thing. In all cases, these Presidents have acted to try to help the private sector. They all did the same kinds of things. They have had similar results.
    What specifically has Obama done to help the private sector create jobs? Cap and Trade? Obamacare? Union bailouts? Please enlighten us all. Have you ever run a business, ever met a payroll? There is nothing Obama has done that is good for business.

    "Bush's street smarts"??? Bush was born with a silver/gold spoon and lived off the kindness of others (mostly people who were trying to incur favor with his father). I don't fault him for the conditions of his birth and if I had the same opportunities as he, I would take them. However, saying that anything in his life gave him street smarts is just completely delusional.
    Doubt that anyone from Washington State has a clue how a state should be run. I live in TX so please don’t tell me you are an expert on anything happening here. GW Bush did a great job as Governor and did a good job as President. You bought what you were told by the media and didn’t bother to verify the rhetoric. That will continue to be your downfall.

    Bush had principle and character, something that Obama lacks. He stuck by those convictions, a trait that liberals don’t understand. Doing what was right isn’t always popular. History will judge him differently than you and more in tune with the non partisan results generated.

    On the other hand, Obama ended up as President before he was really ready. He does not know how to use public opinion to put pressure on the opposition. His tendency is toward accommodation which is not serving him well when the opposing has a stated goal of assuring the failure of the Obama administration. There is no accommodation to be had. However, Obama did not learn from Reagan or Bush that you basically have to be in campaign mode all the time and be in constant communication with the public. Obama is a smart guy but he has weaknesses as a leader. I would have preferred Hillary.
    Obama knows how to be a community agitator and not how to run anything. That is reality. “Obama did not learn from Reagan or Bush that you basically have to be in campaign mode?” You are kidding, right? That is all Obama does, campaign and you are right he is the poorest leader ever to hold the office. I don’t know how smart he is but I do know how arrogant and what a narcissist he is. I also know how to read a resume and Obama's resume as well as Hillary's didn't qualify either for the highest office in the land.

    Not sure where you went to school or what they taught you but you and I are definitely not even close to being on the same page. Seems to me that buy a lot of rhetoric while ignoring basic substance. Guess my experience actually running a business makes me look at things a lot different than you.

    I thought that we went through this already. I didn't buy any rhetoric, I looked at the data. The data does not support your assertions. In the first year of the Reagan administration, unemployment when up to 9.7% and the GDP when negative, by a bunch. In the first years of the Bush administration, the economy tanked and it took several years to turn things around. It seems that you are the one who is ignoring the data because it conflicts with your dogma.
    Unemployment went to 9.7% because of high interest rates and high inflation. Reagan addressed both with a pro growth economic policy. Obama is pro govt. growth. You don’t see the difference? This discussion is going nowhere.

    I believe you said you were around during the 80's, if so then you have a very short memory and no clue as to how bad things were. This recession wasn't even close to what Obama "inherited" I would love to hear how Obama inherited something he helped create?


    I did compare what Obama did in comparison to Reagan and Bush. The data says that the first part of their administrations were hard on the country but that things eventually got better. Bush got an economy that was in turning in great results and it tanked at the beginning of his administration. Reagan got an economy that was limping along and he imposed some austerity that caused a temporary increase in unemployment and a decline in the GDP. Eventually, things got better. Obama inherited an economy that was already in the tank and has taken action to make things better. The evidence is that things are getting better, but, like the Great Depression, things were so bad that recovery is likely to be slow.
    What Obama has shown is no understanding that our economy was built on the private sector, not the public sector. He doesn’t have a clue how to govern by consensus and is nothing more than an ideologue. Remember his statement to McCain, “I won the election, John” which is hardly building a consensus and seeking bipartisan support.

    Yes, the economy was tanking when Bush took office. According to NBER the recession started in March 2001 a little over a month after Bush took office. The last half of 2000 the economy was declining as well and some say the recession actually began in the late fall of 2000. Either way Bush wasn’t in office long enough to have an economic plan in place to put us in recession.

