5 ms·

Wow, the Hopeychange flavored Kool-Aid hasn't run out yet!

kirse 18y ago
I agree, people want change but they hardly know what they're in for, especially with universal healthcare "reform"... Some other recent notable changes... - push to eliminate US nuclear weapons - encouraging an international currency and removing the US dollar from a position of power - spending $3.55 trillion for 2010 ($400bn over '09), when we've already committed $12.8 trillion to the recession - increasing the marginal tax rate to the highest levels since Clinton - letting North Korea get away with launching missiles over Japan - taking over private businesses and forcing out their CEOs I guess you always need a Carter to usher in a Reagan. ...And bring on the drive-by downmods with no responses.
- gabrielroth 18y ago
  OK, here's a response: > push to eliminate US nuclear weapons I have seen no evidence of anyone in the administration suggesting any such thing. > encouraging an international currency and removing the US dollar from a position of power Ditto. > spending $3.55 trillion for 2010 ($400bn over '09), when we've already committed $12.8 trillion to the recession What's the problem with that? Be specific. > increasing the marginal tax rate to the highest levels since Clinton 'to the highest levels since Clinton' means 'to a higher level than after Bush's tax cuts.' Was the economy, and the federal treasury, in better shape in 2000 (when Clinton left office) or eight years later? > letting North Korea get away with launching missiles over Japan Given that this happened two days ago, it's a little early to assess the administration's response.
  - catz 18y ago
    > > push to eliminate US nuclear weapons > I have seen no evidence of anyone in the administration suggesting any such thing. Really? What about: "Obama Calls for Nuclear Free World, Says U.S. Will Lead" (http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200904/200904060004.html http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200904/200904060...) Search Google news for US nuclear weapons. > > spending $3.55 trillion for 2010 ($400bn over '09), when we've already committed $12.8 trillion to the recession > What's the problem with that? Be specific. Uhm... Spending huge amounts of money that the USA doesn't have isn't such a good idea? > > increasing the marginal tax rate to the highest levels since Clinton > 'to the highest levels since Clinton' means 'to a higher level than after Bush's tax cuts.' Was the economy, and the federal treasury, in better shape in 2000 (when Clinton left office) or eight years later? When Clinton left office there was a recession (in 2000 and 2001). It was called the dot com bubble. Oh. Also take into account that the Democrats controlled Congress the past few years. So maybe it is the Democrat's fault for the current mess? > > letting North Korea get away with launching missiles over Japan > Given that this happened two days ago, it's a little early to assess the administration's response. Didn't Obama want to cut ballistic missile defence?
    - mattobrien 18y ago
      There is a lot of parroting of talking points to unpack here. First, you assume that drawing down our nuclear program is a priori bad. This is clearly not so. Consider that the greatest threat of terrorists gaining access to nuclear weapons comes from so-called looses nukes in ex-Soviet states. If eliminating some of our weapons will induce them to do the same, this would seem to lessen the chance that apocalyptic weapons will fall into the hands of people who would use them. We could eliminate 9000 nukes and still have more than enough to kill all life on the planet several times over. If the Russians and other ex-Soviet states eliminate a commensurate number of weapons, I think that'd be a good trade. As for $3.55 trillion for 2010 - unfortunately, I think it's probably necessary. Global manufacturing and trade are falling at rates faster than any seen during the Great Depression. Debt levels are higher now than back then. Deleveraging will take quite awhile. And while some have claimed Japan's deficit spending during its lost decade failed, since growth petered out at 1%, Richard Koo of Nomura makes a fairly convincing case that this was actually a success: they averted a full-scale depression, after all. (http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/04/richard_koo_on.html http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/04/richard_koo_on.htm...) Saying that Obama has increased marginal tax rates to the highest level since Clinton is a cheap rhetorical trick. I don't think top rates going from 36% to 39.6% represents the tipping point between capitalism and socialism. And lower top marginal tax rates under Bush certainly didn't create a booming economy. This is the worst economy in 80 years. Also, remember that under Eisenhower, top rates were as high as 90%. However, those top rates only applied to individuals with incomes around $75 million in today's dollars. I think there's a convincing argument to be made for introducing more brackets at the top of the tax bracket - lumping in people making 300k with people raking in several million a year makes little sense. Nate Silver made this case a few weeks ago. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/missing-1000000-tax-bracket.html http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/missing-1000000-tax-b...) Forgive me if I'm not scared about Obama firing CEOs of bailed out firms. Like it or not, certain companies are judged to be too economically, socially, and politically important to fail. If we're going to bail out these firms, getting rid of the incompetents who brought them onto the dole seems like the obvious first step. I wish Obama would get rid of Ken Lewis and the other banking geniuses who played such a large role in bringing on this collapse. Letting North Korea "get away with firing a missile over Japan." This is disingenuous on so many levels. First, it was a dud, not a missile. Second, it's not as if George W. Bush or Clinton was able to deter North Korea either. Kim Jong Il is determined to starve his people to develop weapons. Short of going to war - which would devastate Seoul and kill millions - there are no good options aside from pressing the Chinese to press North Korea more forcefully. And finally, you are aware that ballistic missile defense does not actually exist, and likely won't exist in the near future, right? It's something Reagan made up and threw untold billions of dollars into to scare the Soviets. What's the point of pouring money into a nonexistent technology - especially when we are going bankrupt? Ballistic missile defense might be a bigger scam than Bernie Madoff.
