Aestu wrote:
You don't grasp the analogy. Neither Carter nor Obama were responsible for the economic problems that coincided with their watch, and neither really had the power to do anything about it. The electorate blamed them because people are stupid and assume that the president has power of absolute fiat over the economy.
Carter inherited an economy in shambles because of the legacy of the Vietnam War and decades of social neglect.
He got blamed, and then we got Reagan, who smiled at the cameras and made everything even worse. But because the electorate is stupid they think Reagan actually "put us in the black."
Whatever Carter or Obama inherited, nothing either did fixed their situation, which is telling given that BOTH OF THEM had the advantage of their party controlling congress...though I guess technically Obama is worse than Carter, because Carter didn't lose a wing of congress during his mid-term.
As someone who was born in the 70s and grew up in the 80s, I can tell you that you don't know shit from shinola. Reagan's presidency was pure fucking gold, which is probably why he's still popular despite the revisionist history into which you're buying.
Aestu wrote:
Obama inherited an economy in shambles because of the legacy of the Iraq War and decades of social neglect.
He got blamed, and we might yet get Palin, who smiles at the cameras and makes everything even worse. But because the electorate is stupid they think Palin personifies Alaska as a land of free, independent people who eke out a living without the heavy hand of the government.
It's been
THREE FUCKING YEARS. When is Obama going to put on his big-boy pants and take responsibility for things instead of blaming his predecessors? Are we still going to be hearing about what he "inherited" if he gets a second term?
You know, it's funny how some of you asshats keep going back to Palin. No experience, can't talk without making a gaffe, and only popular because of appearance and assumptions...which makes her the same thing as Barack Obama, if you take away his teleprompter. You'd think you guys humping his leg would be excited that his kid sister might get to take a turn.
Aestu wrote:
The entire point of that article, which you don't grasp, is that the Democrats have never been the ones putting this country into the red in the first place. Who made the biggest contributions to our running deficit? Reagan. Bush/Bush II. On whose watch did the deficit stagnate or contract? Clinton.
Again, I wonder at what you were reading, because, as usual, what was written and what you derived from it are completely antithetical to one another. The entire point of that article was that conservatives got a win on their scorecard here by avoiding past mistakes and by virtue of Obama believing his own hype. Both parties have contributed to the deficit, whether it's republicans with military spending or democrats with entitlement programs. Unless someone with a "D" beside their name was paying that shit down when we weren't looking (which it wasn't despite all the talk of surpluses), this is everyone's mess to clean up.
Aestu wrote:
As to taxes and jobs:
We have the lowest taxes in the civilized world. We also have the lowest rate of employment.
EU has way higher taxes and more cumbersome government. Employment is better there.
I'm just going to assume "this isn't a court of law," and that you're talking out of your ass, since I know that we have one of the highest corporate tax rates of any industrialized nation (you know, that pesky stuff that has all our businesses moving jobs and facilities out of the country?).
Aestu wrote:
Taxes on the rich have never been lower.
Employment has never been lower.
So what's the basis for the claim that higher taxes on the wealthy and corps = less jobs?
Correlation does not equal causation. As Eternal points out, Carter had both high taxes and high unemployment...obviously one is not an indicator of the other.
A lot of businesses would be hiring now, but find it difficult to plan because they can't estimate their labor costs. You know why?
OBAMACAREBusinesses have no idea what their per-employee obligation is going to be when all that shit hits the fan (and if that shit hitting the fan is so great, why was implementation put off until after elections instead of going into effect immediately?), and many aren't even replacing employees who have quit, retired, or been fired because of that.
Your Pal,
Jubber
EDIT:Just found a list of corporate tax rates...for 2010 we're #2 with a 39.2% rate behind Japan at #1 with a 39.5% rate and ahead of France at #3 with a 34.4% rate according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.