The 111th Congress

Adam Sorensen:
.
“…could anyone really make a strong argument against it now?”
.
I’m confused: is the sole measure of “Democratic legislative success” for Norm Ornstein the passage of legislation?
.
It doesn’t matter whether the legislation itself is worthwhile, like, say whether or not the Reinvestment Act was “stimulus” enough to not double unemployment, or whether or not FineReg was an appropriate regulatory framework to cope with new structural dangers, or whether or not Obama flipped on his campaign promises to pass a largely unworkable and unpopular PPACA?
.
It’s just all “Democratic wins” for Norm Ornstein, in other words?
.
And “failures” are legislative initiatives that Democrats don’t manage to pass, not policy that Democrats do pass, but are failures in terms of popularity/solving ordinary peoples’ problems?
.
Do I have that right?
.
Does Norm Ornstein count the Republican-Obama tax deal to be a “Democratic legislative success,” too?
.
Would Norm count up all of the legislative victories of, say, Herbert Hoover –Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, Federal Home Loan Bank Act, Emergency Relief and Construction Act among them– and compare Hoover’s total to say, JFK’s total, and declare Hoover’s presidency to be “one of the most productive”?
.
I guess I’m asking what Norm Ornstein (or anyone, apart from partisan Democrats) thinks is the point of this academic exercise, Adam Sorensen.

They were productive in terms of the number of bills passed, but that’s a lousy way to measure things. What’s important is the scope of new law. The ACA left the existing insurance and payment system intact. Dodd Frank left most of Wall Street intact. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Extension and Jobs Act basically preserves the tax code and keeps some already operating spending programs.

This is not radical stuff. So, no, I don’t give congress credit for its ability to get things done when it hasn’t actually done much. The lives of most Americans are as they were when this Congress was seated.

Quantity over quality. More made in China cr@p.

Far more would’ve passed if House bills not died in the Senate. This won’t likely change for next Congress either. Even if filibuster rules are changed, Senate vs. House versions will likely die in committee and little gets done. if rules don’t change, I’ll bet newbies like Rand Paul will hold and filibuster like crazy.
.
…and all of this assumes the R’s and TP’s maintain unity. If not (esp. over biz earmarks / pork porn, debt ceilings, etc.), it’ll be a long two years. Would love to read the reporters’ tea leaves on upcoming Congress results (you can tell I’m pessimistic).

I’m just going to echo the above.
·
Sure, the repeal of DADT was a big success. But this is while gay couples are still denied the same partnership status in the eyes of the law (I’m not talking about god).
·
Healthcare reform? We all got locked into the same system while pretty much guaranteeing prices are going to continue to rise. We still need comprehensive health care reform. Only now, everybody agrees on that. We just don’t agree on which way to go.
·
Wall street re-regulation? Probably not strong enough.
·
I mean, they really put the emphasis on quantity, and I’m not sure we got the best out of it. I mostly blame the republicans for this. But dems had their hands in the pot too.

you guys are being unreasonable. would you rather obama pass a healthcare bill with a really strong public option, but no dadt repeal, no unemployment benefit extensions, no financial regulation bill just to get quality over quantity?
.
if i am not mistaken, the article is about how prolific the work of congress has been.
.
But nevertheless, in retrospect, i feel very strongly about the healthcare bill. I think we really needed it. I feel very strongly about the credit card bill. Whenever i get a mail from my bank about the newly required transparencies and new regulations, i feel like it’s impacted my life. Whenever i look at my mother, my girlfriend and know that there’s a law that says a company wont be paying them less than a dude to do the same work, i feel this country’s made a step forward. When i look and find that in a year or so, people won’t be required to lie in order to die, for country, i feel better about us.
.
the mans done some decent work. they might not be ideologically pure, and oftentimes compromise gets in the way of effective, practical solutions. But to me, he’s the only wise man with forward thinking out there.
.
He’s not perfect but i still thank the Lord that we don’t have an idiot leading this nation anymore.

lupercal, It’ll always be the citizenry’s job to expect more. I am not satisfied with just “not having an idiot” for president. I want to have an effective leader.
·
I agree. Bush or McCain would have been worse. But, this isn’t a 3rd world country. We can still do better. We should still do better.

and quite frankly, considering the snail pace of congress and the often parochial and silly arguments that hold up or pollute good policies and good intentions, he’s made some advances for the country.
.
progress is slow, and it feels like sh!t but im perfectly happy with a president whose guiding principle is “will this make life a little bit better for the middle class and lower class?” and then “will this make a difference in maintaining our edge over other nations in the long term?” rather than any other criteria.
.
i might hate how he just gives in to republicans taking the middle class hostage and demanding that we increase the deficit while wanting to screw over the little guy. I might hate how he seems ready to play the tough guy with democrats while handling republicans with satin gloves. But congress- by congress’s standards- stepped up this last session.

i suppose. but let us at least give him a bit of credit, while encouraging him to do better. it cant hurt to say that ACA was a good bill that’ll do a lot of good, EVEN if it’s far from perfect. The man’s human too, you know.
.
he must the only one you guys expect to be perfect. people get raises at their jobs for less brilliant work than he’s doing. and they feel, and you feel they deserve it.
.
catch my drift? we should be proud of the work he’s done. Not entirely satisfied. the world’s not perfect yet. but proud nevertheless and not dismissive.

How strongly do you feel about Bush passing Medicare Part D expansion?
.
Was that a legislative success, too?
.
How about Clinton passing DADT in the first place?
.
Did you have powerful emotional currents about that progress, as well?
.
Did you feel that the country made a step forward by overturning the total ban on gay military service?
.
Or did you let your ideological purity cloud your judgment on that important, “progressive” step forward in 1993?
.
Have you ever considered that the strength or weakness of your feelings might not be a terribly useful way of measuring solutions to real world problems, by the way?

WOW, this guy Adam must be a leftwinger! I call this Congress the most disastrous one in history. This Congress has caused more damaging to the USA than any other previous one.

Stuartzechman–

When judging the efficacy of a Congress, one cannot change its political makeup: this was a Democratic congress, so its success is necessarily judged on what it got done that is primarily partisan. It’s ludicrous to suggest that one should judge legislative success based upon some (imaginary) yardstick that measures the pleasure of every citizen.

The “success” of this Congress is, in fact, the measure of how much it got done relative to what it proposed to get done. Ornstein correctly observes that this Congress has been more PRODUCTIVE than even the Republican Congress under Reagan. Again, Rupublicans cannot see much of the legislation as “successful,” but only because they don’t agree with it and didn’t support it. But why would the passage of legislation be judged by a scholar as failures, as you suggest? The only way anything that was passed could be called a failure is if it failed to do any good at all (not just that has not yet solved problems completely), or has done the opposite of what it intended to do. Nothing the Obama Administration or the Democratic Congress did falls into that category.

I don’t get this quality/quantity argument above.

These were progressive bills and they may not have been AS progressive as some would like; they moved the ball forward and that creates mommentum for further reform. I don’t think people anticipate just how much poo-pooing the half a loaf you get hurts your ability to get the second half of the loaf. We should celebrate how far we moved the ball forward and keep pushing.