- unalone 18y ago
  Perhaps, kirse, we think that change won't take just 2 months. Maybe we still think that in these next 4 years, a lot of awesome stuff will happen, and that the changes we have seen are all pretty good. Also perhaps we've studied history and realize that Reagan was a terrible president, lied through his teeth, and hurt the United States in a lot of ways, while Jimmy Carter went on to do a lot of good, and maybe we're offended by your little smirky statement.
  - catz 18y ago
    > and hurt the United States in a lot of ways During the 8 years that Reagan was president the US economy grew by over 30%. This is an amazing feat. > while Jimmy Carter went on to do a lot of good Really? Do you think Carter was a good president? I wonder who created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Relation_to_2008_financial_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Rela...) which had a pretty big hand in the sub-prime meltdown.
    - unalone 18y ago
      Yeah, Reagan did some good things. He also created the atmosphere in which presidents are judged more by clever quips than by experience and plans, he turned the US political scene into a scene of nonstop drama, and there was that Contra thingie that he outright lied about. Carter wasn't good in office, but after leaving he did incredible things. And he always, always, took what he did seriously.
      - catz 18y ago
        > more by clever quips than by I dislike superficial things such as that. The whole smooth talking and celebrity thing is not for me. But in all fairness, the president that is the most like that is Barrack Obama. One thing that was good about Bush was that he was not very charismatic. This allowed people to judge him by his actions (and no cult of celebrity existed around him). The cult of personality that you build around a lot of politicians (esp. Obama) will be bad for you in the long run. > and there was that Contra thingie that he outright lied about Here is a quote from WP: > While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[4] there has not been any evidence uncovered showing that he authorized this plan. I would not be surprised if he did not know what was happening. The CIA did a lot of things that would fall into a “morally grey area” during the cold war. A lot of these things needed to be done. > Carter wasn't good in office, but after leaving he did incredible things. Admittedly he did better than Al Gore, but what did he really accomplish? His habitat for Humanity project is for me stupid. Why would you get foreign volunteers to build a house in a country with high unemployment? The economic effects was not thought through well – it would disadvantage labourers in the country.
- themic86 18y ago
  You make it sound like man's progression towards interdependence doesn't warrant some degree of socialized changed in areas that are clearly underperforming in the reign of "private enterprise". No one said change was going to be easy... or cheap. We brought this upon ourselves when we realized farming and gathering was easier than hunting and gathering.
  - MaysonL 18y ago
    Actually farming is harder than hunting: it's just that people/acre is much higher for farmers than hunters, and farmers, being tied to the land, are more easily governed, supporting expansionist governments which drive the hunter-gatherers out. But I agree: that was the turning point.
    - themic86 18y ago
      Yeah - the point isn't so much the ease of farming, rather it's necessity in order to increase the 'people / acre ' and the inherent interdependence of people as a result. we've been moving towards socialism since birth.
- DarkShikari 18y ago
  The top marginal tax rate was far higher under Reagan than it is now. If Reagan was around today, he'd probably think it should be raised.
  - viggity 18y ago
    what? really? It was higher under Reagan, he did the best he could to lower it, but you can only do so much with both houses full of democrats. I'd love to know why you would think Reagan would want higher taxes, everything I've read would say otherwise.
    - rjurney 18y ago
      Reagan lowered taxes, realized he lowered them too far, then raised them to get revenues back up. Ended up at a much smaller cut than he initially got through. Can't find a best link, but google 'Deficit Reduction Act reagan' and you'll get lots of hits. But that was a different, more responsible era than the last administration.
      - ellyagg 18y ago
        Just to clarify, Reagan's tax cuts were actually a revenue windfall for the Treasury, as it unlocked a ton of capital gains that investors had been sitting on and resulted in an economic expansion that, aside from a brief recession in 90-91, pushed through the end of Clinton's administration[1]. [1] Not that Bush Sr. and Clinton deserve no credit, of course, Some folks have unfairly vilified Bush Sr., but the fact is, economists agree that the US was emerging from recession before the end of his administration
        rjurney 18y ago
        And yet, he raised taxes to get more revenue for the federal government because lowering them had reduced federal revenue too far.

