posted
I really appreciated hearing him say that he wasn't going to answer the question about the media ban on photographing soldiers' coffins until the review was complete so that he would "understand all of the implications."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott R, that WILL be a relief, if it ever happens.
Did you notice how Obama managed the media, ignoring their clamoring, and calling pre-selected correspondents by name from a list he had prepared? I do give him credit for calling on Major Garret, of Fox News. I thought he might not call on anyone except representatives of news organizations who have supported him. But he could still degenerate into doing that, if he continues to go by a pre-selected list. He kind of discouraged follow-up questions, by ignoring them and calling on the next person on his list.
Fox News commentators made a good point afterward that Obama was a little too doctrinaire in casting the blame on the tax-cut policies of Republicans for the recent economic disaster, because the real fault was the corporate greed and criminal actions of a few individuals. Also, the economy did well during the first six years of George W. Bush's administration. If the economy had been bad four years ago, Bush would never have won re-election to a second term--and that was by a good margin. It was only the last two years, when Democrats had control of both houses of Congress, that the economy began to spiral downward.
Naturally Democrats try to put an anti-Republican spin on things. But introducing their old, tired policies of tax and spend liberalism, are not what the economy needs, and will not help. That is not to say that auto companies and mortgage companies and creditors do not need help. But a return to the policies of the Carter administration will only bring back "the misery index."
[ February 10, 2009, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to imagine the alternative, in which Obama resolves to take random, shouted requests from the crowd and winds up trying to play "Free Bird" on his shoelaces.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Tom, all presidents before him managed to deal with it. It makes Obama look afraid, or at least less than confident. Or as I suggested, maybe he was trying to be controlling.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fox News commentators made a good point afterward that Obama was a little too doctrinaire in casting the blame on the tax-cut policies of Republicans for the recent economic disaster, because the real fault was the corporate greed and criminal actions of a few individuals. Also, the econonmy did well during the first six years of George W. Bush's administration. If the economy had been bad four years ago, Bush would never have won re-election to a second term--and that was by a good margin. It was only the last two years, when Democrats had control of both houses of Congress, that the economy began to spiral downward.
Generally I try and ignore this kind of thing these days but come on. Seriously. You name the problem specifically and then put the blame on DEMOCRATS? You're right, it wasn't the tax cut policies that got us into this mess, it was Republicans changing regulatory rules that allowed the unbridled greed of corporations take over and make a ridiculous number of loans against a much smaller amount of assets.
And seriously, I've never gotten what the heck conservatives mean when they say "tax and spend" like it's a bad thing. Tax and spend means a balanced budget usually. It was Bush who shot down Paygo. Republicans would rather cut and spend. Gee, I guess that's why the national debt doubled by five Trillion dollars in the last eight years eh?
And he answered some complex questions. If Helen Thomas had had her way, he'd have sat there for an hour just answering questions from her. They already phrased their questions with BUILT IN followups for him to address.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
May I remind you, Lyrhawn, that it was two years ago that Sen. John McCain supported legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and Democrats refused to allow it out of committee so it could be considered and voted upon by the Senate. And that is where the economic collapse started--with the housing/mortgage industry.
Bush, of course, is not exactly a hero of conservative Republicans. You are right in critizing his spending policies that ran up the national debt. However, you are not right in criticizing tax cuts. From JFK on, it has been proven that cutting taxes generates more revenue, encouraging the industries whose taxes you cut so they can expand, hire more employees, and produce enough more to offset the cut in taxes. Democrats never liked the idea of cutting taxes, because to them it is the same thing as cutting their power. And they like to control the people as much as possible.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, Tom, all presidents before him managed to deal with it.
That you think so is surprisingly (if oddly) charming.
quote:From JFK on, it has been proven that cutting taxes generates more revenue, encouraging the industries whose taxes you cut so they can expand, hire more employees, and produce enough more to offset the cut in taxes.
