The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Yes, but that should be a district-wide issue, not a problem in "poor" areas while working fine in "rich" areas. If there is a maintenance discrepancy in the schools, that's a bad school board.

It may be district wide, I don't know, but the discrepancy between some inner city schools and suburban schools can be striking. Take DC compared to the Virginia or Maryland schools, or Cincinnati compared to the suburbs.

I'm fully willing to blame school boards, but regardless I'd like to see buildings brought up to standard. I would have love a huge school renovation component in the stimulus bill.

[SportsDino]

I would apply it to only a portion of the taxes, so things like common defense and so on would be covered. The idea wouldn't be to completely turn on/off ideas, but offer states increasing leeway for cutting costs/collections. Make anything that is multi-state and some level of services that are a minimum covered by the general portion of the federal budget, and require those appropriations to be based on bills and various department budgets.

Take a significant chunk though, including all non-essential 'earmark' projects, and put that in a population based pool. Let states compete on services/taxes over that pool, without the entire economy collapsing because some jackass state decides its going to cut all programs to nothing and exile all its old people to florida... so some federally mandated stuff would need to be moved out of the general budget into this 'earmarky' land before it could be cut.

I'd put no restriction on people moving between states. The things I'd put in this budget would be less entitlement based at first and more these 'create jobs by throwing money around' programs to start. It slightly changes the dynamic of the whole pork barrel because you would not be able to 'bring back the bacon' to your state by netting some pet project. All the money going to your state, is coming from your state.

My thought is that people who truly believe that tax cuts fuels economic growth would vote down local stimulus packages in favor of less tax burden (say 10-20% of the budget somehow gets moved into this category over time). motivate the politicians to reduce this type of spending themselves so they can take credit for cutting taxes.

After some waste is reduced, hopefully extend the reach to more parts until we get the federal system focused on stuff its more suited for (defense, interstate transport, etc...). It would be increasingly hard to pass bullshit corporate welfare if it became immediately obvious that it was your own constituents paying for these 'stimulus' contracts, not some faceless void in Washington.

[DaddyTorgo]

interesting idea SportsDino - you've obviously given it some thought!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Well, like Obama and other people have put it, all that government spending seems fair and needed in your district. It's only wrong and horrible if it's across the street.

Disagree. I'm totally against the money that Kit Bond pulled into Missouri despite it being spent in my state. It's a waste of money. Obama can play that card all he wants, but he's dead wrong in that belief. There are a lot of people who are fiscal conservatives who would disagree with that statement.

Originally Posted by panerd

Though I will go against MBBF on Kit Bond. That guy has never seen a federal spending item that Missouri couldn't waste money on and is always part of out of control spending under any Republican administration. So him being against spending is purely a political move, one that he deserves to be voted along with Claire McCaskill straight out of office for. (Unfortunately my vote and others votes for Frank Gilmour probably put McCaskill in office but Jim Talent and Kit Bond deserve to be called on their hypocritical bullshit)

Perhaps you missed my post on the last page where I was critical of Bond in more than one post for holding approval votes hostage in return for pork. I think it's a waste of money. I just brought up the topic that he brought to light for discussion's sake.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm at least a page behind on the thread so this is kind of a drive-by but

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The primary factor in a successful education is not the amount of money spent on that education, it is parents instilling a willingness and desire to learn in their children and taking an active role.

Isn't the #1 predictor of educational success actually the parents' own educational attainment level?

Almost a semantic aside I guess, but I'd swear that's actually what the research actually shows the strongest correlation to.

What I'm saying and what you're saying might very well go hand in hand but technically they're two somewhat different things I think.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Isn't the #1 predictor of educational success actually the parents' own educational attainment level?

Almost a semantic aside I guess, but I'd swear that's actually what the research actually shows the strongest correlation to.

What I'm saying and what you're saying might very well go hand in hand but technically they're two somewhat different things I think.

