@Foxfyre,
Um
Quote:
Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
I'm pretty sure that the Clinton years post-1996 were startlingly good and sort of invalidate this analysis.
Cycloptichorn
@Foxfyre,
I'm not sure you know how to "read" graphs, but this pretty much explains what happened to average pay vs CEOs pay.
@Cycloptichorn,
Well being 'pretty sure' should mean that you have seen some credible data that made you 'pretty sure' shouldn't it? Please post it. I'm not tied to Cato Institute data, but I do trust it to be competently compiled. Few MACean groups have been as critical of policies of George W. Bush than they have been, but they give him credit where credit is due too. Ditto for President Clinton. In other words, you have to hunt pretty hard to find any of their official opinions expressed that are tied to partisanship in any way.
@mysteryman,
Mysteryman, you are being dishonest. You are applying what President Obama said about the stimulus package to the omnibus budget. President Obama banned earmarks from the stimulus package and Congress complied with that ban. President Obama did not pledge to get rid of earmarks. Here is what he said:
Obama signs massive, 'imperfect' spending bill
Quote:Obama defended earmarks when they're "done right," allowing lawmakers to direct money to worthy projects in their districts. But he said they've been abused, and he promised to work with Congress to curb them....
"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama declared. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change."
. . . He said Wednesday that future earmarks must have a "legitimate and worthy public purpose" and that any earmark for a private company should be subject to competitive bidding rules. He said he would "work with Congress" to eliminate any the administration objects to.
He acknowledged that the system of influential lawmakers inserting earmarked projects has bred cynicism, and he declared, "This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29632177/
If we deal with actual facts, your allegation that President Obama pledged to stop earmarks is false. It was his opponent, Senator McCain, who promised to veto bills if they contained earmarks. See Political Ticker dated June 10, 2008:
Quote:(CNN) " John McCain issued a promise Tuesday that may cause a bit of unrest with a broad swath of voters:
He'll veto every single beer?
In a slip of the tongue while railing against excessive earmarks at the National Small Business Summit in Washington, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee inadvertently pledged to veto the popular alcoholic beverage.
Watch McCain's slip of the tongue
"I will use the veto as needed. I will veto every single beer " bill with earmarks," he said, as rumblings from the crowd could be heard. "And every single bill that we have come across my desk I will make them famous. I will veto them, you will know their names."
It's not entirely surprising McCain has beer on the brain: his wife, Cindy, is heiress to her father's Arizona beer distribution company, Hensley and Company, one of the largest distributors in the U.S., for which she now serves as chairman.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/10/mccain-i-will-veto-every-single-beer/
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:Moreover, we have always had an ability-to-pay (graduated rates) system, and the country has prospered under it.
FALSE!
The USA did not have a graduated tax system from 1789, when the Constitution of the USA was ratified, to 1913, when the first graduated income tax system was adopted.
The country did not prospered under it 1932 to 1940.
The country is not prospering under it 2008 to ???
@cicerone imposter,
Average
pay and CEO
pay are irrelevant to me and they should be irrelevant to you.. What is relevant to me is MY PAY. What should be relevant to you is YOUR PAY. The OILs (i.e., Obama Invidious Liberals) are hurting both of our
pays.
The OILs are sick with envy and coveting. They hold fast to their conviction that stopping the other guy from having so much more than they do, is going to make themselves better able to live with their own limitations.
IT WILL NOT!
What will make you better able to live with your own limitations is your working to either reduce those limitations or work around them.
There's a 2,000 year old recommendation: "Love others as you love yourself." I think that commandment doesn't work for our benefit when we do not love ourselves. It in fact leads to too many hating themselves. The only way you can come to love yourself is by stop blaming others for your own mistakes, and either fix your own mistakes, or follow a better path on which you will make less damaging mistakes.
@Debra Law,
The conservatives continue to confuse what McCain said vs what Obama has been saying since he took office. When conservatives are confused about such simple matters as earmarks, we can't hold much hope that they'll understand the more difficult issues surrounding this financial/economic crisis; it's way beyond their means to comprehend.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
George, most Environmentalists realize that you can't buy your way into heaven through indulgence. I do not personally support carbon offsets as a way of living a carbon neutral life, as they most resemble a twisted sort of paying for plenary indulgence to me.
But let us not pretend that it is a secret where the funds go to. From wikipedia:
Quote:Offsets are typically generated from emissions-reducing projects. The most common project type is renewable energy, such as wind farms, biomass energy, or hydroelectric dams. Other common project types include energy efficiency projects, the destruction of industrial pollutants or agricultural byproducts, destruction of landfill methane, and forestry projects.
So, when you say 'no one asks or knows what the offsets go to,' you really meant to say 'I don't ask or know.'
Cycloptichorn
Well that's simply what the unknown contributor to wikipedia wrote. Neither you not I know who he/she is or what he knows or doesn't know. Moreover there are some obvious errors & distortions in the piece you cited (without even getting into its vague and vapid generalities). Our hydroelectrical potential is already largely tapped out and there are important environmental issues associated with dams. Most environmenatlist want to tear down those we already have. Biogas systems and landfill methane collection systems are already economically efficient and don't need any subsidies for their construction or operation. The unspecified "destruction of industrial polllutants and agricultural by products" are already addressed by existing law and generally well-funded now.
The truth is there is no audit of the environmental benefit or even honest expenditure of funds set aside for such projects. Any program to tax us all to dump more money down this black hole will be very destructive to the economy we count on to do the serious work to address these problems.
@georgeob1,
Good points, georgeob. There are other issues with building dams like the one on the Yangtze River in China; they burried villages and farm lands thousands of years old, and increased their pollution of the river. I'm not sure they will be able to reverse that trend on the pollution problems.
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
George, most Environmentalists realize that you can't buy your way into heaven through indulgence. I do not personally support carbon offsets as a way of living a carbon neutral life, as they most resemble a twisted sort of paying for plenary indulgence to me.
But let us not pretend that it is a secret where the funds go to. From wikipedia:
Quote:Offsets are typically generated from emissions-reducing projects. The most common project type is renewable energy, such as wind farms, biomass energy, or hydroelectric dams. Other common project types include energy efficiency projects, the destruction of industrial pollutants or agricultural byproducts, destruction of landfill methane, and forestry projects.
So, when you say 'no one asks or knows what the offsets go to,' you really meant to say 'I don't ask or know.'
Cycloptichorn
Well that's simply what the unknown contributor to wikipedia wrote. Neither you not I know who he/she is or what he knows or doesn't know. Moreover there are some obvious errors & distortions in the piece you cited (without even getting into its vague and vapid generalities). Our hydroelectrical potential is already largely tapped out and there are important environmental issues associated with dams. Most environmenatlist want to tear down those we already have. Biogas systems and landfill methane collection systems are already economically efficient and don't need any subsidies for their construction or operation. The unspecified "destruction of industrial polllutants and agricultural by products" are already addressed by existing law and generally well-funded now.
The truth is there is no audit of the environmental benefit or even honest expenditure of funds set aside for such projects. Any program to tax us all to dump more money down this black hole will be very destructive to the economy we count on to do the serious work to address these problems.
Naturally, you are aware that we are talking about Carbon Offsets, where as the Carbon Credit/cap-and-trade system would work under an actual regulatory structure?
I also wonder if you bothered to actually look at the sources for the Wikipedia article. They included links to where that information came from. So, before you besmirch the veracity, did you bother to check the sources? No? I didn't think you did.
Tell ya what. We'll go ahead and pass a cap-and-trade system and you go on complaining about how it will be the death of business. Then when business does not die out, you will be free to mutter about the good ol' days when you could pump as much stuff into the atmosphere as you liked, without us namby-pamby Liberals ruining everything for everyone. Think about how much fun that will be!
Cycloptichorn
@wandeljw,
Wandeljw, the Constitution of the USA is a contract between the federal government and each and every one of the state governments.
When it is shown that the federal government is violating that contract, it would be right for one or more legislatures of the state governments, that care about that violation, to vote to secede until that violation of that contract by the federal government is rectified.
Currently, the federal government is violating Article I. Section 8. of that contract, and is thereby violating the 10th Amendment to that contract.
AGAIN, HOW SHALL WE SAVE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC?
The solution is not to repeatedly sound alarms and repeatedly give the reasons for those alarms. The solution is to impeach President Obama. He is continually transferring wealth from those who lawfully earned it to those who have not earned it.
Nowhere in the Constitution"not even in Article I. Section 8.--has the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary been granted the power to make such wealth transfers. Any branch of the federal government that makes such wealth transfers violates the "supreme law of the land," and their "oath or affirmation to support this Constitution""Article VI. Making such wealth transfers is exercising "powers not delegated to the United States" and therefore violates the Constitution"Amendment X. Making such wealth transfers is an act of treason against the United States and is "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" "Article III. Section 3.
We have to convince those in the House of Representatives, who do not violate their oaths to support the Constitution, to make a motion to impeach President Obama. Failure--or excessive delay--to take this necessary first step will guarantee the transformation of our country from a Constitutional Republic to a dictatorship.
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
The conservatives continue to confuse what McCain said vs what Obama has been saying since he took office. When conservatives are confused about such simple matters as earmarks, we can't hold much hope that they'll understand the more difficult issues surrounding this financial/economic crisis; it's way beyond their means to comprehend.
They're delusional if they think we can't remember from one day to the next what Obama said versus what McCain said.
If the people wanted what McCain promised on the campaign trail, then they would have chosen McCain to be our nation's chief executive officer. They didn't do that. President Obama won the election by a landslide and elections have consequences. President Obama has the public mandate to pursue his own policies. We the people have spoken and we do not want our new President to embrace the failed ideology of the bastards who allowed their unbridled greed to destroy our nation's economic welfare.
@Debra Law,
What is so confusing to me, at least, is the simple fact that this economic crisis hits everybody including conservatives, and they expect Obama to cure several years of Bush's management of our economy in less than two months.