kirse 18y ago

I agree, people want change but they hardly know what they're in for, especially with universal healthcare "reform"... Some other recent notable changes... - push to eliminate US nuclear weapons - encouraging an international currency and removing the US dollar from a position of power - spending $3.55 trillion for 2010 ($400bn over '09), when we've already committed $12.8 trillion to the recession - increasing the marginal tax rate to the highest levels since Clinton - letting North Korea get away with launching missiles over Japan - taking over private businesses and forcing out their CEOs I guess you always need a Carter to usher in a Reagan. ...And bring on the drive-by downmods with no responses.

gabrielroth 18y ago
OK, here's a response: > push to eliminate US nuclear weapons I have seen no evidence of anyone in the administration suggesting any such thing. > encouraging an international currency and removing the US dollar from a position of power Ditto. > spending $3.55 trillion for 2010 ($400bn over '09), when we've already committed $12.8 trillion to the recession What's the problem with that? Be specific. > increasing the marginal tax rate to the highest levels since Clinton 'to the highest levels since Clinton' means 'to a higher level than after Bush's tax cuts.' Was the economy, and the federal treasury, in better shape in 2000 (when Clinton left office) or eight years later? > letting North Korea get away with launching missiles over Japan Given that this happened two days ago, it's a little early to assess the administration's response.
- catz 18y ago
  > > push to eliminate US nuclear weapons > I have seen no evidence of anyone in the administration suggesting any such thing. Really? What about: "Obama Calls for Nuclear Free World, Says U.S. Will Lead" (http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200904/200904060004.html http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200904/200904060...) Search Google news for US nuclear weapons. > > spending $3.55 trillion for 2010 ($400bn over '09), when we've already committed $12.8 trillion to the recession > What's the problem with that? Be specific. Uhm... Spending huge amounts of money that the USA doesn't have isn't such a good idea? > > increasing the marginal tax rate to the highest levels since Clinton > 'to the highest levels since Clinton' means 'to a higher level than after Bush's tax cuts.' Was the economy, and the federal treasury, in better shape in 2000 (when Clinton left office) or eight years later? When Clinton left office there was a recession (in 2000 and 2001). It was called the dot com bubble. Oh. Also take into account that the Democrats controlled Congress the past few years. So maybe it is the Democrat's fault for the current mess? > > letting North Korea get away with launching missiles over Japan > Given that this happened two days ago, it's a little early to assess the administration's response. Didn't Obama want to cut ballistic missile defence?
  - mattobrien 18y ago
    There is a lot of parroting of talking points to unpack here. First, you assume that drawing down our nuclear program is a priori bad. This is clearly not so. Consider that the greatest threat of terrorists gaining access to nuclear weapons comes from so-called looses nukes in ex-Soviet states. If eliminating some of our weapons will induce them to do the same, this would seem to lessen the chance that apocalyptic weapons will fall into the hands of people who would use them. We could eliminate 9000 nukes and still have more than enough to kill all life on the planet several times over. If the Russians and other ex-Soviet states eliminate a commensurate number of weapons, I think that'd be a good trade. As for $3.55 trillion for 2010 - unfortunately, I think it's probably necessary. Global manufacturing and trade are falling at rates faster than any seen during the Great Depression. Debt levels are higher now than back then. Deleveraging will take quite awhile. And while some have claimed Japan's deficit spending during its lost decade failed, since growth petered out at 1%, Richard Koo of Nomura makes a fairly convincing case that this was actually a success: they averted a full-scale depression, after all. (http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/04/richard_koo_on.html http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/04/richard_koo_on.htm...) Saying that Obama has increased marginal tax rates to the highest level since Clinton is a cheap rhetorical trick. I don't think top rates going from 36% to 39.6% represents the tipping point between capitalism and socialism. And lower top marginal tax rates under Bush certainly didn't create a booming economy. This is the worst economy in 80 years. Also, remember that under Eisenhower, top rates were as high as 90%. However, those top rates only applied to individuals with incomes around $75 million in today's dollars. I think there's a convincing argument to be made for introducing more brackets at the top of the tax bracket - lumping in people making 300k with people raking in several million a year makes little sense. Nate Silver made this case a few weeks ago. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/missing-1000000-tax-bracket.html http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/missing-1000000-tax-b...) Forgive me if I'm not scared about Obama firing CEOs of bailed out firms. Like it or not, certain companies are judged to be too economically, socially, and politically important to fail. If we're going to bail out these firms, getting rid of the incompetents who brought them onto the dole seems like the obvious first step. I wish Obama would get rid of Ken Lewis and the other banking geniuses who played such a large role in bringing on this collapse. Letting North Korea "get away with firing a missile over Japan." This is disingenuous on so many levels. First, it was a dud, not a missile. Second, it's not as if George W. Bush or Clinton was able to deter North Korea either. Kim Jong Il is determined to starve his people to develop weapons. Short of going to war - which would devastate Seoul and kill millions - there are no good options aside from pressing the Chinese to press North Korea more forcefully. And finally, you are aware that ballistic missile defense does not actually exist, and likely won't exist in the near future, right? It's something Reagan made up and threw untold billions of dollars into to scare the Soviets. What's the point of pouring money into a nonexistent technology - especially when we are going bankrupt? Ballistic missile defense might be a bigger scam than Bernie Madoff.