    Amazing how Obama inherited an economy that he was part of creating. What do you think Congress does? Obama claims he brought us back from the brink when the reality is TARP did that.

    As for things getting better, by whose standards and what are we left to pay for? I don’t think rising unemployment and 3 trillion added to the debt in two years is moving forward.

    The fact that I find that the data does not agree with your assertions does not mean that I'm an ideologue. The fact is that you have offered no rebuttal to any data that I've posted in reply to your assertions. Instead offering specific information to prove your point, you jump to something else. You seem to have no ability to focus on a specific train of thought and analyze an issue. Can you explain why Obama is the anti-Christ that you seem to say he is when there is a great deal of similarity between what has happened at the start of his administration and what happened at the beginnings of the Reagan and Bush administrations? Saying that we should look at the entire 8 years of the Reagan administration and a selected part of the Bush administration (leaving out the beginning and the end) but only look at the start of the Obama administration seems to be a clear case of cherry picking data to try to support a pre-determined conclusion. You have decided that Obama is evil and you are going to find/manufacture the data to "prove" it. Like I said before, this smacks of lack of intellectual integrity.
    Obama is a disaster as are his policies. I never said he was evil, but his policies are damaging the country. We will see on Tuesday which of us are right.

    BTW, current misery index is 10.74.
    In 1980 (Carter's last year) it was 20.76. In 1981 (Reagan's first year) it was 17.97, an improvement of 13%.
    In 2000 (Clinton's last year) it was 7.35, In 2001 (Bush's first year), the index was 7.59, a worsening of 8%.
    In 2008 (Bush's last year) it was 9.61%. In 2009 (Obama's first year) the index was 8.92, an improvement of 7.2%.
    Between the end of Bush's administration and now, the index is worse by 11.7%.
    Between the start and end of the Bush administration, the index was up 30%.
    In the Reagan administration, the index never was better than 8.91 (1986), which is 17% better than it is now.
    When looking at the misery index, I'm perplexed as to how an impartial observer would conclude that is shows that Obama is going a horrible job.
    Also, even though I'm not sure that it proves anything, the numbers show that the misery index goes up in 3 of the last 6 Republican administrations and in 2 of the last 5 Democratic administrations (I think that it is too soon to include Obama in this statistic as we have not reached the end of his administration).
    Not sure where you got your numbers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)

    It is obvious which President promoted a pro growth vs a pro govt. agenda.



    Finally, what you call an "apology tour" I call showing the world that we really aren't the bullies that the Bush administartion made us out to be. Bush's attitude of "you are either with or us or against us" was childish. Bush was churlish because the other countries wouldn't join him in attacking Iraq. The other countries were asking for proof that the WMDs existed. Bush said "trust me, they are there." The other contries said, "we can't trust you on this because you are asking us to send our troops into harms way and we can't find any evidence that these WMDs exist." Since the WMDs didn't actually exist, Bush could only resort to an approach that only works in school yards
    Just goes to show how out of touch with reality Obama supporters are and what a selective view of history most have. What purpose does it serve apologizing to countries run by dictators? They only know one thing, strength and that is what Bush showed. the countries that mattered joined us in Iraq, the others changed leadership, France and Germany later during the war. France and Germany are dismantling their socialism as we embrace it but that is another story.

    This country has nothing to apologize for. The world thought Saddam Hussein had WMD. The UN in resolution 1441 thought that Saddam Hussein had WMD so to continue to rewrite history is a waste of time. Bush showed the leadership that liberals can only dream about. I don't have a lot of respect for Obama's style of leadership if that is what you call it. Our military respects GW Bush and that is good enough for me.

  5. #1165
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    98053
    Last Seen
    04-19-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    264

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What specifically has Obama done to help the private sector create jobs? Cap and Trade? Obamacare? Union bailouts? Please enlighten us all. Have you ever run a business, ever met a payroll? There is nothing Obama has done that is good for business.
    Now that I see that you equate private sector to business, I will translate.