They have all left their common sense and logic behind with their god Bush. Those 20% who also criticize Obama now are the same 20% who still supports Bush - till dooms day.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Naturally, you are aware that we are talking about Carbon Offsets, where as the Carbon Credit/cap-and-trade system would work under an actual regulatory structure?
I also wonder if you bothered to actually look at the sources for the Wikipedia article. They included links to where that information came from. So, before you besmirch the veracity, did you bother to check the sources? No? I didn't think you did.
Tell ya what. We'll go ahead and pass a cap-and-trade system and you go on complaining about how it will be the death of business. Then when business does not die out, you will be free to mutter about the good ol' days when you could pump as much stuff into the atmosphere as you liked, without us namby-pamby Liberals ruining everything for everyone. Think about how much fun that will be!
Cycloptichorn
In the first place you won't be at all involved in tha passage of such legislation, (your use of the pronoun, "we" appears a bit strange) though you will indirectly be involved in the adverse economic effects. For myself, my company does very well in carrying out useless studies & analysis for such environmental issues and even better at cleanups that don't make much difference to the environment. We are doing very well now and expect to prosper big time with some of the new programs being put in place. Though the general welfare and overall health of our country will likely be injured, I expect to do very well in the coming process (in spite of an ever larger tax bite).
@georgeob1,
Not much different in my relative's company's financially benefitting from all this biofuel stuff. The fact that everybody involved in it knows that it will most likely not be economically practical nor will it make much, if any, dent in either carbon emissions or energy independence, hey the government is determined to spend the taxpayer's dollars somewhere. So whomever can get the dollars might as well go for them.
@georgeob1,
By 'we' I meant 'Environmentalists and Democrats,' sorry.
I do not agree that the general welfare and overall health of our country will be hurt by this move. At all. In fact, I think the exact opposite will be true in the long run.
Cycloptichorn
@cicerone imposter,
Bush's mismanagement of the economy began in 2007. It did not begin in 2001. Prior to 2008, Bush tried several times to get the 2FMs (i.e., Fanny&Freddy) fixed. He failed each time because he was not outspoken and agressive enough to get around the opposition to his efforts by the Congress--both Republicans and Democrats. Our current economic problems began with the 2FMs long before Bush was elected president. They began when the 2FMs began increasingly supporting mortgages of mortgagers that the mortgagees could not pay for.
But that is old business! The new business is that the OILs (i.e., Obama Invidious Liberals) are supporting through the 2FMs the rapid increase in the mortgages of mortgagers that the mortgagees will not be able to pay for. The OILs have been doing this since January 20, 2009. Until that is stopped, the fall of our economy will continue and not be turned around.
@ican711nm,
Ican,
Who was responsible for the Bush SEC deciding that the Credit Default Swap market did not merit regulation?
Cycloptichorn
SUMMING UP CONTENT OF LINKS I PREVIOUSLY POSTED
CARTER
Unemployment decreased from 7.7% in 1976, to 7.1% in 1980.
Income tax rates constant 14% min to 70% max in 1976 thru 1980.
Revenues increased from 379,292 million in 1976, to 517,112 million in 1980.
GDP increased from 1,825.3 billion in 1976, to 2,789.5 billion in 1980.
REAGAN
Unemployment decreased from 7.1% in 1980, to 5.5% in 1988.
Income tax rates decreased from 14% min to 70% max in 1980, to 15% min to 33% max in 1988.
Revenues increased from 517,112 million in 1980, to 909,303 million in 1988.
GDP increased from 2,789.5 billion in 1980, to 5,103.8 billion in 1988.
BUSH 41
Unemployment increased from 5.5% in 1988, to 7.5% in 1992.
Income tax rates decreased from 15% min to 33% max in 1988, to 15% min to 31% max in 1992.
Revenues increased from 909,303 million in 1988, to 1,091,328 million in 1992.
GDP increased from 5,103.8 billion in 1988, to 6,337.7 billion in 1992.
CLINTON
Unemployment decreased from 7.5% in 1992, to 4.0% in 2000.
Income tax rates increased from 15% min to 31% max in 1992, to 15% min to 39.6% max in 2000.
Revenues increased from 1,091,328 million in 1992, to 2,025,457 million in 2000.
GDP increased from 6,337.7 billion in 1992, to 9,817.0 billion in 2000.
BUSH 43
Unemployment increased from 4.0% in 2000 to 4.6% in 2007.
Unemployment increased from 4.6% in 2007 to 7.2% in 2008.
Income tax rates decreased from 15% min to 39.6% max in 2000, to 10% min to 35% max in 2006,
Income tax rates constant from 10% min to 35% max in 2006, to 10% min to 35% max in 2008,
Revenues increased from 2,025,457 million in 2001, to 2,662,476 million in 2008.
GDP increased from 9,817.0 billion in 2000 to 14,280.7 billion in 2008.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:Who was responsible for the Bush SEC deciding that the Credit Default Swap market did not merit regulation?
Answer your own question! Was it Bush? Was it the SEC? Was it some members of Congress?