Well, no. For one thing, there's a point of diminishing returns beyond which cutting taxes fails to grow the economy enough to make up for the loss of tax revenue. (If you don't realize this, look at the Laffer Curve again.) For another, most studies I've seen indicate that we're actually on the OTHER side of that point, currently; people do not appear to be sufficiently burdened by taxation for tax cuts to be self-paying.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been pointed out Hatrack a couple dozen times, to say nothing of elsewhere, that there is significant disagreement over whether or not tax cuts pay for themselves. I personally fall on the side of the "doesn't pay for itself" camp. Democrats don't like cutting taxes because to them it means cutting spending, which they see as necessary to improve the nation. Republicans don't have a problem with creating a massive national debt, so to them it isn't a problem. Plus they don't have as much interest in fixing the nation's problems, they think the problems should all be fixed locally. It's a philosophical difference, and that's fair, but it's not sinister like you're implying.
And Fannie and Freddie were a drop in the bucket. Fixing them wouldn't have forestalled this problem. It wouldn't have helped Citibank, or any of the other half dozen megabanks that gave out horrible loans, and it wouldn't have helped the thousands who bought into those stupid mortgage securities.
If a mob opens the doors to the bear pen and lets all the bears out, who proceed to run amok and trash everything, and one person from the mob suggests shooting a single bear but is stopped by a separate group, the mess created by the bears as a whole is not owned by that separate group. It made a good campaign line though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There might be significant disagreement, but there isn't a controversy among people who've looked at the numbers. With a few exceptions for very specific taxes, tax cuts from the levels taxes are at now won't pay for themselves, and haven't paid for themselves, and this has been true since some of Reagan's tax cuts (and probably earlier; some of JFK's tax cuts definitely paid for themselves). The evidence isn't even fuzzy.
Obviously tax cuts that pay for themselves are a good idea; the US has, at various times, taxed far too highly. Nowadays, though, that isn't how you reason out tax cuts (with the aforementioned narrow exceptions for odd little areas of tax law).
Also, tax cuts aren't a very good way to stimulate the economy, most of the time. They tend to take too long to have an effect. It might be possible to avoid the delay by passing laws changing withholding calculations, too, but that hasn't been too successful so far. They're just not particularly stimulating in the short term because their effects are too spread out.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: May I remind you, Lyrhawn, that it was two years ago that Sen. John McCain supported legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and Democrats refused to allow it out of committee so it could be considered and voted upon by the Senate. And that is where the economic collapse started--with the housing/mortgage industry.
No. It started with a number of things, but that isn't one of them. Not exactly.
It started with artificial manipulation of the economy. The Federal Reserve manipulating interest rates (just as they did in the 1920s, for the same reasons, and with the same results) and allowing fractional reserve banking to bloat the money supply without any actual value backing it.
It started with deregulation, which would have been a good idea if not for the artificial manipulation of the economy. So long as the economy is a toy for bankers and influence pushers, there has to be regulation to prevent abuses. They got rid of regulation without getting rid of what the regulation was there for in the first place, and now they want to blame the lack of regulation, rather than the economic gaming, for the results.
It started with the government setting homeownership (and who cares if people can afford to own a home) as a major priority. Pushing banks into making ill-advised loans, and pushing people into taking ill-advised loans. As though renting is somehow a Bad Thing.
It started with the idea that an economy built on debt is a good thing. An idea, btw, which Obama said explicitly is one of his major priorities to keep going. "Free up credit" so that we can work ourselves further and further into debt.
It started with the extension of legal person status to corporations, creating entities that are obligated by law to put financial returns to stockholders above any rational and sane behavior. Now people want to blame corporations for doing exactly what they were designed to do. The fourteenth amendment, designed to protect the rights of freed slaves, was hijacked for the sake of corporations. Of the 150 cases involving the fourteenth amendment heard by the Supreme Court between its ratification in 1868 and the Plessy case in 1896, only 15 involved the rights of blacks. The other 135 were all about the "rights" of corporations.