I think this Congress has done so much to help strengthen this country that will only become apparent as time passes because some are so disappointed in what they didn’t get and some disconcerted by the amount of change that has occurred; the tangible benefits that have accrued are ignored.

The Bible says today is men’s day, that is, men have the power to do whatever they want to. However, for those who call what was done “progress,” I know that is in the eye of the beholder. The ultimate authority to judge such a thing is God and I bet He is pretty unhappy with what this Congress has done. One chapter of the Bible that I recomment is Romans chapter 1. Please read specially verses 20-32.

“It’s ludicrous to suggest that one should judge legislative success based upon some (imaginary) yardstick that measures the pleasure of every citizen.”
.
It’s ludicrous to suggest that anybody is making that suggestion.
.
It’s also dishonest.

Yes, greenlyfe,these progressive things were so wonderful that the American people rewarded the Democrats and extended their majorities! NOT! This congress was pretty disastrous! That is why we kicked them out and we are going to have the major damages undone!

I think it is a need to say “hey, you think Congress is doing nothing but muddling along, well guess what, they actually passed more pages worth of legislation than any Congress in recent history” and to that extent, they were right. Problem is, they forgot that when we say Congress is doing nothing, the alternative way we say it is “Congress is useless”…

…and we are going to have the major damages undone!
.
No you won’t. Your R buddies didn’t take over the Senate and you’ll never get enough votes to override a veto. Suck on that.

“The only way anything that was passed could be called a failure is if it failed to do any good at all (not just that has not yet solved problems completely)”

Well, the veridict is in, the American people did arrive to the conclusion that what was done not just failed, it was a damage to the country. We could start with deficits/debt. Bush’s worst year, with a Democratic controlled congress: 2008, the yearly deficit was 420B. Obama and the fully Democratic Congress two years deficit: over 3T. Only liberals/leftwings call this “doing good!” As for things like DADT, it will be damaging to the moral of the military. So, the definition of “good” here is in the eyes of the leftwings only. The American people have rejected this kind of “good.”

Yes, we will, 2012 will be even a greater route. And the Dems will loose the Senate and WH.

The quantity of legislation passed during a Democratic Administration or a Democratic Congressional majority does not necessarily mean that liberal policy was enacted, nor that the nation’s problems are on the road to being solved.

Just to be clear, these were “progressive bills” in as much as one considers the “Progressive Policy Institute” progressive, since the legislation in question seems to be mostly derived from or reflective of that think tank’s policy proposals for the past fifteen or so years.
.
In other words, that’s not “half a loaf” of movement liberalism, that’s a full loaf of something else –something that doesn’t happen to work in the real world, as demonstrated by events proceeding from the legislative record of a decade ago.
.
“Moving the ball forward” isn’t the goal all by itself, otherwise one could say that we should support Bush Republicans because they also “moved the ball forward” in some direction.
.
Any “momentum for further reform” that results in more Third Way policy should be stopped, not applauded.
.
Partisan Democrats’ victories are not necessarily victories for liberalism, nor for the country –that much should be obvious by now, as we enter another year of obscenely high unemployment and foreclosure rates.

gumOnShoe, the progressives never needed the GOP on this last Congress. They had the WH, the senate and the house. And that is why they got “quantity.” The pushed down the American people every damaging progressive policy they could think of. It will take years to repair the damage. Look at the last couple years deficit.

I’m confused: is the sole measure of “Democratic legislative success” for Norm Ornstein the passage of legislation?
.
It doesn’t matter whether the legislation itself is worthwhile, like,
-
Shhh!! You’re interfering with the media’s super-simplified reporting.

deconstructiva, “little get done” is great compared to the damaging things done the last couple of years. As a Tea Party myself I am happy “gridlock” is on. NO MORE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA!

“I’m confused: is the sole measure of “Democratic legislative success” for Norm Ornstein the passage of legislation?”
.
Stu-I think the obvious answer is yes. It doesn’t matter if it watered down to the point of being ineffective or written in such a way as to do the opposite of what its intended to address. What’s important is the optics.

Oh really, fandaelis? Which R will win the WH in ’12?

You are wrong Michael Maiello, things are worst, we have added to the national debt over 3T, unemployment is at its highest point. People’s lives are not better, our lives are in worst shape. Big government is a failure!

W got two –count ‘em– two AUMF’s through Congress.
.
What a winner!
.
“Success”!

Thanks for your comments stuartzechman, Norm Oernstein must be a progressive. Forgive me, I don’t keep track of all the leftwing things going on. In spite of all the MSM covering for this leftwing Congress, the American people did pass its judgment and it did reprove what Congress did.

deconstructiva, if if was up to me I would pick Mike Pence. But anyone of the conservative candidates will do: Jim DeMint, Paul Ryan, Mark Rubio, even John Thune or Sarah Palin.

Alas, fandaelis, be careful what you wish for. Because there’s one teeny tiny problem with your wish for gridlock: you’re going to be stuck with everything achieved. Romneycare (aka Obamacare), financial reform, whatever stimulus / bailout funds remaining, gay soldiers, you’re stuck with ‘em all, no chance for the R’s to be rid of ‘em.

This was not a “leftwing” Congress.
.
The agenda was dominated by New Democrats, who aren’t left-wing, unless one believes that literally everything that isn’t specific to movement conservatism is somehow “leftwing.”
.
The people really in charge of government for the past two years simply don’t believe in New Deal-style policies. Neither do rightists, but that doesn’t make Larry Summers a rightist.
.
So, what do you call somebody like Larry Summers, who opposes New Deal liberalism, but isn’t a conservative like you?
.
Well, I know what you would call him –”leftwing”– but what would you call him if you were thinking objectively about the matter?

What is with this site stuartzechman? Are those who comment here pretty much leftwing???

Stuart,
.
You’re right.
.
This is a third way version of what the wingnuts do to us.
.
It is team D vs team R.
.
Yes, team D did much of what team D tried to do with opposition from team R.
.
But, you are correct in that you were implying that this was not a true fulfillment of the agenda.
.
I will add on something else: calling a congress’s actions which are unsuccessful in ending a recession a victory feeds ripe red meat to the right wing to say that this is the end result Democrats wanted.
.
It’s not. Much of legislation got watered down by the yellow bellied blue dogs and most of the compromises were weakly written.

Actually, please note that no one said anything about liberals. The coalition that comprised the Democratic Party in the Senate included a few people who could be characterized as genuine liberals (Sanders, Franken, Feingold), a few moderate conservatives (Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu) and a broad array of centrists of various shadings in between. Given the dynamics of who gets sent to Washington from the various states, given the nearly violent skewing of representation in the Senate, where something like fifteen states with populations smaller than Brooklyn get to send two Senators to that august body, given the need to assemble tortuous coalitions to get anything done, the results were not all the bad. Liberals of the stripe found here on Swampland are both a little less numerous than their centrist and conservative brethren, but also all too concentrated in all too few areas. So, yes, their (your) influence is unfairly minimized and, yes, that is surely frustrating and, yes, when the young people hopefully return to the polls in 2012 much of that will change. But in the meantime, some respect must be paid to Harry Reid and others for swimminmg against a very rough tide.

