Ongoing Obama Controversy

[mrkirker]

YES, the 'mid-terms' should prove verrrrrry interesting!

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by JDS

Solipcistic thinking isn't necessarily (or even likely to be) the result of a philosophy but merely a matter of insularity.
The gist of it is, "Whatever i chose to believe, is the truth, because everything else is relative, a matter of opinion, a lie, and/or can't be proven."

Yeah, I understand that. My point was that you were accusing everyone else of that, then mumbling some gibberish about philosophy and religion being dead ends, claims that cannot be achieved except through solipsistic thinking.
It's the irony of the internal contradiction that has me intrigued.


Back to the original topic, no one really cares anymore what the Constitution says (or even what it was intended to say). There are too many competing ways to interpret every little phrase, so nothing written in it is genuinely binding for our government. It can all be explained away.

I wish people cared...

[JDS]

Our current president I think was born in Beautiful Greenwich, Connecticut. He's good guy

Texas wasn't a state when Consitution was written, however. Therefore, the evil LBJ was an illegal president. JFK was good -- even though his folks were Irish mafia.

Gotta stick with that good old constitution...those 13 orignial colonies is where we need them presidents from........Because........those old boys all worked hard for a livin' but weren't in no unions.......Too smart for all that.....

Hey they never mentioned no unions in the constitution......ILLEGAL.

...Here in Michigan, obviously, people earn too darn much money.........Although a lot of progress has been made in wage-cutting hereabouts already, more needs to be done......Rockefeller was quite the feller.... ya.......in Colorado ........yada yada.....
.......Heck Grand Rapids is where AMWAY is based...And if y'all wanna buy some soap or want a line on some good money for you and your family, just let me know.......(can't tell ya what it's about yet)....(rant, rant) (just come to this meeting at the Holiday Inn on Tuesday....It's an interesting entrepreneurial opportunity for somebody like you 'cause you're special........and could ya bring a hundred dollars...cudya please???..)

[ponycar17]

JDS, I'm amazed how hard you work to attempt to make Conservatives look dumb. It isn't working, and may in fact be backfiring...

Sarcasm and cynicism, although sometimes effective, isn't enough to make people educated with rational and factual information look dumb.

This is sad...

[45nut]

Hey deathbunny,


The fact that he was enrolled in school listed as a citizen of Indonesia, which does not allow dual citizenship, proves that he was not a US citizen at that time. Thus he would need to repatriate when he returned to the US making him ineligible to become POTUS.

Pretty simple really.

[Deathbunny]

Originally Posted by 45nut

Hey deathbunny,

The fact that he was enrolled in school listed as a citizen of Indonesia, which does not allow dual citizenship, proves that he was not a US citizen at that time. Thus he would need to repatriate when he returned to the US making him ineligible to become POTUS.

Pretty simple really.

Not really. US citizenship, like most, is yours at birth. You can't give it away, your parents can't take it from you (http://travel.state.gov/law/citizens...nship_776.html , see section F), and a foreign power can't decide that you are now no longer an American. Yes, Obama went to school in Indonesia. That proves.......that he went to school in Indonesia, nothing else. The U.S. does not, and will not, accept a foreign ruling on someone's U.S. citizenship.

[vytoland]

PONYCAR

get over it, dude.......the big "O" is your president

[ponycar17]

Originally Posted by vytoland

PONYCAR

get over it, dude.......the big "O" is your president

And what prompted that response?...

The Big 'O' is bred of ignorance... He may be my president, technically but he's a steaming heap of dumb per his campaign and post-election speeches. I understand now that Obama is a bit smarter than his rhetoric. He played dumb in order to get Democrat constituents to vote for him. Let's hope he has a shred of Economic and Constitutional 'common sense' that he hasn't yet revealed....

[SaddleSarge]

Originally Posted by ponycar17

And what prompted that response?...

The Big 'O' is bred of ignorance... He may be my president, technically but he's a steaming heap of dumb per his campaign and post-election speeches. I understand now that Obama is a bit smarter than his rhetoric. He played dumb in order to get Democrat constituents to vote for him. Let's hope he has a shred of Economic and Constitutional 'common sense' that he hasn't yet revealed....

I doubt it Pony. Let us hope that hussein is vastly, no...make that "incredibly," more intelligent than those that voted for him. However, I retain my doubts when I hear him speak in an unrehearsed venue. He is merely a puppet.

I keep looking for Pelosi's, Boxer's, Reid's or Kennedys' arm up his back working the mouth....