    Cap-and-trade has been in place for SuO2 and NO since 1990 and is working fine. It was proposed by the Bush administration and passed by a Republican Senate and Democratic House. It had the desired effect of cutting emissions that were causing acid rain. It has not had any discernible impact on business unless you happen to be selling scrubbers. Cap and trade on CO2 would cause a change in the way we generate and use electricity. Since the mentality of Texans is shaped by the oil industry, I can see why you have been brainwashed into thinking that cap and trade for greenhouse gases is bad for business because it probably is bad for the oil business. So what. New companies will make money and create jobs. Some will probably be suitable for the oil field workers if they happen to loose their jobs. I don't see that it is necessary for the rest of the country to continue to commit suicide in order to keep Texas oil people, or any other Texan, happy. Cap and trade doesn't hurt business, it just might hurt some businesses.

    Obamacare would be less costly if the Republicans would have allowed a public option. That would have reduced the reporting which is where the true cost for small business are. The reporting of health care payments could have been part of the FICA bookkeeping. Frankly, I think that it is appropriate for WalMart to provide decent health care coverage for its employees.


    Doubt that anyone from Washington State has a clue how a state should be run. I live in TX so please don’t tell me you are an expert on anything happening here. GW Bush did a great job as Governor and did a good job as President. You bought what you were told by the media and didn’t bother to verify the rhetoric. That will continue to be your downfall.
    The people of WA really don't care what you think about their ability to run a state. Given the budget situation in Texas, I'm not sure that you have anything to crow about.

    2011 Budget Shortfall | Topic | The Texas Tribune

    I lived in TX during the years that Bush was governor. He did some things that I like. I think that he had a much better group of advisors when he was Governor of TX than he had as President.

    Bush had principle and character, something that Obama lacks. He stuck by those convictions, a trait that liberals don’t understand. Doing what was right isn’t always popular. History will judge him differently than you and more in tune with the non partisan results generated.
    I agree, Bush was a character. Also, Bush did stick to his convictions and executed more people than any other governor in history.

    Your contended dispersions on liberals is tiring, trite, and asinine.

    BTW, you don't seem to have been paying attention. I've not been disparaging Bush. I've been disparaging the fact that you can't accept that Bush wasn't perfect and that Obama isn't the anti-Christ.

    Obama knows how to be a community agitator and not how to run anything. That is reality. “Obama did not learn from Reagan or Bush that you basically have to be in campaign mode?” You are kidding, right? That is all Obama does, campaign and you are right he is the poorest leader ever to hold the office. I don’t know how smart he is but I do know how arrogant and what a narcissist he is. I also know how to read a resume and Obama's resume as well as Hillary's didn't qualify either for the highest office in the land.
    The only thing on Obama's or Hillary's resume that matters to you is under "Political Party" it says "Democrat". Maybe you have been watching too much Fox and you think that the proper way to discuss something is with as mush hyperbole as possible. When you do that, you prove nothing but that you are intransigent.

    Not sure where you went to school or what they taught you but you and I are definitely not even close to being on the same page. Seems to me that buy a lot of rhetoric while ignoring basic substance. Guess my experience actually running a business makes me look at things a lot different than you.
    I pay a lot of attention to substance and I notice that your arguments have none... zero... nada. Just vitriol with nothing to back it up. I guess my experience at running a business, makes me look at things a bit differently than you. I'm a realist.

    Unemployment went to 9.7% because of high interest rates and high inflation. Reagan addressed both with a pro growth economic policy. Obama is pro govt. growth. You don’t see the difference? This discussion is going nowhere.
    I see that when Reagan puts billions into the economy, you are OK with that. When Obama puts billions into the economy, it is government growth. I can see that it is going nowhere, because you won't stick to any point for any time. You jump all over the place, make unsubstantiated claims, and then refuse to address any data which says that your conclusions may be flawed. Rather than supporting your view with data, you make some self-serving comment about liberals and how wonderful are all things Republican and how horrid are all things Democratic and, especially, Obama. Prove something! Anything!