We have three separate ideological categories of commenters: rightists, centrists and leftists.
.
Some folks resist those categories, some folks don’t neatly fit those categories, some folks don’t know too much about what those categories mean in policy terms.
.
Some aren’t so much ideological or interested in policy as much as partisan for their political faction or party. Many others are tribally motivated, mainly against the opposing political or regional tribe.
.
As often happens in real life, sometimes folks from one ideological category agree with folks from another –like when Reps Ron Paul and Alan Grayson co-sponsored legislation to audit the Federal Reserve.
.
I am left-wing. I am a movement liberal. I’m a newer sort of liberal than is usually talked about in these sorts of conversations. I’m not from the 1960s or 1970s generation of liberals, and don’t necessarily look fondly upon that era or what ultimately became of its left-wing. I take great issue with a wing of liberals to whom I derisively refer to (using Corrente’s term) “Benevolent Democrats.” I think that movement liberalism has been largely a failure over the past thirty years, and shows only slight positive signs of orienting itself toward success in the United States.
.
I am not a partisan Democrat, nor tribally for or against another group’s identity (excepting literal fascism, Bolshevism or Talibanism, the members of which require violent response).
.
The site itself is run by TIME, which is a technocratic center to center-right publication, whose editorial position is seemingly invested in the success of the Obama Administration at present, to the extent that Obama’s clique represents the ideological and establishment center.
.
It’s an elite, centrist megaphone that condescends to dictate “political reality” to both movement conservatives and movement liberals, although it is fearful of the former, and despises the latter.
.
Swampland’s pro writers have a line, in other words, but that line represents neither the popular right or left. They’re biased, but in favor of themselves, not you…or me.

Sorry, that should read:
.
I take great issue with a wing of liberals to whom I derisively refer as (using Corrente’s term) “Benevolent Democrats.”

You’re clearly a religious fundamentalist. And as such, you believe the world should adhere to your ideology? Correct?
·
But aside from an old book, the word of your father, and some construed personal experiences you don’t have anything but faith to prove your opinion to you. And, I could understand that and to a point respect that, if it weren’t for the fact that it rendered you incapable of doing the same for me.
·
As such, please realize that this comment is meant to be as respectful as possible, even if at the heart of the matter we disagree and you ultimately believe I’ll spend my after life burning in a fiery pit for all eternity.
·

gumOnShoe, the progressives never needed the GOP on this last Congress. They had the WH, the senate and the house. And that is why they got “quantity.” The pushed down the American people every damaging progressive policy they could think of. It will take years to repair the damage. Look at the last couple years deficit.

·
• Was the GOP necessary? Answer: to a degree. The GOP, united, had the capability to filibuster in the Senate at nearly all points in time within the last two years. Since a senate filibuster under the current rules where you do not have to stand and speak forever is more final than a presidential veto, the answer is that it was necessary to have a few GOP senators. And because of this there was ultimately a string of possibly unavoidable capitulations made, and, certainly, a string of underpowered laws drafted.
·
• Were these progressive policies? Hardly, unless you mean 3rd way/bipartisan policies. The health care legislation was modeled after Mass. The repeal of DADT didn’t provide equal benefits to gay soldiers that were enjoyed by strait soldiers. The stimulus was modeled on tax cuts and avoided the most liberal of solutions. Regulations were re-enforced lackadaisically. The rich have been given tax cuts. The poor have had their taxes raised. There has been next to no meaningful infrastructure investment. I would not call this “liberal” even if you would call it “progressive.”
·
• Is the deficit an indication of the quantity of the liberal agenda passed? No. The majority of the debt comes from the Bush approved tax cut stimulus, the renewal of tax cuts, the falling revenue due to the recession, two unfinished wars, and the sky rocketing price of healthcare (which was skyrocketing regardless of the “reform”). Beyond that, debt is not necessary nor sufficient to prove a policy liberal in nature.
·
The situation was not as worse as it could have been. The situation is not as good as it could have been. That’s essentially what happens when you choose quantitative progressive-third-way policies over proven stimulative investment.

Despite whatever problems arose in getting presidential appointees confirmed, treaties ratified or the government, um, funded, the 111th has indeed done a lot.

Which is the point of Sorenson’s post, y’all. My take is that legislative successes has a different meaning than successful legislation. Taking Zechman’s example:

W got two –count ‘em– two AUMF’s through Congress.

The effort to pass them was successful. The goal of what they were intended to achieve? Not so much.

(yeah, but I consider the goals of expansion of governmental power, interference with our civil rights, and feeding of the military-industrial complex to be a side effect of the legislation, not its prime impetus. I could be wrong about that)

It’s okay to argue whether the legislative ‘successes’ will have the intended efficacy and whether or not said legislation is really (insert label here) in nature.

For much of the 111th’s legislation, we won’t know if it’s achieving its aims because there hasn’t been enough time that has passed since being signed into law.

We can make predictions, we can holler about how bad we think the legislation is, whatever…but based on the Now, what’s been successful or unsuccessful?

Fandy, my conservative friend, you’ll find the most of the posters here are rabid left wing bed wetterers. When not engaging in homosexual orgies or spitting on the Troops, they’re aborting babies willy nilly, all while hopped on dope.
.
They are incapable of recognizing that this is a Christian Nation led by Fox News and its Real American leader, Rupert Murdoch. Their squishy liberal minds have been poisoned by lamestream ‘facts’ and they lack the gut-based, common sense instinct of a Real American.
.
Nope, libtards just want to take the money out of our hard-working pockets and give it to crack-addicted welfare queens so they can drive around in their cadillacs with their hippyhopping and whatnot!
.
America was not founded for hippyhopping!

Of course you do.
.
3 decades of disasterous policies for US and ‘the current guy’ is the most damaging for signing off on half measures.
.
The reason wy the tea party fanatics don’t get reality is because they support stuff like tax extensions without reflection but jump all over HC because of ‘death panels’.

Reality check: The leftwing is so extreme that they now believe that Clinton style Dems are Right of center. To them John Kennedy would be a Nazi like George Bush. They basically were the same left of center politically.
.
Claims that this Congress isn’t liberal is another delusion they have. Nancy Pelosi and Harry “wave the white flag” Reid? If those two aren’t liberals, then nobody is.
.
Only a liberal Congress would pass the outrageous spending bills, with most of the money going to government workers, and then claim that they had created or saved jobs. Only a liberal Congress would pass a health care bill that tries to force Free Americans to mandatory participation, or face fines and enforcement by the IRS.
.
Only a nutjob liberal like Nancy Pelosi would believe that a devastating earthquake in Haiti would be a “boom” for that country’s economy, or that food stamps are a stimulus to our own economy.
.
And finally, the very reason this Congress is so unpopular with the majority of Americans, except those extremists here on Swampland, is because of the legislation that they passed. It’s not that hard to understand, unless you are a whacko extremist that is in denial.
.
Now continue on with your delusion posts.

Just for the record, I’m a believing Christian, and I don’t think that the verses in Romans 1:20 onward mean what fandaelis seems to be implying that they mean, if I’ve interpreted that response correctly.

There are liberals such as Stuart Zechman, and a few centrists, most of them, dare I say it, older liberals who have been through the wars (going back to, yes, McGovern, Humphrey and Udall pere ). The arguments are equally about what is best and what is possible, given the circumstances. What this site notably lacks is what I would call a “thoughtful conservative” voice ( a David Brooks, if you will, God forgive us). The conservatives who have shown up here seem to be basically twisted and angry, interested mainly in hurling insults and getting the rest of us off topic – at which, it must be said, they excel. There is, by my count only one really thoughtful conservative (Exiled at Home) who engages in a genuine exchange of ideas. So that would be a welcome addtion.

.

SZ. I will probably regret this, but perhaps you should expound on the concept of “Benevolent Democrats” and your problems with those therein.

lupercal5,
.
Quantity over quality isn’t a question of how much gets done, but how it gets done. It’s silly to assume that quantity will ever substitute quality, especially when we’re talking about our tax money and the viability of this country in the long run.
.
It’s not a matter if ‘I want to see a much better HC so screw DADT’ – the health care debate consumed a year and in the end we got a for profit monstrosity.
.
Obama’s argument right now is just this; look at all the shiny stuff. I really didn’t have time to sell people on all the shiny because I was busy signing off on them’.
.
That’s not a argument for good policy. That’s an argument for ‘I know most of it stinks and no one on the dems side want to run on it, but the more the merrier right?’
.
Eventually our boat will sink from all the turds we pass through our political system. It’s a lot of sh!t, I know…but it’s sh!t no less.
.
That’s not me wanting something perfect, thats me wanting something where lobbyists didn’t have their damn hands all over it until my lean cuisine is all sausage.

Psychiatric meltdown,
.
Your posts are delusional as always.
.
First, JFK, LBJ and Ted Kennedy all had almost identical politics.”To them John Kennedy would be a Nazi…”
.
No, but you wingnuts called JFK’s political twin, Ted, a communists many times. JFK had 70% taxes.
.
Obama wants the top bracket to be 40%. By 1960 standards, even Barry Goldwater would have blushed at 40% being the top bracket.
.
“Clinton style Dems are Right of center”
.
Clinton called himself a non-liberal believing in “the third way”.
.
“The Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.
…..
United States

In the United States, Third Way adherents reject fiscal conservatism, and advocate some replacement of welfare with workfare, and sometimes have a stronger preference for market solutions to traditional problems (as in pollution markets), while rejecting pure laissez-faire economics and other libertarian positions. The Third Way style of governing was firmly adopted and partly redefined during the administration of President Bill Clinton.[23]”
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_%28centrism%29
.
Having a Third way politician for Democrats negotiating with rigid no-compromise Republicans is like having one real estate agent having duel agency representing both the landlord and the tenant with a second agent just representing the landlord. The end result? The end result is that, in the metaphor, the landlord gets almost everything they want and, for third way administrations, Republicans get almost everything they want (but not completely everything).
.
Then you add in delusional remarks:
.
“Only a nutjob liberal like Nancy Pelosi would believe that a devastating earthquake in Haiti would be a “boom” for that country’s economy, or that food stamps are a stimulus to our own economy.”
.
Nancy Pelosi never said any of those things.
.
If you continued to take your medication your audio hallucinations would stop.

“Having a Third way politician for Democrats negotiating with rigid no-compromise Republicans is like having one real estate agent having duel agency representing both the landlord and the tenant with a second agent just representing the landlord.”
.
That’s a darn decent analogy, patricksartor.
.
Well said!

pelhamite1:
.
If you’re interested, instead of me reiterating the Book of Job here (as you correctly fear), I’ll link directly to Corrente’s piece, which is relatively concise:
.
http://www.correntewire.com/new_benevolent_democrats
.
If that’s not sufficient explanation, I’d be happy to add further remarks (as you might imagine).

Two additional points:
.
1) If you actually research increases to the deficit, you’ll find that the vast majority of increases to the deficit since the current net debt status started have come under Republican administrations – particularly the administrations of Bush43 (during the time when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress) and Reagan. Also worth noting is the fact that Reagan raised taxes no less than 7 times and he still ended up piling up incredible increases into the deficit. Yes, Obama has put some huge points of deficit into the budget, but most of it has been TARP (refundable, two years only, now effectively dead – oh, and passed by Bush), the Stimulus (two years) and the tax cut extension (two years). The ACA, the only major long-term spending increase, was completely offset with new taxes and spending cuts such that it actually decreased the deficit. Honestly, I’m less concerned (and so are economists, for that matter) by a short term large deficit for the sake of addressing a financial crisis than I am about a long term structural deficit – y’know, like making a tax cut you can’t afford permanent or starting/continuing a war with no end in sight or an unfunded education program with no cost offsets. Or doubling expenditures on the military in under 10 years to exceed Cold War levels to deal with 100 guys in a cave – why are you spending more on a few thousand individuals than you did to maintain military parity against a fellow superpower?
.
2) ObamaCare (and RomneyCare for that matter) are insanely similar to a 1993 REPUBLICAN proposal put forward in Congress during the HillaryCare debate. Considering it was a Republican idea, how can anyone call it “Liberal” or “leftist”?

Simple question: why? Please, be specific

And, for the record, I do not have an issue with persons who have faith or believe in a deity, so long as they aren’t trying to force their views on someone else without an argument that goes beyond their religion; as seemed to be the case here.
·
I’ve commented in the past that I was raised Jewish, and I will always culturally be Jewish and in those moments where I am religious I will be Jewish. I identify as being Jewish. But, I’m very aware that my own personal philosophy lands me in the lands of the agnostics. I do not believe the existence of God can be proved or disproved.
·
Religion, like any other philosophy can be used for good or bad by those who claim to practice and even those that don’t.
·
If I abhor anything it is blind faith used as a justification for doing harm unto others. It certainly isn’t the idea of religion.

“This was not a “leftwing” Congress.
.
The agenda was dominated by New Democrats, who aren’t left-wing, unless one believes that literally everything that isn’t specific to movement conservatism is somehow “leftwing.”
.
Sorry SZ but that is the problem with liberals trying to explain their agenda- it’s degrees of nuttiness. Not a left wing Congress? By what was eventually passed maybe not but by laws and regulations proposed, the American people would say yes.

From the standpoint of most Americans this is a silly discussion. You are trying to see how many angels can dance on the head of a pin by narrowly defining technical notions of liberalism. Just as from time to time hear Obama’s push at socialism doesn’t meet the textbook definition. In the end its hot air, the public doesn’t buy it and they won’t tolerate it.

“.this Democratic Congress is on a path to become one of the most productive since the Great Society 89th Congress in 1965-66″
.
you say productive, I say overbearing, useless and tone deaf to the American public and economic needs of the country

Thanks for the continued delusions:
.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/15/pelosi-sees-haiti-boom-quake/
.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday that the earthquake in Haiti and the resulting aid may lead to a “real boom economy” there.

Lawmakers say they plan to encourage more charitable donations by making them tax-deductible.

“I think that this can be an opportunity for a real boom economy in Haiti,” she told reporters in the Capitol, drawing from her experience in San Francisco.
.
Speaking about the economy the liberal princess said:
.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43264.html
.
“It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance — the biggest bang for the buck,” she added.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43264.html#ixzz18gpR0qES
.
John Kennedy talks about the benefits of tax cuts for the economy:
.

I’ll actually extend that to “blind faith being used to justify any public policy”. This extends to Abortion, Gay rights, euthanasia, racism, war, and a whole host of other issues that somehow or another get religion involved. This is a country founded with the express intent to not codify any religion into the legal system and we, as rational people, can find good reason for the vast majority of sins listed in the bible (though I would consider many to be archaic – must we have a public stoning for working on the Sabbath?) Can’t we argue these rational arguments, the ones that everyone, regardless of whether they are people of faith or not and regardless of what faith they follow? Shouldn’t religion govern how we conduct ourselves as individuals, not how we conduct ourselves as a society. After all, we are a society separate from religion. To quote the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

If I may play the devil’s advocate somewhat, I see something tolerable – no, not excellent, not good, just tolerable – about many of these half measures.
.
To me, DADT was a classic example.
.
Seventeen years ago almost every country in the world had a policy forbidding gays from serving and, far more importantly, attempting to investigate who was gay or not. Although a work of fiction – which the author claims in the Coda of the story it was 100% based upon his boot camp experiences – in Beloxi Blues among the many other events, MPs coming through the base looking for one of two men who were caught in a men’s bathroom together. That kind of gay hunting stopped
.
Around the world, gradually, many countries took full measures and reported clearly over that period of time that allowing gays to be open about their orientation did not harm the military at all.
.
Among other things, for those of us who never served and are not particularly close to the gay community, one other thing began to enter the public dialog: plenty of in-the-closet gays were serving in Vietnam, Korea, World War II and all of the peacetime between these wars.
.
Had nothing at all passed or if Clinton had made it all or nothing, then, maybe things would have taken that much longer.
.
For Health Care Reform, I see this as following the same path as Civil Rights and gays in the military. It is a slow, slow trip filled with half measures and disappointment until, finally, a reasonably large majority begin to accept it.
.
Unlike the 100 year path from the emancipation of slavery to the completion of Civil Rights legislation, Health Care is, of course, a fiscal issue, not a social issue.
.
I suspect that we will have an excellent chance of having single payer or, better yet, the German health care system in place by 2027 because of what gets passed now.
.
The time where half measures do nothing but ruin the party in power is the stimulus package. You can’t bring a potential 20% unemployment down to an actual 10% and expect anybody to applaud that.
.
All in all, the 111th wasn’t too bad, I would say.
.
We won’t really know for another 17 years when the 120th congress passes real HCR and so on.

freeinpa:
.
“Not a left wing Congress? By what was eventually passed maybe not but by laws and regulations proposed, the American people would say yes.”
.
Listen, I understand why it seems this way to you, but that’s because we’re in the political boat we’re in.
.
Basically, conservatives get to point to what went down, and say “Look what the liberals did! Vote for us!”
.
But you’re forgetting that centrists will say almost the exact same thing: “Look what the liberals forced us to do! We hate them now, just like you! Vote for us!”
.
See how that’s a win-win for the partisans, and lose-lose for liberals? In the partisan politics game of musical chairs, the bipartisan agreement between the GOP and Dems is “blame the left!” Since “both sides” agree, the establishment media accepts and reports this bipartisan consensus as reality.
.
To you, it’s dancing on the head of a pin, because both the New Democrat and the liberal Democrat positions are repugnant.
.
To the American people, it doesn’t matter what people call themselves, as long as the government is on balance making their lives better or worse.
.
But you’re also forgetting that the American people want and deserve a full range of choices in terms of what solutions are offered to them.
.
That means that folks should get to know that there’s another option available to them, and that there’s a certain kind of Democrat that won’t tell them the truth about what the choices really are.
.
There’s also a whole bunch of Republicans who are committed to reducing Americans’ choices, too. In the GOP’s case, it’s the lie: “It’s either us Republicans, or everyone else who are secret socialists!”
.
Accepting both of those partisan stories about the all-powerful liberals who somehow manage to be responsible for everything bad the government is wrong, because it effectively denies the American people a real choice in elections.
.
That’s why it’s not a pointless theological debate, freeinpa.

From your first link:
.
“House leaders said they plan to introduce legislation — possibly as soon as next week — that would allow people to deduct charitable contributions directed to Haiti from their 2009 tax filing”
.
She was saying that charity, not the earthquake itself, could revitalize Haiti.
.
She was reacting to Newt’s statement:
.
“”It is an unassailable fact that in June, more food stamps were distributed by the government than ever before in American history. (It turns out that Barack Obama’s idea of spreading the wealth around was spreading more food stamps around.),” Gingrich wrote. “Most Americans would like to get a paycheck. Most Americans would not like to be forced to have food stamps handed out by liberal Democrats.”"
.
Food stamps and unemployment benefits give the unemployed money to spend and prevent additional job losses. By no means was she saying that it was a substitute for jobs.
.
Only a moron would think that.
.
The top tax rate JFK was talking about was 91%!
.
Everybody making over $400,000 per year in 1960 had to pay 91% tax!
.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf
.
He lowered it to 70%. -not 30%.
.
What cost $400000 in 1960 would cost $2.865,382.60 in 2009.
.

So, imagine for everybody making $2.865,382.60 they would keep less than $240,000?
.
So, according to your reasoning, if going from 91% to 70% is Reaganomics and going from 70% to 30% is Reaganomics, then going from 30% to 10% must be the next step and, therefore, everybody wanting to have taxes above 10% is a leftist.
.
Your reasoning is completely unsound.

Look forward to checking it out. Suspect I will be one of the sort about which he is complaining. Thank you for your swift response, Stuart Zechman.

I have some sad news about your messiah.
.
The Gipper raised some taxes after his first cuts due to an exploding deficit.
.
“”Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts,” said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together “constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime,” Thorndike said.

The bills didn’t raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through “base broadening” — that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.

For instance, more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.

“What people forget about Ronald Reagan was that he very much converted to base broadening as a means of reducing deficits and as a means of tax reform,” said Eugene Steuerle, an Institute Fellow at the Urban Institute who had helped lay the groundwork for tax reform in 1986 and served as a deputy assistant Treasury secretary during Reagan’s second term.

There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn’t designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn’t mean that no one’s taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.
“Some of these taxpayers were substantial contributors to the Republican Party and to the president’s re-election campaign, and had direct access to the White House. Reagan rebuffed their pleas,” wrote J. Roger Mentz, the Treasury assistant secretary for tax policy in 1986, in a Tax Notes commentary last year.

All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.

Annual federal tax receipts during his presidency averaged 18.2% of GDP, a smidge below the average under President Carter — and a smidge above the 40-year average today.
How might Reagan fare today?

Reagan’s behavior might not pass muster with those voters today who insist their Congressmen treat every proposed tax increase as poisonous to the republic.

“By today’s standards, the Gipper would easily qualify for status as a back-stabbing, treacherous RINO [Republican in Name Only],” wrote Tax Analysts contributing editor Martin Sullivan, in an article for Tax Notes in May.

Thanks in part to the increases in defense spending during his administration, Reagan also didn’t really reduce the size of government. Annual spending averaged 22.4% of GDP on his watch, which is above today’s 40-year average of 20.7%, and above the 20.8% average under Carter.”
.
The Gipper today would be called a RINO.
.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

More from Kennedy. Please look up the words paradoxical and truth.
.
“In short, it is a paradoxical truth that … the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference

.
“A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand … The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy

.
EVERY DOLLAR RELEASED FROM TAXATION THAT IS SPENT OR INVESTED WILL HELP CREATE A NEW JOB AND A NEW SALARY.
.
It was true then, and it’s true now.
.
Continue on with your delusions…

Psychiatric meltdown,
.
JFK was cutting FDRs WWII taxes down from 91% to 70%.
.
If I was driving at 91 MPH and, seeing a cop, slowed down to 70 MPH, does it follow that the next time I see a cop I should go down to 28 miles per hour?
.
Saying 91% is too high is not the same as saying 70% is too high!

Freak,
.
If you weren’t tone deaf and without any honor, you might notice that the American people are singing two different tunes keeping Democrats in the Senate while giving the House to Republicans.

Respond to 11.5.
.
How do you feel about the fact that Reagan pushed taxes back up again during his second term?
.
He’s just another RINO exploding the deficit and raising taxes, right?
.
JFK was following Keynesian Economics.
.
Taxes do decrease spending to a degree depending upon what bracket is taxed and how much.
.
91% is only suitable for all out war as WWII when we needed to spend several years GDP per year just for the military in order to prevent far right fascism from destroying both the Western World, but, also, the US.
.
The Nazis had a German sub sneak into the Harbor of New York! That was a time when we needed to spend like never before.
.
1960 was not.

Following your reasoning:
.
1) To be a conservative, you drop the lowest tax rate between 20% and 32%.
.
Therefore, a conservative today must drop the top tax bracket from 30% to 10% or the government should write checks to the wealthiest for a tax bracket of NEGATIVE 4%.
.
2) To be a conservative, the top bracket must drop to 7/9th of what it was (from 91% to 70) or to 3/7th of what they were (from 70% to 30%).
.
So, to be a conservative by your standard, if you use this method would be to drop the top tax bracket to 21% to be like JFK or to drop taxes to 12% for the top bracket.
.
This is moronic.
.
The first is more moronic than the second, but, any reasonable person would say that conservatives want taxes to be no higher than 30% and liberals, like JFK, want peacetime taxes no higher than 70%.
.
So, by that standard, Clinton was more liberal than Reagan, but far, far to the right of JFK.

The problem with the argument is, as pointed out, that this was dropping a 90% tax rate to a 70% tax rate. There’s a logical limit to how effective this can be. After all, if you cut a 1% tax rate to 0% tax rate, there is no plausible scenario under which you got higher taxes – even if it’s 30 years down the road.
.
Economists analyzing the impact of the tax package were using numbers from 0.4 to 0.5 for relative economic impact per dollar saved in taxes – that is, for every dollar saved on taxes, only 40-50 cents of it goes back into the economy. You then (for arguments sake we’ll use the highest bracket) take a 35% tax on that and you end up with only 14-17.5 cents returned on a dollar of tax breaks. However, at higher percentages, the impact of lowering taxes will be greater and the ratio you’re working with is significantly smaller. Doing some quick math, to drop the tax rate from 91% to 70%, you need an economic impact of 1.43 (which is about as much as they were saying the unemployment benefits might do). To drop the rates down to 35%, you need an economic impact of 2.86 – DOUBLE the impact. Economics doesn’t support the argument that this can be achieved. And I bet there’s a law of diminishing returns that is at play somewhere in all this.

Who am I scared of? Mike Pence, some governor who’s name I can’t remember (Minnesota, I believe). Neither of whom are well known.
.
Who am I not scared of? Mitt Romney (the Republican John Kerry – competent but not charismatic), Sarah Palin (with approval ratings falling into Bush territory – and she’s never held federal office).

SZ: I think you are brilliant. However, defining liberals is a sort of psychobabble. Someone here mentioned that old warriors like me might be centerists because of a sense of defeatism. Nonsense. The older I get the more liberal I get and I worked my a$$ off for McGovern.

apr2563:
.
1) thank you so much for the compliment
.
2) I’m glad to have your opinion, whether we agree or not
.
3) I mentioned nothing about “old warriors,” just so we’re clear
.
4) It’s my opinion that we’d better go about defining liberalism ourselves, or else either the DLC and the GOP will do it for us, which means Americans will continue to have all kinds of mistaken impressions of who we are and what we think
.
5) think about how people “know” that conservatives are for “Low taxes, a strong military and traditional values,” and then perhaps reconsider your characterization of my possible psychobabble in light of what’s known about socialists…I mean liberals (joke), and what’s even less known about Third Way

Meltodwn reasoning:
.
Last night I had a beer and I liked it.
.
Therefore beer is always good.
.
Tonight I am going to purchase 250 bottles of beer and drink them all.
,
Tomorrow Meltdown RIP.
.
If a tax reduction from 91% to 70% good, that does not mean reducing taxes is always good. It means that 91% is too high unless we are in WWII.
.
Just like if you enjoy one beer, you might enjoy two beers, but, maybe not. But you will, absolutely, not enjoy 250 bottles of beer.
.
Going from 70% to 28% says that Reaganomics, proven to a fiscal failure due to exploding deficits, Reagan himself raising taxes again and the five year jobless growth after the real estate crash of 1986 lead to the stock market crash of 1987.
.
It is not about the direction you take taxes which prove you are liberal or conservative. It is the maximum tax rates you choose.
.
Kennedy was president during a hot point in the cold war. Since we can and should dramatically cut down on military spending (excluding what is needed for combat in Afghanistan, of course) we should be able to do very well with a tip top tax rate for people making somewhere near $2.8 Million per year at 50% and still pay off the deficit, similar to Kennedy’s top bracket of 70% with cold war expenses.

Pat, comparing tax rates to driving in a car? Talk about apples to oranges. Why not compare the number of stupid statements you make per post to tax rates? It would make as much sense.
.
The tax rates came down from 90% down to 27% and the rate of job growth increased during that time period from 1963 to 1990.
.
I get tired of having to correct you. Do you ever get anything right?
.
Reagan lowered taxes for the most part, and the real estate crash was do to a change in the tax laws: eliminating tax shelters. It was Bush that raised taxes. Remember? No, you don’t. Because you were picking lint out of your pre-adolescent belly button.
.
Since that increase in taxes and Clinton’s the rate of job growth has slowed.
.
We still continue to play with the tax code. Every time we do, it changes peoples behavior. Most of the time the government has no idea (dispite their claims of being experts) as to what the unexpected consequences will be.
.
We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
.
The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% since many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income. [1] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income. Moreover, interest on consumer loans such as credit card debt were no longer deductible. An existing provision in the tax code, called Income Averaging, which reduced taxes for those only recently making a much higher salary than before, was eliminated (although later partially reinstated, for farmers in 1997 and for fishermen in 2004). The Act, however, increased the personal exemption and standard deduction.

The rate structure also maintained a novel “bubble rate.” The rates were not 15%/28%, as widely reported. Rather, the rates were 15%/28%/33%/28%. The “bubble rate” of 33% simply elevated the 15% rate to 28% for higher-income taxpayers. As a result, for taxpayers after a certain income level, TRA86 provided a flat tax of 28%. This was jettisoned in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, otherwise known as the “Bush tax increase”, which violated his Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
.
This is what caused the real estate crash you referred to.
.

By enacting 26 U.S.C. § 469 (relating to limitations on deductions for passive activity losses and limitations on passive activity credits) to remove many tax shelters, especially for real estate investments, the Act significantly decreased the value of many such investments which had been held more for their tax-advantaged status than for their inherent profitability. This may have contributed to the end of the real estate boom of the early to mid ’80s as well as to the savings and loan crisis.

Prior to 1986, much real estate investment was done by passive investors. It was common for syndicates of investors to pool their resources in order to invest in property, commercial or residential. They would then hire management companies to run the operation. TRA 86 reduced the value of these investments by limiting the extent to which losses associated with them could be deducted from the investor’s gross income. This, in turn, encouraged the holders of loss-generating properties to try and unload them, which contributed further to the problem of sinking real estate values. This turmoil and repositioning in real estate markets was caused not by changes in market conditions.

Mortgages and similar real property loans constituted a significant portion of S&Ls’ asset portfolios. Significant declines in the market value of real properties resulted in the erosion of the value of these institutions’ major assets.

Thank you SZ for your post 15.1. I agree with your changing the definition of Liberal and hope you are able to make a dent in the definition that the conservatives have made.

“However, everything said by liberals is a sort of psychobabble.”
.
There fixed it for you.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+gdp+growth
.
Look at the graph of GDP.
.
Reagan’s big boom was short lived and by the end of Reagan’s second term, things were already heading downhill.
.
Clinton raised taxes and the economy ended up going up even further in steady growth exceeding what Reagan did.

“However, everything said by liberalmetdown is a sort of psychotic.”
.
There fixed it for you.

SZ:

Sorry it has nothing to do with what position we are in but the philosophy that Obama, Pelosi and Reid tried to force on us. It was industry rule, takeovers, regulations, higher taxes and wealth re-distribution. Despite the talk of liberals are for personal freedoms they have pursued legislation to control behavior and freedoms. When the great unwashed populace rebelled they try to do it by regulatory fiat.
.
“In the partisan politics game of musical chairs, the bipartisan agreement between the GOP and Dems is “blame the left!” Since “both sides” agree, the establishment media accepts and reports this bipartisan consensus as reality.”
.
This is nothing but galloping paranoia and the denial. The left has moved so far left that even the old traditional left looks moderate. That is the reality
.
“effectively denies the American people a real choice in elections.”
.
What is denied is that Obama holds extreme left views. The extreme left ran as moderates to be elected. Once in office and the kimono was opened, the public rebelled. You argument is the American people are denied a choice if they don’t have an extreme left candidate versus anybody else. Again reality is the extreme left is a loud small minority that cannot truthfully sell their ideas to the American public so they must use stealth tactics and outright lies to get their wishes. As history has shown, that lasts for short periods and usually under times of stress– it doesn’t last and the public comes to thier senses.

“The quantity of legislation passed during a Democratic Administration or a Democratic Congressional majority does not necessarily mean that liberal policy was enacted, nor that the nation’s problems are on the road to being solved.”
.
By this same line of reasoning , the left’s argument here that spending and debt caused by whatever Republican president they wish to scorn, does not mean that conservative policies were enacted as well.
.
Seems that the left wants to argue out of both sides of their mouths.

Pat, that’s a graph of the dot com boom, an anomaly that is not likely to repeated anytime soon.
.
Try again.

“What this site notably lacks is what I would call a “thoughtful conservative” voice ( a David Brooks, if you will, God forgive us). The conservatives who have shown up here seem to be basically twisted and angry, interested mainly in hurling insults and getting the rest of us off topic – at which, it must be said, they excel.”
.
To consider David Brooks either thoughtful or a conservative shows how poorly the left here can comprehend a conservative.
.
It should also be noted that conservatives here are no angrier or more twisted the liberals. Hurl insults? Yes mainly as a response to how we are treated by the liberals. What you write is the practiced sanctimony and hypocrisy of many on the left. You hurl insults at the poster, denigrate any source and ridicule any conservative and then where the response is in kind we get “hurling insults and getting the rest of us off topic ” That is usually the response to the left being unable to defend the bankruptcy of liberalism.

The dot com bubble happened in the 1980s under Reagan?

Clarification:
.
“Pat, that’s a graph of the dot com boom, an anomaly that is not likely to repeated anytime soon.
.
Try again.”
.

The dot com bubble happened in the 1980s under Reagan?
.
The Swamp just ate two of my posts as well.

Here’s a graph of 1929 through 2004.
.
Neither Kennedy’s nor Reagan’s years even show up as a significant bump.
.
http://www.economics-charts.com/gdp/gdp-1929-2004.html

“No, but you wingnuts called JFK’s political twin, Ted, a communists many times.”
.
Yes Rev Jim its easy to see why you dropped out of school. You fail econ, history and political science all in one post. Political twins? There was never a tax rate that Teddy ever wanted to reduce and maybe you should read some of the letters Teddy wrote to the Communists in Russia to see how he could work with them to bring down Reagan. Not only was he closer to a communist that Jack he was also a traitor.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/12/20/the-111th-congress/#ixzz18i5xRIyU

President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

“The Swamp just ate two of my posts as well”
.
And the Swamp should be immediately awarded Medal of Honor. Saved us from more Rev Jim stupidity!

.
Praise Jesus!

See 5.1

Correction see 15.1

“And the Swamp should be immediately awarded Medal of Honor. Saved us from more Rev Jim stupidity!

.
Praise Jesus”
.
If you believe in god because you think it stops liberals from posting, it’s time to become an atheist since there is a huge lull in work for the next three weeks, there’s plenty of time for me to remind you what a moron you are and how you have no honor when it comes to keeping your word.

“Clinton raised taxes and the economy ended up going up even further in steady growth exceeding what Reagan did.”
patricksartor
December 20, 2010
at 10:17 pm

Your claim “the economy ended up going up even further in steady growth exceeding what Reagan did” is due to the dot com boom and subsequent bust in 2000. So, if you want claim the success, I also would have you claim the failure that it ended with. Genius.
.
Thank God the Swampland monster ate some of the BS that comes from you.
.
You continue to shoot yourself in the foot, and since you like to kick yourself in the @ss…
.
Your graph here destroys your argument. It shows that with declining tax rates the GDP continued to grow. In fact during the 20 years between 1980 and 2000, years of historically lower tax rates the GDP increased 500%.

Psychotic Meltdown,
.
There was a break between Reagan and Clinton.
.
It was called the George HW Bush years.
.
It was a recession.
.
“Your graph here destroys your argument. It shows that with declining tax rates the GDP continued to grow.”
.
But it did not grow at a faster rate. It is about accelerating growth or not accelerating growth.
.
“In fact during the 20 years between 1980 and 2000, years of historically lower tax rates the GDP increased 500%.”
.
Wrong.
.
“In 2000, the relative worth of $1.00 from 1980 is:
$2.09 using the Consumer Price Index
$1.86 using the GDP deflator
$2.35 using the value of consumer bundle
$2.04 using the unskilled wage
$2.12 using the Production Worker Compensation
$2.88 using the nominal GDP per capita
$3.57 using the relative share of GDP ”
.
The answer would be 357%
.
In 1980, the relative worth of $1.00 from 1960 is:
$2.78 using the Consumer Price Index
$2.57 using the GDP deflator
$2.87 using the value of consumer bundle
$3.37 using the unskilled wage
$3.59 using the Production Worker Compensation
$4.20 using the nominal GDP per capita
$5.30 using the relative share of GDP ”
.
It grew 530% during the years of Democratic domination from 1960 to 1980.
.
How about the Messiah’s years (Ronald Reagan’s)
.
In 1989, the relative worth of $1.00 from 1981 is:
$1.36 using the Consumer Price Index
$1.33 using the GDP deflator
$1.64 using the value of consumer bundle
$1.32 using the unskilled wage
$1.40 using the Production Worker Compensation
$1.63 using the nominal GDP per capita
$1.75 using the relative share of GDP
.
Only 75%.
.
How about the really left wing years from 1933 to 1952?
.
“In 1953, the relative worth of $1.00 from 1933 is:
$2.06 using the Consumer Price Index
$2.05 using the GDP deflator
$3.66 using the value of consumer bundle
$4.07 using the unskilled wage
$4.40 using the Production Worker Compensation
$5.30 using the nominal GDP per capita
$6.73 using the relative share of GDP ”
.
637%!
.
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/
.
It looks like your Messiah, the Gipper, did very, very little compared to FDR or the JFK to Carter years.

Due to the down economy and the Christmas season, what has Jesus given you for Christmas online Freakinpa and Psychoticmeltdown?
.
Me.
.
Maybe as he spent his life giving to the poor and not cutting taxes the Great JC of Biblical fame really was a liberal Democrat.
.

Ooo, I just thought of another great argument:
.
When you decrease the tax rate from 90-70%, you increase the amount of cash available to those people by a factor of 3 (seriously, do the math, that one’s not that hard). When you look at it that way, it’s not that hard to see how you could easily achieve that 1.43 increase in economic output. Now reduce the taxes from 45 to 35%. Math doesn’t work out so pretty.

OK, now I am starting to feel sorry for you. I hope that you have some family to spend some time with…
.
But you also just contradicted the graph that you cited earlier. It show a 500% increase. So, which is it? I don’t care if you answer. I’m done. I am having a very good end of the year. And, you aren’t on my Christmas list…too bad.

SZ: I would be happy to redefine and find a cohesive liberal policy and a way for it to become part of the political converstation. I never want to be like the Republicans who are now a cult.
I wasn’t referring to you when I mentioned “old warrior”. Someone else made that reference on the thread.
I am still waiting to hear some solutions. The media is never going to spread the word.
I mentioned on another post that I was reading a book about the Upton Sinclair campaign for governor of Ca. in 1934. He was a Socialist who ran as a Dem. Both Republicans and Democrats went after him in the most vicious manner. He never had a chance once the establishment media and political forces went after him.
Where are our leaders, media, and organization that can bring us to the “promised land”?

Patrick, only you are amused by your misuse of statistics, anybody else with a brain realizes that you are an idiot.
.
Yet, you continue to make an @ss of yourself. You are a diehard partisan. Maybe you can get an award as donkey of the year.
.
Take you medicine and a have a winter’s nap. It will all be over soon, and you mama won’t kick you out of the basement despite the fact that you spent your last unemployment check on the latest xbox game instead of buying your poor mother a Christmas gift. God knows that she has put up with sooooo…. much of your BS, just like the rest of us. God bless your mother.

“It show a 500% increase. So, which is it? I don’t care if you answer. I’m done. I am having a very good end of the year. And, you aren’t on my Christmas list…too bad.”
.
It never said that there was a 500% increase.
.
You misread the graph.

Psychiatric metldown,
.
You just hate facts.
.
Fact: FDR & Truman had created double the economic growth of Reagan through Clinton.
.
This is why 90% of PhD Economists support Keynesian Economics and Supply Side Economics is dead.
.
I studied Economics. If Reagan did half of what you claim he did and FDR did anywhere near as little as you claim he did, I would have been a Republican or at least a fiscal conservative.
.
I’m a commercial real estate agent in Manhattan. Economics matter to my work.
.
Since you are in the state mental institution, you could hardly care less what happens when you team R wins since they’ll continue to give you your meds and let you use the computer at night when the orderlies are off duty.
.
“God bless your mother.”
.
Well, she’s 40 miles from me out in the suburbs, widowed for two years and still healthy and working.
.
Let me know what psychiatric ward you are in. I’ll send a Christmas card with check to your orderlies for dealing with you.

“There was never a tax rate that Teddy ever wanted to reduce…”
.
JFK didn’t want to reduce taxes below 70% for the top bracket and Ted didn’t want to reduce the top bracket below 70%.
.
Twins.
.
” …and maybe you should read some of the letters Teddy wrote to the Communists in Russia to see how he could work with them to bring down Reagan…”
.
“”On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”
…
ennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”
…
Kennedy’s motives? “Like other rational people,” the memorandum explained, “[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.” But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy’s motives. ”
.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html
.
JFK created the Red Phone connecting the White House directly to the Kremlin in case of potential nuclear war to make sure that they had a chance to talk it over rather than destroy the world.
.
Like I said, the two brothers were political twins.
.
BTW: You have no honor. Your word is worthless as is your allegation that Kennedy had anything other than America’s best interests in mind.

“Seems that the left wants to argue out of both sides of their mouths.”
.
There is a difference:
.
Single payer or the German health care system, the return of the Glass Stegal Act, an FDR-like stimulus package and the DREAM act were all things which have happened before in history either here or, as far as single payer goes or abroad which liberals have experienced and are obtainable goals.
.
To date, there does not seem to be any consensus on what conservatives can agree upon should be cut so dramatically that taxes can be cut while the deficit is reduced. There seems to be a chronic mismatch between what conservatives are willing to pay for and what they want from government.

“Yes mainly as a response to how we are treated by the liberals.”
.
Freakinpa,
.
One by one you have insulted every poster who is not as far right as you are. The only two who find you at all tolerable are Afguy and SZ.
.
“…denigrate any source…”
.
Your sources include a huge number of extremely partisan commentators who have used false information to justify a right wing POV and we contradict it with center right, centrist and, sometimes, liberal sources who document their position far, far better.
.
Forbes, Bloomberg News and the Wall Street Journal are among the center right sources used to prove that the things you post are missing relevant facts or contain many distortions.
.
I have never nor have I ever seen Rush Limbaugh’s liberal counterpart, Michael Moore used to contradict you. (Moore is entertaining, but bends facts to prove points and, therefore, never once a source I have ever cited.)