I don't have easy access to the research I read back when I took an active interest in kicking out my local school board (we won! yay!), but these factors do go hand-in-hand. Parents that encourage kids to get a good education help tremendously. Or to put it another way, when the parents don't care, the kids don't care, and they won't get educated no matter what you try.

But on the point above, parents that are well-educated tend to see the value of a good education and tend to do well economically, parents that are poorly-educated tend to NOT see the value in a good education and tend to do poorly economically, and there are enough exceptions on both sides (poor that DO see the value for their kids and want them to do better, and rich that think everything should get handed to them and throw it all away) to muddy the waters up and give the do-gooders in the NEA the ammunition they need to keep screwing everything up.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It may be district wide, I don't know, but the discrepancy between some inner city schools and suburban schools can be striking. Take DC compared to the Virginia or Maryland schools, or Cincinnati compared to the suburbs.

I'm fully willing to blame school boards, but regardless I'd like to see buildings brought up to standard. I would have love a huge school renovation component in the stimulus bill.

The real question is what budget does each school have. The problem can come about when maintenance budgets are separate and the school board decides how to divvy it up, and there is room for inequity there that SHOULD be dealt with. But it's usually separate from the budget to pay for teachers and materials.

Where we had issues locally with a growing school system was the need to build new schools taking away from the maintenance budget. Of course they were horribly mismanaging this, and the people were pushing hard for fewer new schools and more money put towards maintenance and improving the existing school. The only real difference from school-to-school budget-wise here was PTA/PTO money from the parents, which at the "richest" schools came out to a difference of around $100/child out of a $6,000+/child budget from the county compared to the "poorest" schools.

So fundamentally, I agree with your last statement: school maintenance is important. But when you have "nice" schools and "rundown" schools, that's on the board for inequitable distribution of funds, not on taxes that are too low or not enough money spent on education. Most school boards I know if given more tax money would spend it on new offices and more administrators, not actually maintaining the buildings that kids go to school in, or providing basic supplies in the classroom.

[Flasch186]

Looks like Eric Cantor (R) backed off their 'were not willing to meet' stance without having our preconditions met for the UHC summit with the Pres.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Dear Lord. Where in the hell did this PR nightmare come from? No telling how many days Obama will spend explaining to the public what he meant by this statement. I feel like I'm watching an episode of 'Cheers' when he dives into the baseball analogy.

Simon Johnson: Obama Still Doesn't Get It

Clueless - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Dear Lord. Where in the hell did this PR nightmare come from? No telling how many days Obama will spend explaining to the public what he meant by this statement. I feel like I'm watching an episode of 'Cheers' when he dives into the baseball analogy.

Simon Johnson: Obama Still Doesn't Get It

Clueless - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

PR nightmare? What? Did I miss something major?

You could you know...use your lead-in to give some idea of what the articles are about instead of just taking shots.

FWIW - I agree with you though. Disgraceful ass-kissing pandering to big-business & big-money. He ought to have more sense than to say something stupid like that in a place where it could get picked up on and reported (as much as i'm sure he's said it in private before, since money makes the world go round).

Blankfein & Dimon's organizations were less to blame for the implosion than others (Dimon keeping JPMorganChase out of it pretty much entirely, and Blankfein's GoldmanSachs having minimal exposure), but still. Common-sense. Public perception. Main Street is hurting...best not to cozy up to the mega-millionaire bankers when you know what public perception of them is. And they're "too big to fail" and being helped immensely by the bank bailouts.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

PR nightmare? What? Did I miss something major?

You could you know...use your lead-in to give some idea of what the articles are about instead of just taking shots.

Apologies. Some may not have access to the links if they're at work. Basically put, Obama did a total 180 from his previous stance that large bonuses at financial companies that were bailed out were 'obscene'. It appears that the large bankers have pulled a Jedi mind trick by waiving their hand in front of Obama's eyes and saying 'Bonuses are OK even when the companies are bailed out by the government.'