    I believe you said you were around during the 80's, if so then you have a very short memory and no clue as to how bad things were. This recession wasn't even close to what Obama "inherited" I would love to hear how Obama inherited something he helped create?
    Now its my memory that's failing? The situation that Obama inherited was much worse than the situation when Reagan took office. When Reagan came in, it was just a very dreary time and inflation was high but there was not danger of the financial system completely crashing.

    You say that Obama helped create the situation that he inherited. Are you seriously trying to say that because he was the junior Senator from Il for 0 months when the crisis started that he helped create it? And yet, the guy who was President for 6 years before the crisis stated is not at all responsible? If that is your claim then you could be the most delusional person with whom I've ever exchanged postings, by a bunch (except, maybe, for the guy who truly thought that he was an alien).

    What Obama has shown is no understanding that our economy was built on the private sector, not the public sector. He doesn’t have a clue how to govern by consensus and is nothing more than an ideologue. Remember his statement to McCain, “I won the election, John” which is hardly building a consensus and seeking bipartisan support.

    Yes, the economy was tanking when Bush took office. According to NBER the recession started in March 2001 a little over a month after Bush took office. The last half of 2000 the economy was declining as well and some say the recession actually began in the late fall of 2000. Either way Bush wasn’t in office long enough to have an economic plan in place to put us in recession.

    Amazing how Obama inherited an economy that he was part of creating. What do you think Congress does? Obama claims he brought us back from the brink when the reality is TARP did that.

    As for things getting better, by whose standards and what are we left to pay for? I don’t think rising unemployment and 3 trillion added to the debt in two years is moving forward.

    Obama is a disaster as are his policies. I never said he was evil, but his policies are damaging the country. We will see on Tuesday which of us are right.

    Not sure where you got your numbers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)

    It is obvious which President promoted a pro growth vs a pro govt. agenda.
    OK, I'll accept that Bush inherited a recession as long as you accept that Obama inherited a recession. I'll accept that the Democrats who controlled both houses of Congress for the two years before Obama took office and they had an opportunity to do someting. However, I would expect that you acknowledge that the Republicans who held both houses of Congress for 6 years before Bush took office had even more of a chance to do something to prevent the recession that Bush inherited.

    I get my misery index from a strange place

    The United States Misery Index

    I used the annual numbers not the instantaneous or monthly numbers.

    Just goes to show how out of touch with reality Obama supporters are and what a selective view of history most have. What purpose does it serve apologizing to countries run by dictators? They only know one thing, strength and that is what Bush showed. the countries that mattered joined us in Iraq, the others changed leadership, France and Germany later during the war. France and Germany are dismantling their socialism as we embrace it but that is another story.
    I agree that there is no point is apologizing to countries run by dictators. Who said there was? Why are you making up the strawman to knock down. Is this the debating style that you have learned from FOX?

    This country has nothing to apologize for. The world thought Saddam Hussein had WMD. The UN in resolution 1441 thought that Saddam Hussein had WMD so to continue to rewrite history is a waste of time. Bush showed the leadership that liberals can only dream about. I don't have a lot of respect for Obama's style of leadership if that is what you call it. Our military respects GW Bush and that is good enough for me.
    I agree that we have nothing to apologize for. Nobody is doing that. You claim that Obama went around the world apologizing. Maybe the in-your-face style of Bush made it difficult to recognize civil discourse between nations. He wasn't apologizing, he was being normal.

    Bush had some good leadership qualities. I wish all of our Presidents had good leadership qualities. I think Obama's could be better.

    Is the UN resolution 1441 the one that was voted with any mention of WMDs and that Iraq complied with by letting the inspectors in who found no WMDs, but we invaded anyway using the 1441 resolution as the authority even though after 1441 was passed, everyone, including the US Ambassador, said it contained no hidden triggers authorizing war, but since the US could not get a separate resolution through the UN authorizing the action we used it anyway? That 1441?