[GMFWoodchuck]

It doesn't matter, McCain wasn't born in the U.S. either. We had a choice between to democrats. We got the one who wasn't lying quite so much about as to what he was. At least he says he's a democrat and we can deal with him as such. McCain is just a lying scumbag with only himself to think about.

[JDS]

If McCain is a Democrat, is Bush/Cheney also a "Democrat" for pushing "easy money" and bailing out the banks and auto industry? Was Clinton a "Republican" for ending welfare? Carter for pushing deregulation and "tight money?"

Are you guys "Republicans?"

I've always felt there wasn't much difference between the mainstream of both parties.

That's why the U.S. functions (functioned?) relatively well in contrast to places like Italy, where they get a new government every six months and you see half-built high-rise buildings that have been abandoned for years -- in part because disagreement is the cultural norm.

[satellite66]

I think most here are conservatives who believe in liberty and the free market. We despise those who would take our freedoms no matter how much hope and change they promise. The GOP at one time represented conservative values but of late has become dem lite. At one time even dems had conservative values now they are nothing but marxist liberals. Those who believe in liberty and self reliance need to reject the dems and rinos who the stupid have voted in.

[mrkirker]

If McCain is a Democrat, is Bush/Cheney also a "Democrat" for pushing "easy money" and bailing out the banks and auto industry? Was Clinton a "Republican" for ending welfare? Carter for pushing deregulation and "tight money?"

Are you guys "Republicans?"

The GOP at one time represented conservative values but of late has become dem lite. At one time even dems had conservative values now they are nothing but marxist liberals.

Not all Republicans are conservatives; not all Democrats are liberals. There are many flavors of each. There are Republicans who are not 'one issue' voters, as well as Democrats who are. I know a few 'yellow dog' Demos who detest the bail-out idea. There are card carrying member of both parties who believe and practice liberty and self-reliance.

'Labels' can be a trap.

As far as BO is concerned, he doesn't have to be intelligent. He will have what will be viewed as a successful presidency. Think about it: Those that are pulling the strings will not let him fail, there's far too much at stake for that to happen.

[satellite66]

I for one am tired of the "not all are" retort. Please stop with the not all are. Anyone can see that the current dem party has gone fully marxist. Notice the word party. The leadership is marxist. The current GOP leadership is liberal.
If indeed you believe in liberty then supporting the dem party is counterproductive in every aspect and supporting the GOP is a the lesser of two evils and a slower road to destruction. True believers in liberty need to support candidates who believe in the constitution and limited government. I don't see any on the radar from the dems but at least the GOP has a few left.
Clinton did not end welfare he was dragged to signing it by conservatives.

[mrkirker]

I for one am tired of the "not all are" retort. Please stop with the not all are.
Okay, so you're tired of it. And you point is . . . . . I will continue to state that in certain instances "not all are" whenever it seems appropriate, because "Not all are."

Marxist? Can you actually define the term without checking with Google?

How easy it must be, to simply retort to any comment too wide to fit into such a wretchedly constricted mind-set with a tired, boiler-plate litergy, reflecting a sad lack of actual reasoning and understanding of the subjects and issues at hand, allowing amazing, though illogical leaps of thought! e.g. I disagree with you, ergo, I must be a supporter of the Demo party.

Clinton?

[JDS]

Eisenhower built the interstate highway system, JFK cut taxes, LBJ went after the commie Viets........Nixon/Ford wanted national health care and ditched the war and founded the EPA. Carter deregulated industry and jacked up interest rates for Wall Street; Regan's deficit spending was mind-boggling. Bush I, er, was, a technocrat. Clinton reversed buget deficits to a surplus and "ended welfare." Bush II is leaving a gigantic budget deficit, expanded medicare, and, uh.....well, "stuff happens."

Obama so far has a couple of Republicans in his cabinet, plans to expand the war in Afghanistan, suck up to Wall Street as much as possible, and, we'll see what other contradictions he comes up with besides the trivial matter of the right-wing preacher he picked to speak at the inaguration.

Like the Brits, we "muddle through."

The notion of ideological purity seems ill-informed.

[45nut]

Originally Posted by GMFWoodchuck

It doesn't matter, McCain wasn't born in the U.S. either. We had a choice between to(sic- two) democrats. We got the one who wasn't lying quite so much about as to what he was. At least he says he's a democrat and we can deal with him as such. McCain is just a lying scumbag with only himself to think about.

At least McCain was born on US base. Is that right?