Krugman is spot-on when he notes that this seems to be a situation where Obama is trying to get on the good side of the banks, but he's a fool if he thinks that the banks will throw the majority of their support behind Democrats.

[miked]

So basically he said that the idiots with their big bonuses are fairly savvy businessmen and he doesn't want to impede people's desire to accumulate wealth. Then Wall Street is not the only place where people aren't necessarily paid for performance (baseball, hello Carlos Beltran) and he wants a more transparent system where shareholders get to have a say.

Sounds like a PR nightmare straight from Cheers.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by miked

So basically he said that the idiots with their big bonuses are fairly savvy businessmen and he doesn't want to impede people's desire to accumulate wealth. Then Wall Street is not the only place where people aren't necessarily paid for performance (baseball, hello Carlos Beltran) and he wants a more transparent system where shareholders get to have a say.

Sounds like a PR nightmare straight from Cheers.

Less than a month ago...

President Barack Obama said bonuses dealt out by Wall Street firms are “shameful” while the U.S. economy is in recession and companies are asking for help from taxpayers.

Distributing bonuses now “is the height of irresponsibility” Obama said at the White House, where he held a closed-door meeting with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Vice President Joe Biden. Firms need to “show some restraint and show some discipline and show some sense of responsibility.”

[DaddyTorgo]

That's cool MBBF. Note my post directly above yours - I agree with you on this one (at least as much as i can without seeing the full interview yet). Was just curious what the fuss was over - I hadn't seen it yet.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

So basically he said that the idiots with their big bonuses are fairly savvy businessmen and he doesn't want to impede people's desire to accumulate wealth. Then Wall Street is not the only place where people aren't necessarily paid for performance (baseball, hello Carlos Beltran) and he wants a more transparent system where shareholders get to have a say.

Sounds like a PR nightmare straight from Cheers.

The problem isn't necessarily that he's wrong on all accounts (he is on some IMO). The problem is that it's a direct opposite stance to what he took last year, where all bonuses were unacceptable. You want a leader to stay the course and provide a steady vision. We're over a year in now and he's drastically contradicting his own statements. That's not what a good leader does.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Blankfein & Dimon's organizations were less to blame for the implosion than others

I'll agree on Dimon and disagree on Blankfein. GS, after all, was the actor that, amongst other things, most set up AIG to fail.

JPM's role as the bank of last resort, on the other hand, should not be undervalued. Without JPM's relatively clean and healthy balance sheet, and Dimon's willingness to take over failing banks & mortgage companies at the request of the Fed, the last two years probably look even worse than they did.

The real problem Obama has with GS is that GS alumni are everywhere and have an extraordinary amount of control over the financial system.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The problem isn't necessarily that he's wrong on all accounts (he is on some IMO). The problem is that it's a direct opposite stance to what he took last year, where all bonuses were unacceptable. You want a leader to stay the course and provide a steady vision. We're over a year in now and he's drastically contradicting his own statements. That's not what a good leader does.

Dunno, sounds to me that he's still saying they sort of suck. I fail to see how he's drastically contradicting his own statements (he's not saying they are worth it and these bonuses are wonderful, is he?). Then again, I'm not some spin puppet with an agenda (I know, I know, you are moderate).

It seems to me that you should be mostly happy with the democrats as they aren't really bending over the economy so much and you agree with their social agenda for the most part (so you say). I would more expect you to be on here every day railing about Kit Bond, Lindsay Graham, and the sort. They are bending over the economy (and have been for years with their spending) AND are fairly much against every social issue that you purport to adhere to. I mean, you post shit about Pelosi, Reed, Nelson, all these crooked democrats, but at least they are 50% acceptable to you. I just never hear a peep about the people who want to spend your money in excess and control people's personal life.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'll agree on Dimon and disagree on Blankfein. GS, after all, was the actor that, amongst other things, most set up AIG to fail.