    You know, this would be easier for both of us if you just said "I hate Democrats and everything the stand for and I especially hate Obama" and "I'm a die hard Republican and think that the Republican Presidents are wonderful and without fault" and left out the rather bad attempts to justify your position. We all know people who have irrational positions and phobias but they don't go around trying to justify them. They are just screwed up and we all live with it. We understand that there are people who would hate Obama because he is black, or has a better jump shot, or even because they find the notion of living on an island to be creepy. I just don't understand the need to try to justify having an irrational fear by grabbing random data and claiming that it shows something that it doesn't. I don't know where you went to school by I learned the way to analyze data and find real patterns, not those that fit some pre-conceived notion. That comes in handy when trying to figure out how to make things better.
    Last edited by zip98053; 11-01-10 at 01:44 AM.

  6. #1166
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    157,641

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    why does walmart have a duty to provide health care? If walmart can obtain the necessary commodity of labor sufficient to meet its needs without incurring that expense, why should it?
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  7. #1167
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    59,788

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Zip, you have been in the Northwest way too long and apparently have never seen a history book. Our founders had a vision for this country and it wasn't anywhere near what Obama is doing. Somehow Promote the Domestic Welfare has become PROVIDE for Domestic Welfare.

    Tell me why this Administration and the progressives in general have such a passion for NOT allowing the American people to keep more of what they earn? Tell me why they care about how much someone else makes and why they are never held accountable for their own spending, waste, fraud, and abuse? You have bought into the liberal rhetoric while ignoring the liberal results. Name for me one economic prediction that Obama has made that was accurate?

    You seem worried about TX. Thanks for the concern but somehow I really believe that you don't care at all. TX has a part time legislature that meets every two years. There is a balanced budget requirement so there is NO budget deficit at this time and we won't know until the next budget is released where we stand but I assure you that if there is a budget deficit it will be handled by cutting spending and not raising taxes. TX doesn't have a state income tax and seems to have the ability to attract most of the business creation in the last 5 years. I can't understand liberal jealousy. I learned a long time ago a basic principle, "steal shamelessly" something liberals don't seem to understand. Why doesn't your state take some of the good things that TX does and implement them in Washington State? No, that wouldn't work, progressives need the power. Progressives appeal to the heartstrings while keeping people dependent.

    Zip, you really don't know me, I grew up a Democrat. I was a JFK Democrat, I didn't vote for a Republican until Reagan. I saw how much of my paycheck was going to the govt. and what the govt. was doing with the money. All that spending IN THE NAME of compassion never got COMPASSIONATE Spending. It is time for accountability and stop the class warfare. Liberalism is a failure so they changed the name to progressive. Same agenda and same failures.

    If what you have done is an example of the schooling you got, then you need a refund. No one can look at the data and come to the conclusion you came up with. My preconceived notion came from history books and our founders. I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. This country wasn't built on "progressive" principles. Our Founders didn't believe in a strong Central Govt. because they knew that power corrupts. I find it interesting that you and all other progressives ignore the role of the States and how so much is duplicated in D.C. Interesting to me that you seem to believe that social issues should be dictated by some bureaucrat in D.C. instead of someone in Olympia which is closer to you. That is just a way for a progressive to try to get a large central govt. to bail them out for their failures at the local level.

    Let me break it to you, the majority in this country don't hate Obama because he is black, they hate his policies and any good American is in that boat. It is liberal arrogance that keeps that agenda going and it is liberal agenda that is destroying this country.
    Last edited by Conservative; 11-01-10 at 09:16 AM. Reason: spelling

  8. #1168
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    59,788

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Table D. States with statistically significant employment changes from
    September 2009 to September 2010, seasonally adjusted
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | September | September | Over-the-year
    State | 2009 | 2010(p) | change(p)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    District of Columbia .........| 699,200 | 722,100 | 22,900
    Indiana ......................| 2,759,600 | 2,798,800 | 39,200
    Minnesota ....................| 2,616,700 | 2,651,800 | 35,100
    New Hampshire ................| 618,700 | 635,800 | 17,100
    New Jersey ...................| 3,866,100 | 3,823,800 | -42,300
    North Carolina ...............| 3,872,300 | 3,921,600 | 49,300
    Oklahoma .....................| 1,517,200 | 1,543,300 | 26,100
    Pennsylvania .................| 5,566,800 | 5,601,300 | 34,500
    Texas ........................| 10,211,800 | 10,364,600 | 152,800