Walmart recently sued a city in California for infringing its fourteenth amendment rights by restricting it from opening a store there. Not the rights of stockholders or owners, but the rights of the Walmart corporation.
Our economy is in a shambles, and it isn't because of the housing industry or deregulation (as such). It's because of the twin insanities of a debt-based economy and corporate personhood. And these two things are connected: the reason we have a debt-based economy is because corporations couldn't grow at the pace they wanted to without it. Obama wants to enable American debt addiction and worsen the problem.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Walmart recently sued a city in California for infringing its fourteenth amendment rights by restricting it from opening a store there. Not the rights of stockholders or owners, but the rights of the Walmart corporation.
Did they win? Anyone can sue for anything.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting, that WalMart suit. Just how much of an actual entity is the legal entity of a corporation?
Everyone please note: Tom Davidson said in effect that we don't pay enough taxes, we can afford to pay more. Now there is a true Democrat. Tom, would you have us volunteer to pay even more taxes, as Joe Biden suggested?
I have never yet seen a Democrat or liberal of any stripe take the lead themselves in doing this. Democrats only want to spend other people's money. Some Democrats, we are learning from Obama's recent disastrous cabinet picks, believe they shouldn't pay as much taxes as the rest of us.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Kennedy cut taxes the top bracket was around 90%. It's now 35%.
Isn't it just possible that cutting a stifling 90% tax will indeed spur further revenue, while cutting what we have now would make things worse?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everyone please note: Tom Davidson said in effect that we don't pay enough taxes, we can afford to pay more. Now there is a true Democrat. Tom, would you have us volunteer to pay even more taxes, as Joe Biden suggested?
I would have those in the top two tax brackets pay more taxes, certainly. The top tax rate is a fraction of what it used to be, and there's no indication that it needs to be as low as it is to encourage investment.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Isn't it just possible that cutting a stifling 90% tax will indeed spur further revenue, while cutting what we have now would make things worse?
That's just crazy talk!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are talking about several different values as if they were one and the same when they are in fact not:
1. The tax rate that represents the maximum revenue, i.e. the peak of the Laffer Curve 2. The highest tax rate we can afford to pay (which alone means different things to different people) 3. The rate where taxes should be set
For some odd reason this often leads to confusion and attributions of maliciousness where none exists. Let's try to keep in mind the differences.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tom Davidson said in effect that we don't pay enough taxes, we can afford to pay more. Now there is a true Democrat. Tom, would you have us volunteer to pay even more taxes, as Joe Biden suggested?
I have never yet seen a Democrat or liberal of any stripe take the lead themselves in doing this. Democrats only want to spend other people's money.
Let's be honest here: everyone, Democrats and Republicans and others, wants to spend other people's money. Well, except for those who think there should be no taxation at all. We're just arguing over how much and on what.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Fox News commentators made a good point afterward that Obama was a little too doctrinaire in casting the blame on the tax-cut policies of Republicans for the recent economic disaster, because the real fault was the corporate greed and criminal actions of a few individuals.
You have no clue what you're talking about. I would say that to someone who blamed republicans solely for the crisis, and I say it to you for having no concept of the fundamental problems in this situation. Corporate greed and criminality are two out of about 50 big problems- and they're on the smaller side.
Not that I think dialogue with the willfully ignorant is productive. I suggest you go off and do some serious reading. You are worse that useless at this.
quote: May I remind you, Lyrhawn, that it was two years ago that Sen. John McCain supported legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and Democrats refused to allow it out of committee so it could be considered and voted upon by the Senate. And that is where the economic collapse started--with the housing/mortgage industry.
Having not read the legislation, I wouldn't mind you providing a link to the source that discussed this event. I have a strange tickling feeling in my brain that tells me the "reform" was not how you characterize it. That coming from your mis-characterization of every. single. thing. you have posted on this board in my memory.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom Davidson said in effect that we don't pay enough taxes, we can afford to pay more.
I think taxes should be raised, too.
I read some column and I don't remember where, were the columnists talked about how much he/she loved paying taxes. Because they knew that that money was why the school was able to operate, and the roads were built and the country was defended. All the money was not spent the way they wanted, but enough was to make them feel good. It is a shame that that attitude is so weird. Of course, we'll see how I feel when my husband gets a job and we actually have money to pay taxes with. Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Personal attacks usually come in place of any substantive refutation, so I ignore them.
Be that as it may, could you do me a favor and find the legislation McCain championed before things really started to come to a head?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or for that matter respond to the actual substantive refutations that HAVE been raised in this thread.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, seeing as how our previous president not only called from a list, but that his administration planted a fake journalist to give favorable questions, threatened to force journalists to reveal their sources, released fake news items to underbudgeted local news agencies to advance his policies, supported a policy of resisting Freedom of Information Act inquiries, and wielded "Executive Privelige" like a nail-studded blunt instrument... I'm inclined to say Obama's doing pretty well.
And while I will readily agree that not all the current wreckage of the economy can be laid at Bush's, or even the Republicans' door... You might say that flooding the basement isn't exactly the best response to a housefire.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, as I recall, the Fanny Mae-Freddie Mac reform bill DID get out of committee, but it just never reached the floor because there were more pressing matters at the time. You know, there was a minor weather anomaly called Katrina hitting the gulf coast. I suppose they thought that working on disaster relief held a slightly higher priority than reforms.
And if I still recall correctly, John McCain wasn't even on that committee, and his attempts to champion the reform came in the form of a speech on the senate floor where he essentially said "This was a good idea, we should bring it up again." It wasn't blocked, it was just forgotten.
If I'm mistaken go ahead and prove me wrong, being as this is all based on recollection. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did you notice how Obama managed the media, ignoring their clamoring, and calling pre-selected correspondents by name from a list he had prepared? I do give him credit for calling on Major Garret, of Fox News. I thought he might not call on anyone except representatives of news organizations who have supported him. But he could still degenerate into doing that, if he continues to go by a pre-selected list. He kind of discouraged follow-up questions, by ignoring them and calling on the next person on his list.
[...]
Well, Tom, all presidents before him managed to deal with it. It makes Obama look afraid, or at least less than confident. Or as I suggested, maybe he was trying to be controlling.
You do know that Bush used a list, yes? And shut out questions from groups or reporters he didn't like? Ari Fleischer talked about it on O'Reilly Monday night:
quote:Further, during the February 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fleischer was asked by host Bill O'Reilly if "George Bush came in ... with a list of guys he was going to call on." Fleischer responded, "Yeah, I used to prepare it for him. I would give him a grid, show him where every reporter is seated. And there are some reporters, you know, in that briefing room, as you can imagine, Bill, you get a lot of dot-coms and other oddballs who come in there who aren't really mainstream." Fleischer added: "And I used to put them all out in one section. I would call it Siberia. And I told the president, 'Don't call on Siberia. Just stay right here and call on these people on the grid in front of you.' "
I do not mind criticisms of our current president. But please make them legitimate criticisms, without attempts to whitewash "all presidents before him."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was not aware Bush had done that. But he was never known as a great communicator. He had very few press conferences. He does not seem to me like a good role model for future presidents in "handling" the media.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Nor was Bush particularly unique in that. I'm pretty sure that every president we've had in my lifetime has had someone to do that. The White House Press Corps has been an absolute joke for as long as I've been alive, for precisely this reason.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
He can afford to do some good things at the beginning. Meanwhile, he's taken over the census, and this stimulus bill of his is going to be like Chicago's patronage system, only nation wide.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:[t]his stimulus bill of his is going to be like Chicago's patronage system, only nation wide.
Are you going to accept the 400 or 800 dollars you will receive then in tax cuts? And if you are going to take that principled stand, can I have the money?
The census thing is troubling though, I must agree. In 2000 and after, Tom Delay and other Republicans were able to gerrymander districts all across Texas and other states after the census in order to create greater Republican majorities and in order to squeeze out moderates. I would hope that Obama does not follow the same road, and if he does, that is a bad step for this administration.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Congress wrote the bill, not Obama. Is everyone in Congress from Chicago?
There are plenty of substantive things to take issue with in Obama's actions. Try taking a swing at one of them rather than recycling the same old tired smear adapted for every situation.
Blackblade -
Utah is in line to get another Rep. Numbers in other places might shift around too. For example, both Michigan and Louisiana are likely to lose a district. But from current guesstimates, you're good.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Congress wrote the bill, not Obama. Is everyone in Congress from Chicago?
There are plenty of substantive things to take issue with in Obama's actions. Try taking a swing at one of them rather than recycling the same old tired smear adapted for every situation.
Blackblade -
Utah is in line to get another Rep. Numbers in other places might shift around too. For example, both Michigan and Louisiana are likely to lose a district. But from current guesstimates, you're good.
Not counting Utah residents who were serving full time missions was just stupid IMHO. I'm sure the next census will indeed grant us our congressman but we need that extra slot so I can fill it and fix this state now. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:“As they have in the past, White House senior management will work closely with the Census Director given the number of decisions that will need to reach the President’s desk," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a written statement. "This administration has not proposed removing the Census from the Department of Commerce and the same Congressional committees that had oversight during the previous administration will retain that authority.”
Republicans disagree with the White House's assertion that previous Census directors have worked closely with White House staffers, writing that "There is no legitimate historical precedent for placing the nonpartisan, apolitical Census Bureau under the control of political operatives on the White House staff.”
But in an e-mail, Kenneth Prewitt, who served as Census director from 1998 to 2001, said he worked with White House staff during the 2000 national headcount.
"Issues included budgeting, the advertising campaign, strategies for recruitment of enumerators, etc. Scientific and technical decisions were made solely by the Census Bureau, according to well-established principles and practices of statistical independence. I am confident these principles will prevail in the 2010 Census."
Frankly, I'd like to see an honest census and fair districting that allows actual political competition, unlike the unholy mess that happened in Texas to keep Republicans in power there forever and the Dem atrocities such as Corrine Brown's one-mile wide strip in Central Florida designed solely to collect all the African-American votes.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: He has not taken over the census.
quote:“As they have in the past, White House senior management will work closely with the Census Director given the number of decisions that will need to reach the President’s desk," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a written statement. "This administration has not proposed removing the Census from the Department of Commerce and the same Congressional committees that had oversight during the previous administration will retain that authority.”
Republicans disagree with the White House's assertion that previous Census directors have worked closely with White House staffers, writing that "There is no legitimate historical precedent for placing the nonpartisan, apolitical Census Bureau under the control of political operatives on the White House staff.”
But in an e-mail, Kenneth Prewitt, who served as Census director from 1998 to 2001, said he worked with White House staff during the 2000 national headcount.
"Issues included budgeting, the advertising campaign, strategies for recruitment of enumerators, etc. Scientific and technical decisions were made solely by the Census Bureau, according to well-established principles and practices of statistical independence. I am confident these principles will prevail in the 2010 Census."
Frankly, I'd like to see an honest census and fair districting that allows actual political competition, unlike the unholy mess that happened in Texas to keep Republicans in power there forever and the Dem atrocities such as Corrine Brown's one-mile wide strip in Central Florida designed solely to collect all the African-American votes.
If we found a way to redraw districts so that there would be no bias towards political sentiment I think the next election would incredibly fascinating.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do it geographically. Block off the states in chunks as close to square as possible, with no considerations for demographics whatsoever. You run for office, you are expected to represent your constituents, not just the ones whose affiliation matches yours.
[ February 13, 2009, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
At some point, someone linked to a jerrymandering game. You drew the lines to block in people, using different rules. Under some it was very easy to shift the number of reps to your side, but under others, it was almost impossible.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
