American Politics

Host: jayackroyd

Jump right in!

Mote Members: Log in Home
Post

Of course, you won't be able to grasp that because you're so far inside the bubble, you think you're seeing things in a realistic manner when actually, you're not seeing things at all.

This is all theatre...Boehner knows they are toast but he has to get in front of the cameras and play the wronged party side-by-side with the tough guy act...he is acting and not doing a very good job of it.

If he fouls this one up, which he will, he may lose his leadership role...and I can guarantee you, Eric Kantor will swoop right in and claim the empty space at the podium...he's been playing Iago forever and now his little game is going pay off handsomely.

45445. concerned - 11/30/2012 8:15:20 PM

If you post something on the order that the Republicans are always at fault here, JAH, then you are definitely on the side of the game players.

Doesn't acting like a petulant child regarding politics ever get a little old for you, JAH?

45446. judithathome - 11/30/2012 8:16:28 PM

Obama is only taking a page from the Boehner playbook of the last 4 years...you didn't seem too exercised when your guys did it, did you? I didn't hear any howling from YOU when the Build the Wall Against Any Progress gang decided to not let Obama have his way ONE TIME in 4 years...they blocked almost every single thing he tried.

So no, it isn't upsetting me that the Republicans are getting hoist on their own petards. Not at all.

Payback's a bitch.

45447. judithathome - 11/30/2012 8:17:46 PM

And why should he compromise? HE WON. You seem to think you're dealing with the same guy who won 4 years ago...you're NOT.

45448. concerned - 11/30/2012 8:18:00 PM

JAH -

I see that 0bama will not accept any immediate spending cuts whatsoever, but he's insisting on immediate tax increases.

That doesn't sound like any sort of compromise to me - just Democrats trying to stick it to Republicans.

If you are such a partisan bigot that that doesn't bother you, well then, that's too bad.

45449. concerned - 11/30/2012 8:20:16 PM

Re. 45447 -

Maybe 0bama should compromise for the good of the country. You're hardly coming across as a tolerant open minded person here, JAH, with your Lord of the Flies act.

45450. iiibbb - 11/30/2012 8:44:28 PM

I know what's wrong with the picture... it implies that Republicans, with their culture of stonewalling, is suddenly reaching out in compromise.

Their stated objective is that they want this president to fail.

45451. iiibbb - 11/30/2012 8:46:57 PM

I solved the deficit years ago

Screw politicians... sit down... work this the fuck out.

45452. judithathome - 11/30/2012 10:43:35 PM

45449

Oh har....you actually believe the shit you post!!

Lord of the flies, indeed.

@@

45453. Wombat - 12/1/2012 12:39:08 AM

The Republicans have yet to specify what cuts they want to see. They actually want the Democrats to do it for them! Wonder why....

45454. Wombat - 12/1/2012 12:40:13 AM

Concerned certainly knows how to "lie with statistics."

45455. judithathome - 12/1/2012 12:47:54 AM

Conn'd hasn't entered the "acceptance" stage of grief yet...he and the rest of the Republicans are still in the "denial" stage.

They don't realize the country has changed dramatically...even though we've all been trying to tell them that...they just can't believe the reality of the situation.

It's a new day, Conn'd, and you need to get on the bus or be left behind.

45456. arkymalarky - 12/1/2012 2:27:25 AM

They seem to be at the anger stage. They'll be at the make a bargain stage next.

45457. RickNelson - 12/1/2012 3:18:36 PM

Concerned emphatically states:
"Income inequality decreased under GWB"

That is a lie concerned. You're using a false source and that's a bad way to forward your point of view. Unless this is just a game to you, and you're just playing. I've seen that from many purile sources around the web. Many, many play a role, and work it to death. Sad, sad, sad.



CBPP page where Bush is shown to have created the highest levels of income inequality, and it's obvious Obama has not


This first link is important, because it allows for free use of the website at CBPP, this second is the direct link to the page that shows Concerned is making a huge error when making a claim that Obama's policies have been the cause of huge income disparity. The fastest growth of disparity is from the early 80's to the mid 2000's. This will include Clinton. Clinton, tool Clinton.

The CBPP page can be gotten to directly at this link

45458. RickNelson - 12/1/2012 4:40:31 PM

CBPP a source for reviewing facts!

45459. RickNelson - 12/1/2012 4:47:28 PM

Reality and truth, not for the faint hearted

The link above didn't work, this does.

45460. concerned - 12/2/2012 7:45:01 PM

Re. 45457 -

Namecalling again?

As a matter of fact, a study by Picketty and Saez shows that the share of income for the top 1% dropped significantly from 2002-2006.

When you consider that the Bush tax cuts reduced the bottom tax rate from 15 to 10%, then it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bush tax cuts actually contributed to *reducing* income inequality.



Congressional democrats took economic matters pretty much out of Bush's hands in 2007 by inflating the real estate bubble which precipitated crashing the real estate market in 2008.

Since then, and continuing under 0bama, income inequality has been increasing, as described in, of all places, the Huffington Post: Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush.

excerpt:

Here's how Saez's math breaks down, for the curious: In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country.

Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.

So it seems it's your own side you're hatin' on, RN. Time for you to rethink, wouldn't you say? Will you be a good sport and retract your false accusaion?

45461. arkymalarky - 12/2/2012 7:47:42 PM

As the effects of the Bush economy crushed everyone else, the 1% made out like bandits.

45462. concerned - 12/2/2012 7:51:08 PM

A recent study shows the 'Buffett Rule' would only result in $8 B of new revenue, and, of course, repealing the Bush cuts for the two top brackets wouldn't garner more than $50 B, and that's assuming people in these brackets won't reallocate their incomes to reduce exposure, or even leave the country, which they surely would do, possibly negating any revenue increase whatsoever from such a change.

Face it, the only possible reason the Democrats want these tax rate increases is because it would provide class war propaganda for their low information supporters. No person of at least normal acumen should fall for this ruse.

45463. concerned - 12/2/2012 7:53:00 PM

Re. 45461 -

Arky gets an 'F' for reading comprehension. Out to lunch much, Arky?

Here's a clue - 0bama was president since 2009, not Bush.

American Politics