    152,800 jobs created in TX, the best in the country from Sept. 2009 to Sept. 2010

  9. #1169
    Don't Mess With Texas
    mertex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    10-14-14 @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,382

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Details don't seem to matter to ideologues as I have posted detail after detail, facts after facts in this forum over and over again only to be ignored. You want the facts, go to bea.gov, bls.gov, U.S. Treasury site and you will get non partisan facts that refute those that support Obama and his agenda. Interesting that the facts refute the rhetoric about Bush driving the economy into the ditch but liberals will never let facts get in the way of their own opinions.
    Yeah, like your details that Tax Cuts increase revenue! Bwahaha! I guess you forgot your own data proved you wrong?



    "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."
    --Adlai Stevenson, Politician





  10. #1170
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    98053
    Last Seen
    04-19-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    264

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Zip, you have been in the Northwest way too long and apparently have never seen a history book. Our founders had a vision for this country and it wasn't anywhere near what Obama is doing. Somehow Promote the Domestic Welfare has become PROVIDE for Domestic Welfare.
    Conservative, apparently, the heat and humidity in Houston have fogged your vision. I'm pretty sure that the fonding fathers didn't have a vision of what the world would look like today. It used to be that change was slow because technology wasn't all that developed. Things change as a rapid rate now. I suspect that the founding fathers would not recognize this country mainly because we are no longer the agrarian society that we were then. However, the founding fathers were fairly bright and they would acclimate themselves quite nicely.

    BTW, it says "promote the general welfare".

    Tell me why this Administration and the progressives in general have such a passion for NOT allowing the American people to keep more of what they earn? Tell me why they care about how much someone else makes and why they are never held accountable for their own spending, waste, fraud, and abuse? You have bought into the liberal rhetoric while ignoring the liberal results. Name for me one economic prediction that Obama has made that was accurate?
    Do you have any mantra other than "bought into the liberal rhetoric"? It is trite and the fact that you use it all the time make it sound like you are just a bitter old man, not capable of rational discourse.

    You are mistaken about Progressives. They don't want to pay taxes either. However, they know that it is worth investing in doing those things that the founding fathers stood for: "a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquilly, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." These things require that we work as a community and do things that we could not do as individuals. You know, roads and stuff.

    Then we have some social justice issues. It really isn't a good idea for a civilized nation to let people starve to death when they are not longer working. We can't rely on companies to provide for retirement of those people because companies have a history of not fulfilling their pension requirements (bankruptcy and such). We have a system that provides something to people when they retire. It isn't much, but it mostly keeps them alive. It's not that we owe them this, it's just a cost we have to may to be able to claim to be a decent human beings. It's a part of the "secure the blessings of liberty" and all.


    You seem worried about TX. Thanks for the concern but somehow I really believe that you don't care at all. TX has a part time legislature that meets every two years. There is a balanced budget requirement so there is NO budget deficit at this time and we won't know until the next budget is released where we stand but I assure you that if there is a budget deficit it will be handled by cutting spending and not raising taxes. TX doesn't have a state income tax and seems to have the ability to attract most of the business creation in the last 5 years. I can't understand liberal jealousy. I learned a long time ago a basic principle, "steal shamelessly" something liberals don't seem to understand. Why doesn't your state take some of the good things that TX does and implement them in Washington State? No, that wouldn't work, progressives need the power. Progressives appeal to the heartstrings while keeping people dependent.
    I'm not worried about TX, just pointing out that, before you start making disparaging remarks about WA, you should get your own house in order.

    We are very open minded here in WA. I assure you, if TX has any good ideas for governance, we have adopted them.

    BTW, I've lived in TX and know what it is like. Do you have experience living anywhere but TX? Do you have any basis for knowing what its like in places like WA or is this just all stuff from your limited imagination.