unalone 18y ago
Perhaps, kirse, we think that change won't take just 2 months. Maybe we still think that in these next 4 years, a lot of awesome stuff will happen, and that the changes we have seen are all pretty good. Also perhaps we've studied history and realize that Reagan was a terrible president, lied through his teeth, and hurt the United States in a lot of ways, while Jimmy Carter went on to do a lot of good, and maybe we're offended by your little smirky statement.
- catz 18y ago
  > and hurt the United States in a lot of ways During the 8 years that Reagan was president the US economy grew by over 30%. This is an amazing feat. > while Jimmy Carter went on to do a lot of good Really? Do you think Carter was a good president? I wonder who created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Relation_to_2008_financial_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Rela...) which had a pretty big hand in the sub-prime meltdown.
  - unalone 18y ago
    Yeah, Reagan did some good things. He also created the atmosphere in which presidents are judged more by clever quips than by experience and plans, he turned the US political scene into a scene of nonstop drama, and there was that Contra thingie that he outright lied about. Carter wasn't good in office, but after leaving he did incredible things. And he always, always, took what he did seriously.
    - catz 18y ago
      > more by clever quips than by I dislike superficial things such as that. The whole smooth talking and celebrity thing is not for me. But in all fairness, the president that is the most like that is Barrack Obama. One thing that was good about Bush was that he was not very charismatic. This allowed people to judge him by his actions (and no cult of celebrity existed around him). The cult of personality that you build around a lot of politicians (esp. Obama) will be bad for you in the long run. > and there was that Contra thingie that he outright lied about Here is a quote from WP: > While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[4] there has not been any evidence uncovered showing that he authorized this plan. I would not be surprised if he did not know what was happening. The CIA did a lot of things that would fall into a “morally grey area” during the cold war. A lot of these things needed to be done. > Carter wasn't good in office, but after leaving he did incredible things. Admittedly he did better than Al Gore, but what did he really accomplish? His habitat for Humanity project is for me stupid. Why would you get foreign volunteers to build a house in a country with high unemployment? The economic effects was not thought through well – it would disadvantage labourers in the country.
themic86 18y ago
You make it sound like man's progression towards interdependence doesn't warrant some degree of socialized changed in areas that are clearly underperforming in the reign of "private enterprise". No one said change was going to be easy... or cheap. We brought this upon ourselves when we realized farming and gathering was easier than hunting and gathering.
- MaysonL 18y ago
  Actually farming is harder than hunting: it's just that people/acre is much higher for farmers than hunters, and farmers, being tied to the land, are more easily governed, supporting expansionist governments which drive the hunter-gatherers out. But I agree: that was the turning point.
  - themic86 18y ago
    Yeah - the point isn't so much the ease of farming, rather it's necessity in order to increase the 'people / acre ' and the inherent interdependence of people as a result. we've been moving towards socialism since birth.
DarkShikari 18y ago
The top marginal tax rate was far higher under Reagan than it is now. If Reagan was around today, he'd probably think it should be raised.
- viggity 18y ago
  what? really? It was higher under Reagan, he did the best he could to lower it, but you can only do so much with both houses full of democrats. I'd love to know why you would think Reagan would want higher taxes, everything I've read would say otherwise.
  - rjurney 18y ago
    Reagan lowered taxes, realized he lowered them too far, then raised them to get revenues back up. Ended up at a much smaller cut than he initially got through. Can't find a best link, but google 'Deficit Reduction Act reagan' and you'll get lots of hits. But that was a different, more responsible era than the last administration.
    - ellyagg 18y ago
      Just to clarify, Reagan's tax cuts were actually a revenue windfall for the Treasury, as it unlocked a ton of capital gains that investors had been sitting on and resulted in an economic expansion that, aside from a brief recession in 90-91, pushed through the end of Clinton's administration[1]. [1] Not that Bush Sr. and Clinton deserve no credit, of course, Some folks have unfairly vilified Bush Sr., but the fact is, economists agree that the US was emerging from recession before the end of his administration
      - rjurney 18y ago
        And yet, he raised taxes to get more revenue for the federal government because lowering them had reduced federal revenue too far.