JPM's role as the bank of last resort, on the other hand, should not be undervalued. Without JPM's relatively clean and healthy balance sheet, and Dimon's willingness to take over failing banks & mortgage companies at the request of the Fed, the last two years probably look even worse than they did.

The real problem Obama has with GS is that GS alumni are everywhere and have an extraordinary amount of control over the financial system.

that is very true about GS alumni - they're insidious and everywhere. I agree on the GS-AIG bit...was speaking more about their limited exposure to MBS and subprime losses. But in the grand scheme of things yes, they did screw over AIG pretty bad. Then again AIG was a big boy...they should be held responsible on their own as well.

Goldman's also done quite well through the bailouts, so I'm not excusing them there either.

[Jon]

He's not really contradicting his own statements---it's two authors who don't particularly like his policies to begin with and it's a Bloomberg write up designed to get people's attention.

It's another example of people blowing something out of proportion without having read the actual interview.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Jon

He's not really contradicting his own statements---it's two authors who don't particularly like his policies to begin with and it's a Bloomberg write up designed to get people's attention.

It's another example of people blowing something out of proportion without having read the actual interview.

but he never should have said something that could be so easily blown out of proportion, knowing that that would inevitably happen. he's the damn president. and he's by all accounts intelligent and articulate. and he has plenty of handlers. that kind of thing shouldn't happen.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

but he never should have said something that could be so easily blown out of proportion, knowing that that would inevitably happen. he's the damn president. and he's by all accounts intelligent and articulate. and he has plenty of handlers. that kind of thing shouldn't happen.

But then a president should never say anything because any little thing the president says is always blown out of proportion by opponents.

Paul Krugman didn't actually read the interview. Simon Johnson didn't read the interview. It's not available until the end of the week. But, guess what, everybody is now going to read the interview. Bloomberg did its part to make sure it would be the top story. They put together two statements that he's made before and turned them into "a position shift."

Sure, it's PR nightmare, because we've become so obsessed with gotcha moments we don't take the time the time to actually get what's being said. The GOP has already sent out press releases saying that he's changed his mind on banks, yet, they won't support stringent bank regulation. It's just risen to the level of absurdity and stupidity. BUT, there is a difference between saying "I don't bebrudge big bank CEO's for their big bonuses" and saying "I, like most Americans, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system."

Like Focus on the Family played pro-choice people with the Tim Tebow commericial, we're all being played by Bloomberg (who is notorious for pulling stuff out of context and throwing it together becuase it sells).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Jon

Sure, it's PR nightmare, because we've become so obsessed with gotcha moments we don't take the time the time to actually get what's being said. The GOP has already sent out press releases saying that he's changed his mind on banks, yet, they won't support stringent bank regulation. It's just risen to the level of absurdity and stupidity.

this i can totally agree with

[Arles]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The primary factor in a successful education is not the amount of money spent on that education, it is parents instilling a willingness and desire to learn in their children and taking an active role. When the parents have a low desire for education, the kids do poorly and the schools do poorly.

A buddy of mine coaches football in a poorer area (he's African American). He made a great comment to me one day when we were talking about this: "Until the inner city community puts as much emphasis on a kid getting an 'A' on a math test as a kid scoring a touchdown on Friday night, education will continue to be an uphill climb here".

I think he's dead on and that's an issue no politician will ever touch.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Arles

A buddy of mine coaches football in a poorer area (he's African American). He made a great comment to me one day when we were talking about this: "Until the inner city community puts as much emphasis on a kid getting an 'A' on a math test as a kid scoring a touchdown on Friday night, education will continue to be an uphill climb here".