    Zip, you really don't know me, I grew up a Democrat. I was a JFK Democrat, I didn't vote for a Republican until Reagan. I saw how much of my paycheck was going to the govt. and what the govt. was doing with the money. All that spending IN THE NAME of compassion never got COMPASSIONATE Spending. It is time for accountability and stop the class warfare. Liberalism is a failure so they changed the name to progressive. Same agenda and same failures.
    Strange, I grew up as a Nixon Republican. I converted to Democrat when I realized that the Republicans were conducting class warfare. As the subject of this tread shows, they have been pretty successful.

    You tend to point people at Wikipedia so go check out:

    Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    and find out what liberalism actually means and the fact that the fonding fathers were the liberals of their time.

    Progressivism was a reaction to the actions of the Republican Party after the Civil War. I could type, but it is easier just to point you at:

    Progressive Movement: Information from Answers.com

    Progressivism started around the start of the 20th century in order to prevent exploitation of workers by corporations and the Republican Party. The more things change...


    If what you have done is an example of the schooling you got, then you need a refund.
    I suspect that you aren't eligible for a refund.

    No one can look at the data and come to the conclusion you came up with. My preconceived notion came from history books and our founders.
    By definition, "preconceived" means based on prejudice and without facts. So, I accept that your notion is based on prejudice and without facts. The rest of the sentence, naturally, makes no sense.

    BTW, when did you meet the founders? Were they old when you met them? Did you get an autograph? If you didn't actually meet them, then, when you were studying them, which of their writings did you like the best? Got any favorite Federalist Papers?

    I suspect that the truth is that you get most of your "learning" from FOX "NEWS." I can see how that would be easier than actually studying something yourself, and since the folks on FOX are sufficiently entertaining, pretending that they actually are giving you facts rather than their blatant propaganda is convenient. An, it does allow you to have a preconceived notion like you said - prejudiced and not based on facts.

    I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. This country wasn't built on "progressive" principles. Our Founders didn't believe in a strong Central Govt. because they knew that power corrupts. I find it interesting that you and all other progressives ignore the role of the States and how so much is duplicated in D.C. Interesting to me that you seem to believe that social issues should be dictated by some bureaucrat in D.C. instead of someone in Olympia which is closer to you. That is just a way for a progressive to try to get a large central govt. to bail them out for their failures at the local level.
    Again, you try to speak as if you actually know something about the Declaration and/or Constitution and the founding fathers and your words show that you don't know what the heck you are talking about. The founding fathers were REVOLUTIONARIES and, at the time, they were about as progressive and liberal as one could get. The founding fathers were divided on the power that the central government. Jefferson and Adams fought about this issue for most of their political lives. The thing about them was that, even though they had strongly felt differences, they had the highest regard for each other and were friends until their deaths, hours apart, on the 4th of July. The fact that they could disagree and retain some decorum is something that you should study along with the rest of what they said. It really is nice to really know what they said and thought rather than to pretend that you do.

    You know, you make statements about what the founding fathers thought that are easy to verify. When you continue to repeat things that are verifiable false, it could lead one to conclude that you have no interest in the truth. Is seems that you want people to substitute your views for the real truth. That's probably not going to happen. Maybe if your version of the truth was a bit more credible...

    Let me break it to you, the majority in this country don't hate Obama because he is black, they hate his policies and any good American is in that boat. It is liberal arrogance that keeps that agenda going and it is liberal agenda that is destroying this country.
    OK, so now you want to claim the right to decide what a good American should think. OK. Your have defined a good American as being one who has the same attire toward the President as the majority as measured by popularity polls. So, by your definition, anyone who supports Bush is not a good American because he had the lowest polling numbers ever when he left office. People disliked him because of his performance and his policies. I expect you to do your duty as a good American and hate Bush.

    The thing that almost destroyed this economy is the policies of the last 30 years, a great deal of which was under Republican control. Everyone went along for the ride. You might want to try to point fingers at Obama and that is your right. However, don't expect that I am so weak minded as to accept that preconceived notion of yours. Some of us like to actually think and analyze the data before drawing conclusions.

    You know, the real world isn't so bad. You should come spend some time in it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •