Who's Better for Business?

Here's another illustration of who is really better for business Obama or the Republicans. I'm mystified by the very people who benefited the very most from Obama's presidency still thinking Republicans are better for the economy. It just shows how these zombie myths are impossible to kill.

It's a failure to understand that business donates large amounts of money to BOTH Democrats and Republicans. (They tend to donate more to Republicans, but they don't neglect the Democrats.) Businesses expect a return on their investments, and buying into government is one of the best investments around.

I wouldn't think that anyone, especially those on the left, would equate "corporate profits" with "the economy."

Also, if Obama is the "best President for corporate profits since 1900," doesn't that compel liberals to judge him as evil?

Actually, unlike Republicans and Libertarians Democrats and Liberals are capable of seeing and appreciating nuance. I know that nuance is too hard to grasp for the black and white crowd though.

Ah, yes, nuance. Of course.

Obama has the 2nd lowest marginal tax rate in US history (after Bush Sr) and the lowest capital gains rate ever. EVER. I can't prove anything, but my guess again is racism... a soft, quiet, passive aggressive dislike for fact that the guy who's doing the job isn't from THEIR side.

The numbers don't lie, and they're as conservative as ever. What other explanation IS there?

>4 geneg:. Actually, unlike Republicans and Libertarians Democrats and Liberals are capable of seeing and appreciating nuance.

What is your point of saying this? This is an assertion, it's not a fact, and it says a whole lot more about you than it does about Libertarians or Republicans (or even Democrats). This is the sort of thing that makes it very difficult to have a conversation. It's really a gradeschool schoolyard taunt. Grow up.

>6 jasonseidner:. but my guess again is racism...

Oh for the love of God, are you really going there?

8>

So again, explain it to me: when the numbers don't line up I always look for an explanation. Consider the following:

The people making the most money in the country are paying 35%. That's the second lowest rate in the history of the nation. People wish we could go back to the simple days of the 1950's when one man's salary could not only support himself, his wife and 3 or 4 kids but he'd get home early enough to sit back, read the paper, throw catch outside, etc. Well guess what: the highest tax rate at that time under Eisenhower was NINETY-TWO percent. If these were such "wonderful" times, why is Obama so terrible at 35%?

The capital gains tax is another one: all I ever hear is that if they were lower it would help the economy SOOO so much, yet they too, at 15% are at their lowest point ever. When you combine marginal tax rates with capital gains rates, this is the lowest rate of taxation in 236 year history of the United States.

Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and both Bush's were all SLIGHTLY less or RIDICULOUSLY less conservative fiscally than Obama. When you consider the fact that the title here is WHO'S BETTER FOR BUSINESS? I just don't see any mathematical explanation for what SOME people have against him.

And again, whenever the numbers don't line up I always assume there's something to it: when the coach benches the best player there has to be a story behind it, right?

I will say right now that I am NOT of the victim mentality; in fact, I HATE the victim mindset because it's the ultimate cop out. So I'm not blaming, I'm ASKING. If I were valedictorian and had a 4.2 in high school (and somehow wasn't accepted to Princeton) I would ask--not because I was a victim, but because I'd want to know what it was that kept me out.

One last thought: we got attacked on 9/11 and 3000 people lost their lives HERE ON OUR OWN SOIL. Still, Bush got re-elected. Do you think Obama would have been re-elected had that happened in HIS first term? So then Obama KILLS BIN LADEN. Bush couldn't stop him (or find him) in 4 years and he was granted 4 more--Obama finds him and kills him in less than 2 years and for some reason, SOME people just can't take it anymore.

So again, before you go down your "are you really going there?" route, keep in mind that I'm weighing everything possible here. WHAT ON EARTH don't SOME people like?

#9: I just don't see any mathematical explanation for what SOME people have against him.

So instead of attributing that contradiction to plain ol' petty partisanship, you decided to attribute it to racism. Brilliant.

Do you think Obama would have been re-elected had that happened in HIS first term?

You know full well that the odds of that would be similar if Obama had been white. Not that it would stop you.

Think of it this way: How does it make any less sense for tax-hating Republicans to vote against Obama than for tax-loving Democrats to vote for Obama? 'Cause if the math doesn't hold up on the former, how could it hold up on the latter?

Don't think it's any secret that Obama's election kickstarted the tea party movement--a more than less unhappy reaction from 40 + year old disgruntled caucasian voters. Nor do I think it's much of a secret that the likes of Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor etc. early on decided to sabotage whatever domestic initiatives the Obama administration came out with and particularly the economic ones--in the aftermath of the last administrations crashing of the economy. The calculation anyway being if Barack turned things around then they could forget this upcoming election altogether.

As far as racism-acquaintances, people at work, even some family--at least for me it's been four years of listening to what an 'N' (that's if the coast is clear) he is--mostly from the conservative minded. I'm sorry but that ain't no lie. It factors into the present election.

My real issue with Obama--is that he's carried on the empirical designs of the last administration--not that the administrations before that didn't have the same designs but the Bush/Cheney team definitely ratcheted up the American exceptionalism ideal--that wherever we go we're in the right--whether it's by military force or heavy handed economic persuasion. So Barack says we're done with Iraq--though we still have military personnel there--meanwhile we've more troops in Afghanistan and still have no idea what to do with the detainees in Guantanamo--maybe they'll serve life sentences without trial--who cares? and he's enhanced the Patriot Act and we can take out targets whoever and wherever without any kind of oversight. This is the stuff that really pisses me off. But both major parties are intent on empire. Obama has much more freedom to set policies here and his political adversaries are more or less on page with that--witness the agreeing between Obama and Romney on international policy.

The sabotage from the right is pretty much all in the domestic and domestic economic area. McConnell more or less said right from the beginning--that no matter what to vote against and the intent from the beginning was all about this election. They'd let the populace wallow in misery if necessary.

#6 & #9,

Looking at marginal tax rates for personal income taxes is a rather narrow way to answer the question of "Who's better for business". For example, the financial industry absolutely hates the Dodd-Frank Act, of which Obama has been a strong advocate. Wall Street would like nothing more than to elect Romney because of his stated desire to get rid of Dodd-Frank. And, in general, American businesses find Obama (and the wider Democratic Party) to be overly eager when it comes to regulation. (Not that Republicans have been much better when it comes to regulating business, but the perception is that they are.)

Not only that, but the Obama administration inherited these tax rates from the Bush II administration, so there's the view that these aren't Obama's tax rates, but Bush's. And Obama has been quite open about his desire to raise the top marginal tax rate back up to 39.6%, which is what it was under Clinton (the same goes for capital gains rates as well). Furthermore, looking at marginal tax rates across years can be deceptive because the rate alone cannot tell you how many people are paying that rate or how much of their income is subject to it. For example, if we instituted a 90% top marginal rate today, but set it at $100,000,000, not many people would be paying it and not much of their income would be taxed at that rate. But if we set it at $1,000,000, a lot more people would be paying and they would be paying a lot more of their income at that rate.

I'm not sure if the data exists, but if you can find an inflation-adjusted comparison between presidential administrations when it comes to tax rates, that would be a better data set to use for comparison purposes. That is, what would someone making the equivalent of $1,000,000 in 2012 dollars pay in taxes in 1952, 1962, 1966, etc.

12>

While you make a great point about how these tax rates really affect the way business flows, I don't sense that the average American is judging it on that deep a scale. Many of the people who will be voting "just don't like him" yet couldn't speak for two straight minutes about why. That's where the racism theory comes from--the fact that (for many) the feeling is certain in spite of the fact that Obama's numbers reflect a very conservative position.

And of course there's the long term vs short term; for example, Obama could have opened up the oil reserves this summer and gas prices now would probably be well under $3. That would surely have boosted the economy instantly, but at what cost? If Romney wins I think he will make quick changes to make that sudden impact, but he'll be doing so to please the "how I feel right now in this quarter" crowd. Reagan showed that you can easily please people now by borrowing from the future. The question is, is that the best move THIS time?

>11 lriley:. McConnell more or less said right from the beginning--that no matter what to vote against and the intent from the beginning was all about this election. They'd let the populace wallow in misery if necessary.

Mitch McConnell has been mis-quoted time and time again--and you're guilty of doing again here, although you're sort of vaguely paraphrasing rather than quoting.

If you haven't read Bob Woodward's newest book, then I would recommend it--The Price of Politics. --Hilarious, it always comes up on the touchstones here as "Untitled."