I think he's dead on and that's an issue no politician will ever touch.

very true

[Arles]

I don't know, maybe I'm crazy. But, if Obama is dropping this populist drivel that "all big bonuses are bad" and actually looking at the situation with more critical thinking, I'm glad to see it. I have no problem with people changing their mind if they were wrong to begin with

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by rowech

I'm not saying it's right but if you're a kid in that situation, your ideas are formed VERY early from those around you. It's very difficult to fly in the face of what the community values. That's true in any situation and not just inner cities. When you have older generations, younger generations, and your generation all putting value on the same thing, even if you feel you're view is "right" it's going to be very hard to go that way.

Which is why I pointed out early in this discussion that successful inner-city education programs, and they are out there, have a strong community involvement aspect that gets the parents as well as the kids interested in the school. Throwing money at the school is throwing money away.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Jon

Paul Krugman didn't actually read the interview. Simon Johnson didn't read the interview. It's not available until the end of the week. But, guess what, everybody is now going to read the interview. Bloomberg did its part to make sure it would be the top story. They put together two statements that he's made before and turned them into "a position shift."

And you obviously didn't read the full piece. Johnson posted the entire quote at the bottom of his piece and there's nothing in it that changes the context of the comment.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see any mention of the Gibbs/Palin grocery list flare up recently. I noticed that Andrew Sullivan termed it a pathetic stunt that was beneath his official position. I also saw another comment in Andrew's blog where it was noted that the White House pays far more attention to Palin and her activities than they'd like the general public to believe. Anyone disagree with either point?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Or care, for that matter?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see any mention of the Gibbs/Palin grocery list flare up recently. I noticed that Andrew Sullivan termed it a pathetic stunt that was beneath his official position. I also saw another comment in Andrew's blog where it was noted that the White House pays far more attention to Palin and her activities than they'd like the general public to believe. Anyone disagree with either point?

I'm a Republican but can't stand Palin. That said I agree that it's surprising how much time/effort the White House spends campaigning for a job they already have. I would expect something like that if you're running for office...not if you already have the power.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by rowech

Agreed with one exception. Ask any teacher what they need in order to teach well and I would say at least 75% of them would say smallest class size possible...ideally 20 or less as most studies show. Hiring enough teachers and having enough room to house these classes of 20 or less is where the money should go. Unfortunately, it never is. I currently have high school math classes that are reasonable around 25, mostly because I teacher higher level math classes. (algebra II and stats)

Our lower level classes as well as lower grade level classes (algebra I, geometry, and some no CP versions of those as well as Algebra II) all are pushing 30 and are in some cases over that.

I agree on hiring enough good teachers. One of the things I hate is school administrations that cut teacher positions while still growing the admin budget...

[Flasch186]

just skimming. Really busy day here. I couldnt find anywhere where MBBF apologized for his comment about the Governer's disability. Im faux-shocked that the fabric with which MBBF stands upon is a big fabric of shit when he played that Short bus card a while back and then continues to pull this shit making fun of someone's disability.

That being said, Ill say this:

If this is a new MBBF, one in which he doesnt give a shit anymore, will make fun of anyone and everyone for whatever he deems fit with no care at all, than I guess his hypocrisy benchmark can start from there. It'll certainly be an easier road to hoe in his GOP regurge campaign but I, for one, hate to see MBBF continue his routine which is:

make a ridiculous/hypocritical/GOP talking point comment
get called on it
move on without having to defend what was said, apologize and admit his err OR claim that it was:

taken out of context, misinterpreted, misread, etc.

rinse repeat

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by rowech

I'm a Republican but can't stand Palin. That said I agree that it's surprising how much time/effort the White House spends campaigning for a job they already have. I would expect something like that if you're running for office...not if you already have the power.

Honestly, when I saw the Palin picture, I didn't think much of it. From where I stand, it's exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to see from Palin. Part of her popularity amongst certain circles is that she's not like most politicians, for better or worse. I'm not sure what Gibbs was trying to accomplish.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see any mention of the Gibbs/Palin grocery list flare up recently. I noticed that Andrew Sullivan termed it a pathetic stunt that was beneath his official position. I also saw another comment in Andrew's blog where it was noted that the White House pays far more attention to Palin and her activities than they'd like the general public to believe. Anyone disagree with either point?

Well, I haven't heard this story yet but it sounds like it was stupid and glad it flew under my radar. Hell, pretty much everyone's radar.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I agree on hiring enough good teachers. One of the things I hate is school administrations that cut teacher positions while still growing the admin budget...

It's called the 'too big to fail' model of education.

[DaddyTorgo]

Interesting Huffington Post article on the Tea Party movement I just saw when looking at Iran stuff.

Originally Posted by article

At its core, the Tea Party movement is rife with contradiction, incoherence and a willful contempt for facts or reason. It is but a parody of the legitimate movements for which American democracy has historically been held in such high regard. It is, in fact, the latest installment in quite another American tradition: the exploitation of frustrated, desperate, and susceptible people by monied interests and profiteers.

The impetus for the Civil Rights movement was centuries of racially based oppression at all levels of American government and society. The logic behind its call for equality was overwhelming. Now consider the Tea Party movement, whose foremost demand of a president who in his first month passed one of the biggest tax cuts ever...is for tax cuts. The movement's incoherence is only illuminated further when this demand is uttered in the same sentence as its call for deficit reduction.

Stuart Whatley: The Tea Party Movement Is a National Embarrassment

this next bit describe a worldview that i think lies at the heart of the whole "Tea Party" movement, as well as...well...read it for yourself and it may become more clear.

In Authoritarianism & Polarization in American Politics, a revealing work of political science published last year that unfortunately went somewhat unnoticed, Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan D. Weiler describe a specific worldview -- authoritarianism -- which they argue lies at the heart of political polarization in modern American politics. (It should be noted: their use of the term is not related to the more quotidian and overly negative connotation associated with despotic regimes; rather, it describes a particular lens through which certain people view the world, based on a wide range of scholarly work spanning the fields of psychology, sociology, political science, and other cognitive sciences.)

According to Hetherington and Weiler, authoritarians tend to rely more on emotion and instinct in decision-making, view politics in black and white, resent confusion or ambiguity in the social order, and are suspicious of specific groups who they believe could alter that order (typically gays and immigrants). The difference between authoritarians and nonauthoritarians, according to the authors, becomes far more pronounced during tumultuous economic or social periods when there are more perceived "threats." During such times, authoritarians in particular lose accuracy motivation and, "become much less interested than nonauthoritarians in seeking information that [is] balanced in its approach, and much more interested in pursuing one-sided information that reinforc[es] existing beliefs." Or in other words, they are highly susceptible to misinformation campaigns, the likes of which pervaded the health care reform debate last summer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, I haven't heard this story yet but it sounds like it was stupid and glad it flew under my radar. Hell, pretty much everyone's radar.

Umm ... it was a top 4 story on both AP & Reuters for the better part of a day and spent at least some time on the front page of pretty much every newspaper website I hit during that span. Not sure how that's under everyone's radar.

[SportsDino]

Although health care reform last year was about the scariest garbage bill I've seen in years... so there was misinformation perhaps (that private companies would be destroyed), but under the radar those private companies were about to get a massive bill of their liking into play. I have a feeling both sides are playing off each other to screw us, pretending to hate each other, while in the backroom they are letting through toxic legislation.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Interesting Huffington Post political editorial on the Tea Party movement I just saw when looking at Iran stuff.

Fixed.

[miked]

Well duh. Most things on there are political editorials. I didn't notice you make that distinction on the poo you posted yesterday.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Fixed.

I'm not even going to go back and forth with you on the definition of article vs. editorial, because we all know how that ends, and what's interesting isn't how you refer to the piece, but rather the content of it (disclaimer - i've never read the book, never looked it up on amazon.com, have no idea of the author's credentials or anything). It just sure seemed like an interesting bit of political science, and the conclusions in the piece sure do "jive" with what one notices from Tea Partiers.