[45nut]

For the record, I would like something other than the deficits mentioned in conjunction with Reagan's name. Please spare me all the lib-speak concerning Reagan. How about a little truth? Follow the ink for the full text with exerpts below (I left out the tables because they don't tranfser well) There is more in the article about myths associated with Reagans policies and record. Check it out.

http://http://www.cato.org/pub_displ...id=1120&full=1

The Real Reagan Economic Record

Table 1 contrasts side by side the economy's performance for the three periods of analysis--1974-81, 1981-89, and 1989-95--for 10 key variables. We measure the change in each economic variable from the start of the period through the end and present the annualized change. [11] On 8 of the 10 key variables, the Reagan record unambiguously outperformed the records of the pre- and post-Reagan years. The two exceptions were the savings rate, which declined in the Reagan years at a faster rate than in the pre- and post-Reagan years, and productivity, which grew faster in the pre-Reagan years but slower in the post-Reagan years. [12] The following is a summary for each of the 10 variables:

Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began. [13] Figure 1 shows the economic growth rate by president since World War II. That rate was higher in the 1980s than in the 1950s and 1970s but was substantially lower than the rapid economic growth rate of more than 4 percent per year in the 1960s. The Kennedy income tax rate cuts of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5 percent annual real growth.

Economic Growth per Working-Age Adult. When we adjust the economic growth rates to take account of demographic changes, we find that the expansion in the Reagan years looks even better and that the 1970s' performance looks worse. GDP growth per adult aged 20-64 in the Reagan years grew twice as rapidly, on average, as it did in the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Median Household Incomes. Real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years--from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989, as shown in Figure 2. This improvement was a stark reversal of the income trends in the late 1970s and the 1990s: median family income was unchanged in the eight pre-Reagan years, and incomes have fallen by $1,438 in the anti-supply-side 1990s, following the 1990 and 1993 tax hikes. [14] Most of the declines in take-home pay occurred on George Bush's watch. Under Bill Clinton's tenure, there has been zero income growth in median household income.

Employment. From 1981 through 1989 the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs each year. Contrary to the Clinton administration's claims of vast job gains in the 1990s, the United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs per year in the post-Reagan years. The labor force United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs expanded by 1.7 percent per year between 1981 and 1989, but by just 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 1995. [15]

Hours Worked. Table 1 confirms that hours worked per adult aged 20-64 grew much faster in the 1980s than in the pre -or post-Reagan years.

Unemployment Rate. When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In the recession of 1981-82, that rate peaked at 9.7 percent, but it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent. This reduction in joblessness was a clear triumph of the Reagan program. Figure 3 shows that in the pre-Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended upward; in the Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended downward; and in the post-Reagan years, the unemployment rate has fluctuated up and down but today remains virtually unchanged from the 1989 rate.

Productivity. For real wages to rise, productivity must rise. Over the past 30 years there has been a secular downward trend in U.S. productivity growth. Under Reagan, productivity grew at a 1.5 percent annual rate, as shown in Figure 4. This was lower than in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s but much higher than in the post-Reagan years. Under Clinton, productivity has increased at an annual rate of just 0.3 percent per year--the worst presidential performance since that of Herbert Hoover.

Inflation. The central economic evil that Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981 from Jimmy Carter was three years of double-digit inflation. In 1980 the consumer price index (CPI) rose to 13.5 percent. By Reagan's second year in office, the inflation rate fell by more than half to 6.2 percent. In 1988, Reagan's last year in office, the CPI had fallen to 4.1 percent. Figure 5 shows the inflation and interest rate trend.

Interest Rates. In 1980 the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage was 15 percent; this rate rose to its all-time peak of 18.9 percent in 1981. The prime rate steadily fell over the subsequent six years to a low of 8.2 percent in 1987 as the inflationary expectation component of interest rates fell sharply. The prime rate hit its 20-year low in 1993 at 6.0 percent. The Treasury Bill rate also fell dramatically in the 1980s--from 14 percent in 1981 to 7 percent in 1988. In the 1990s, interest rates have continued to migrate gradually downward, as shown in Figure 5.

Savings. The savings rate did not rise in the 1980s, as supply-side advocates had predicted. In fact, in the 1980s the personal savings rate fell from 8 percent to 6.5 percent. [16]In the 1990s the average savings rate has fallen even further to an average of 4.9 percent [17]--although the rate of decline has slowed.