I don't know if you watch Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. On the show, Scarborough was interviewing Woodward, and Joe apologized to Woodward for repeating "a thousand times" Mitch McConnell saying that his top priority was preventing a second Obama term.

BOB WOODWARD: "And where McConnell says, I don't want Obama to fail, I want him to change." That's the second part of the quote that NO ONE ever hears. Then McConnell went on to say that if Obama changes, "I want to work with him." --But I'm guessing you might never have heard the whole quote. It's in Woodward's book.

It was Obama who said to Erick Cantor: Sit down, shut up, I won. (Like you, I'm also paraphrasing.) I believe Obama's major problem--one of them--is that he was/is clueless about how to work with Congress. He didn't have enough experience to know how to get things done once he no longer had both the House and the Senate in the "D" column.

>11 lriley:. As far as racism-acquaintances, people at work, even some family--at least for me it's been four years of listening to what an 'N' (that's if the coast is clear)

Of course I can't prove you wrong, and I don't know what acquaintances, work people, or family you hang out with. I can only say that I've never heard any of my acquaintances, work people, or family use that word--never--and especially relating it to Mr. Obama. Actually, most of my friends, etc. were rather proud that the country had voted in an African-American for president. I thought that was ludicrous--and I didn't understand people with that mindset--but whatever floats your boat, I guess. My heartburn with Mr. Obama has to do with his policies. I'm a small-government conservative-leaning sort of person, so--sorry--but I fundamentally do not agree with what he stands for. And thus, I want him to be a one-term president. But that doesn't make me a racist, and I'm sorry to see that some people on your side still want to beat that drum.

>12 Bretzky1:. Many of the people who will be voting "just don't like him" yet couldn't speak for two straight minutes about why.

I could speak for two straight hours, but I don't think you would like that, either.

#14-It doesn't float my boat. Your post #14 does make me wonder what kind of world you live in. Back in 2008 Nate from the website 538 (since incorporated/embedded into the NY Times) told this story about these democratic door to door activists knocking on the door of a rural Pennsylvania household to ask the occupants who they planned to vote for. The Mrs. answered the door and yelled back into the house to her husband who yelled back that 'we're voting for the N'. This is more a reality I suppose for the 'non-professional' masses of this great land of ours. More news--those non-professional whites who tend to vote conservative tend to use those perjoratives more than their white liberal counterparts but there are a good number of die hard democrats as well. A very healthy % of devout white christians too. Maybe you don't notice it because it's so casual--and a lot of the same people seem to do well in social situations with people of other races? And they're nice people too--really. Fortunately fairly soon I'm going to be retiring and won't have to listen so much of this bullshit. Just in case you don't think it makes me angry I like a lot of these people by the way but in another way they can go fuck themselves.

Anyway in my #11 post I pretty much explained my differences with the Obama administration as well on policy differences. I'm voting for Jill Stein--put in a nutshell Obama has proven not to be left enough for me.

#11: Don't think it's any secret that Obama's election kickstarted the tea party movement

And Bill Clinton's election kickstarted the "contract with America." Same tune, different piper, still not an anti-black thing.

#16--at least technically true. People suggesting there are no racial overtones in American politics and/or that there aren't any politicians who play cleverly on that theme are full of it.

If there were no racial overtones in American politics. then i would believe in American exceptionalism, because the country would be unique.

Oh, the US has overtones of all sorts, both racial and otherwise. But jasonseidner would have us believe that racism is the "real" reason that the evil businessmen he imagines to be speaking of are against Obama (D). It's like birther logic for Obama drones.

>14 labwriter:
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIW_3I5QOXUAHHj7w8QF;_ylu=X3oD...

It is VERY VERY difficult not to understand what Mr. Mcconnell wants.....when a Republican says change....it is pretty evident that "change" means "doing things their way" In fact there is a Republican senator who said that compromise was making the Democrats do things the Republican way.

Keep spinning......it won't work. The move on the Right has been so blatant that only a moron couldn't see what is going on. And I do feel that a lot of it has to do with race. Sununu "lazy and disengaged" (about Obama) and his boneheaded comment about Colin Powell. Palin "shuck and jive" (she is about the WORST thing to come down the pike as far as racist redneck spewing) the entire birther nonsense.....which many Republicans will not disavow....which to me is just as racist as the one's who keep spouting off about it.