[flere-imsaho]

Depressing analysis from Gregg Easterbrook, perhaps better known to some as the columnist of Tuesday Morning Quarterback:

The tea party crowd -- which calls itself a movement though perhaps one American in 10,000 actually has attended a tea party -- claims Barack Obama is a "tax and spend" president. Obama is a borrow-and-spend president, just as George W. Bush was. Federal tax rates have declined steadily for a generation, and declined sharply in the past decade. A declining federal tax burden for most people, rather than higher federal spending, is the core reason for skyrocketing deficits -- though spending surely is rising, too. Commentators who use the phrase "tax and spend" to describe Obama either don't understand recent political history or aren't being honest.


Federal income tax rates were cut by John Kennedy in the early 1960s, by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s; rose slightly under the elder George Bush; were cut twice under the younger Bush, and cut again by Obama last winter. Capital-gains tax rates have declined too; Social Security and Medicare taxes ("payroll taxes") were raised by Reagan and by Bill Clinton, although not enough to fully fund either program, meaning those taxes are lower than they need to be for fiscal discipline. This chart shows the decline of the federal top rate, to less than half of what it was under Dwight Eisenhower.


The younger Bush was hammered in the press because his two tax cuts reduced the rate paid by the rich: But the same cuts nearly eliminated federal income taxes on the working class and lower middle class. That is, George W. Bush's tax cuts were progressive. Last year, 43 percent of Americans paid no federal income taxes -- in 2009; this year, as many as half of Americans are expected to pay no federal income taxes. Yet public discourse is full of complaints about taxes, and many people claim to hate Washington because of taxes, while practically everyone demands more federal benefits and services.


As middle-class taxes are being eliminated, the top 20 percent of filers -- the well-off -- pay for a steadily higher share of federal government, last year paying 70 percent of total federal taxes. The well-off are financing most of the federal government, and that will intensify next year as taxes go up on household income above $250,000. Other than the spending paid for by the well-off, the rest is being billed to the young, via deficit spending and borrowing.


Keynesian point: It does make sense to increase federal spending when the economy is soft. But the flip side of Keynesian economics is that government should reduce spending when the economy is strong, using the breathing space to pay down debt. Congress loves to increase spending. Is there any chance that as the economy recovers, Congress will abide by the second prescription of Keynesian economics, and reduce spending? A few days ago the House quietly raised the federal debt ceiling to $14 trillion, allowing yet another round of undisciplined, unaccountable giveaways. That big number equates to $46,000 in debt for every American citizen. Since no one in the Boomer generation ever will repay a dime -- the Baby Boom's final sociological act-out may be to bankrupt the country -- the effective debt is more like $100,000 per American under the age of 30.


Fiscal policy point: Think I am exaggerating about bankrupting the country? Last week Moody's Investor Services warned that U.S. Treasury bonds may be downgraded from Triple-A status. Even if the extremely modest fiscal-discipline goals recently announced by President Obama are met, in five years the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio will be worse than it was in 1950, when America was paying off World War II borrowing.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by miked

Well duh. Most things on there are political editorials. I didn't notice you make that distinction on the poo you posted yesterday.

it's only if the stuff isn't flattering to his worldview that he'll call it out.

fact of the matter is that it is an "article" by the definition of the word. Might not be a "news article," but a "political editorial" is still an "article," because an editorial (by definition) is an article.


ed·i·to·ri·al (d-tôr-l, -tr-)

n. 1. An article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers.



ar·ti·cle (ärt-kl)

n. 1. An individual thing or element of a class; a particular object or item: an article of clothing; articles of food.
2. A particular section or item of a series in a written document, as in a contract, constitution, or treaty.
3. A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'm not even going to go back and forth with you on the definition of article vs. editorial, because we all know how that ends, and what's interesting isn't how you refer to the piece, but rather the content of it (disclaimer - i've never read the book, never looked it up on amazon.com, have no idea of the author's credentials or anything). It just sure seemed like an interesting bit of political science, and the conclusions in the piece sure do "jive" with what one notices from Tea Partiers.

and awesome when you consider his stance on the Television News/Opinion programs that are interspersed. If you remember a few pages back that was an awesome go around and now this is just another cog in the MBBF hypocrisy machine.