The decline in the personal savings rate in the 1980s was disappointing, but two factors mitigate the implications of these statistics. First, the drop in the savings rate was partly a natural response to demographic changes in America--namely, the baby boomers entering their peak spending years. Second, the savings rate data fail to account for real gains in wealth, which clearly are an important form of savings. The real value of capital assets and property doubled from 1980 to 1990. The Dow Jones Industrial Average nearly tripled from a low of 884 in 1982 to 2,509 in 1989. These increases in the value of stocks, bonds, homes, businesses, and so forth added to Americans' balance sheets hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth that are not accounted for in the savings rate statistics. [18]

The Reagan Fiscal Record

The fiscal record of the 1980s was much less impressive than the economic record. The major outcomes of Reagan's budgetary policies, as well as of the pre- and post-Reagan budgetary policies, are summarized in Table 2. Highlights are as follows:

Budget Deficit. The budget deficit exploded in the 1980s. Figure 6 shows that in 1981, the budget deficit was $101 billion (in 1987 dollars) and 2.7 percent of GDP. In 1983 it peaked at $236 billion and 6.3 percent of GDP. By the time Reagan left office in 1989, however, it had fallen to $141 billion and 2.9 percent of GDP. These deficits were higher in real dollars than those under any other post-World War II president except for George Bush.

National Debt. The national debt (public debt) in real 1987 dollars doubled from $1,004 billion in 1981 to $2,028 billion in 1989. As a share of GDP, the debt increased from 27 percent to 42 percent, as shown in Figure 7. In the 1990s the debt has risen to 52 percent of GDP. The rise in the national debt in the 1980s was large and has imposed significant repayment costs on future generations.

Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues doubled in the 1980s from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.

Income Tax Receipts. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in the 1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax collections grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite income tax rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton years. Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983, and then to 28 percent in 1986. According to the latest (August 1996) Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast, real income tax revenues will have grown by 17.9 percent from 1990 to 1997, following the raising of the top income tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent in 1990 and then to 39.6 percent in 1993. [19] On a purely static basis, the 1990 tax increase raised $380 billion less in income tax revenues from 1991 to 1995 than had been predicted. [20]

Federal Spending. The federal budget was not cut under Reagan. In fact, it was 69 percent larger when Reagan left office than when he entered it--22 percent larger in real terms. As a share of GDP, federal outlays declined by less than 1 percentage point. [21]

Defense Spending. From 1981 to 1989, the Pentagon budget doubled from $158 billion to $304 billion. The years of the greatest spending hike in the military budget were 1978-87, when the Pentagon's expenditures rose from $180 billion to $280 billion in real 1987 dollars.[22]

Domestic Spending. Overall domestic spending growth was relatively constrained during the Reagan presidency, particularly compared with that of other presidencies, as shown in Table 3. In fact, domestic spending grew at a slower real rate under Reagan than under all other recent presidents. Moreover, domestic outlays as a share of GDP fell from 15.3 to 12.9 percent from 1981 to 1989 (Table 2). But the reductions in domestic spending were substantially smaller than required to balance the federal budget, cut taxes, and finance a military build-up.

[JDS]

My point is merely that each of the various presidents going back at least 50 years did plenty of things that contradicted the stereo-typical "Left/Right" supposed dicotomy. Your data seems to confirm this regarding Regan.

My unproven thesis is, that Obama will follow the pattern. There are signs of it even before he's taken office.

The Cato group is (thank God) a pretty non-partisan source of data, and I wouldn't take the trouble to check any of their info.

What is not considered above with regard to economic performance under Regan, however, is the contribution of Carter, who essentially fell on his sword, in order to clear the decks of inflation/stagflation which had plagued the economy since the late 1960s, and exacerbated by the oil shocks, by 1979, had become intolerable.

Carter accomplished this by appointing Volcker to the Fed, which then jacked up interest rates to double digits (with Carter's assent) predictably causing an extreme recession and making Carter's re-election predictably, impossible. Volcker was re-appointed by Regan and remained in office until 1987.

The strategy worked in time, and spurred a fairly strong and sustained recovery -- after Carter left office. In fact, it enabled a 20-year run in the stock market, which ended in about 2000.

Volcker is currently chairman-designate of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Doesn't sound Marxist.

The Carter/Volcker strategy was, for good or ill, "classically" Republican. In the olden days, economic debate was farmers vs. bankers. The farmers sought "easy money" while the banks wanted "tight money."

I probably don't need to tell you to which party the bankers belonged.

(Inflation is generally economically destructive, but considered in isolation, it tends to help debtors and harm creditors. If you have 10% inflation, the $10 you borrowed and spent today, is only going to be worth $9 when you must pay it off next year. Hence creditors (banks) that are most strongly concerned with controlling it if possible, via high interest rates. Borrowers, naturally, prefer low rates.

[RichardKCMo]

Originally Posted by berto64

That's OK folks, we'll have two years to get get together a conservative Congress to rein 'barry" in.

What he said!!!
RichardKCMo