[molson]

I don't think the tea party thing is just about cutting taxes. It's about the inevitable bankruptcy of the country.

It's too bad that some of the silliness of the people in that movement have led to an overbroad mockery of those of us who just want the government to be more fiscally responsible. To me, smaller government/lower taxes isn't nearly as important as having a government we can afford without destroying the future of the country. If the people insist on a government with ultimate power over everything, by all means, raise taxes to pay for it. Low taxes and a government that prints money out of thin air to promote its idea of how everyone has to live is nice (for some), but it can't be sustained.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think the tea party thing is just about cutting taxes. It's about the inevitable bankruptcy of the country.

It's too bad that some of the silliness of the people in that movement have led to an overbroad mockery of those of us who just want the government to be more fiscally responsible. To me, smaller government/lower taxes isn't nearly as important as having a government we can afford without destroying the future of the country. If the people insist on a government with ultimate power over everything, by all means, raise taxes to pay for it. Low taxes and a government that prints money out of thin air to promote its idea of how everyone has to live is nice (for some), but it can't be sustained.

+1

The Tea Party movement and Palin both get far more attention than they really deserve. They're somewhat like a kid who makes a scene to draw attention, resulting in the well behaved kid with good grades hardly getting any attention. The focus by detractors on that movement is a critical misjudgement by Democrats. They're focusing on a relatively small portion of the conservative side of the argument.

They'd be far better off to concentrate on reducing the debt in any way possible. More spending bills will continue to get met with frustration by the general public.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think the tea party thing is just about cutting taxes. It's about the inevitable bankruptcy of the country.

It's too bad that some of the silliness of the people in that movement have led to an overbroad mockery of those of us who just want the government to be more fiscally responsible. To me, smaller government/lower taxes isn't nearly as important as having a government we can afford without destroying the future of the country. If the people insist on a government with ultimate power over everything, by all means, raise taxes to pay for it. Low taxes and a government that prints money out of thin air to promote its idea of how everyone has to live is nice (for some), but it can't be sustained.

I'd LOVE a more fiscally responsible government, as someone who is going to have to pay for the fiscal excesses so far throughout my entire life. but illogical "solutions" to that aren't solutions at all.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think the tea party thing is just about cutting taxes. It's about the inevitable bankruptcy of the country.

It's too bad that some of the silliness of the people in that movement have led to an overbroad mockery of those of us who just want the government to be more fiscally responsible. To me, smaller government/lower taxes isn't nearly as important as having a government we can afford without destroying the future of the country. If the people insist on a government with ultimate power over everything, by all means, raise taxes to pay for it.

+1

People think if they aren't being taxed there is no reason to complain. Where do they think this money is coming from? As a lower/middle class teacher I have very little federal tax burden but from reading history this no tax hike/print money policy always fails. Throughout history it is always a "crisis" that once we get out of they will become more fiscally sound. But we never get out of the crisis. No shit, you are causing the "crisis" by endlessly printing money!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

+1

The Tea Party movement and Palin both get far more attention than they really deserve. They're somewhat like a kid who makes a scene to draw attention, resulting in the well behaved kid with good grades hardly getting any attention. The focus by detractors on that movement is a critical misjudgement by Democrats. They're focusing on a relatively small portion of the conservative side of the argument.

They'd be far better off to concentrate on reducing the debt in any way possible. More spending bills will continue to get met with frustration by the general public.

Republican spending is no better.

[DaddyTorgo]

how is it that something over 50% of Americans don't pay any federal income tax?? i knew the number was significant, but that's just ridiculous.

100% of people should pay federal income tax.