Lunar>

You're taking the "all or nothing" approach--either racism IS a factor or it ISN'T. I'm not saying it's ALL about racism or that it's NEVER been an issue before--and I'm certainly not talking about ALL voters. I'm talking about the ones who simply do-not like the guy yet can't explain why on a cognitive level, they just DON'T. It's not a big group, but if it's say, 8% of the voters, that would be a 16% edge assuming they all voted the other way.

So Lunar, let's put it this way: do you think racism is having ANY effect on this election, and if so, to what percentage?

It has nothing to do with feelings about "liking or not liking the guy." It's about not agreeing with his policies--on a cognitive, not an emotional, level. I don't understand why you can't understand that--without calling me racist or a moron.

>15 lriley:. Your post #14 does make me wonder what kind of world you live in.

I live in a midwestern town that is very, very liberal. In 2008, just about every yard in this town had an Obama for President sign. I fly the Gadsden flag on my front porch. I attend the Episcopal Church, which is also very, very liberal. I'm a retired instructor at the state university; the instructors and professors I worked with were very, very liberal. My good friends, people I'm happy to go to the baseball game with or to have a drink with, are conservative. My family is mixed. The liberal side of the family who live near Seattle think there is something wrong with my brain. I live in a world of all kinds of people. But I do not live in a world where people fling the "N-word" around. Which makes me wonder, what kind of world you live in?

I think it's a good thing that you have a candidate in Jill Stein that you can get behind and vote for. That's what our system is all about. There are problably a lot of former Obama supporters, like you, who are disappointed that he didn't go far enough to the left.

I don't notice people flingling around the N-word because it's so casual?? No, I don't notice it because no one I know uses that word.

But Larry, truth is, I'd like to have a drink with you too. I enjoy the back-and-forth of political discussion. But please don't call me a racist or a moron--I'm neither.

>22 labwriter: That wasn't Larry who made the moron statement....that was me.

I didn't say you were either a moron or a racist....I respect that you do not agree with Obama's policies. What I did say is that if one doesn't recognize what the Right is doing, obstructionism, and that a lot of what is going on is due to racism would take someone a bit less than intelligent and/or less than honest. That I will stand by ! It has been shameful and I suspect has very little to do with the man's policies.....if so, there were some who knew what he was going to do before he had a chance to do anything as this garbage started BEFORE he was sworn into office.

The fact that one does not agree with Obama's policies should not be an excuse for the lack of respect for the man's position. I don't know you so I have no clue as to how you speak of the man or if you hold any respect for the office of President but I do know that the Right has been relentless and unprecidented in their efforts to discredit this particular President.

Would also add that the very "policies" that many on the Right attribute to Obama, were started under someone else's watch. When one is voting against policies, one should be very careful about where those policies started or they may find themselves in worse shape than prior to the vote.

>22 labwriter:
"I don't notice people flingling around the N-word because it's so casual?? No, I don't notice it because no one I know uses that word.'

Actually, in some ways the racism that is taking place today is worse than when someone used the "N" word. At least the "N" word was honest. The stuff going on today is under handed and cloaked in rightous indignation. Racism is not about words...it is about attitudes and actions. Congress has an all time low in approval rating and it has much to do with how they are acting. Obama is NOT a radical man.....Congress has dealt with more radical men than Obama....no, they have other reasons for their actions, whether they are being honest about it or not.

#21: You're taking the "all or nothing" approach--either racism IS a factor or it ISN'T.

Funny. That was you, not me. You were the one saying that the only two explanations are either math or racism. Obviously, you've since qualified that by saying the non-math crowd is a small 8%, but even I don't think it's that low. Your mistake is in jumping to the race card when simple partisanship offers a far more parsimonious explanation.

So Lunar, let's put it this way: do you think racism is having ANY effect on this election, and if so, to what percentage?

The way to find that number would be to find the number of people who would magically not oppose Obama if only he were white. Good luck with that.

#22--all I can tell you is what I see personally in my own miniaturized speck of the country. Maybe things are just better out in the midwest or particular parts of the midwest. FWIW younger people from this neck of the woods are relatively free of the the infection. This used to be a very industrialized part of the country. Back in the late 70's a lot of that left and with it went a lot of people and a lot of those remaining eventually would find other things to do but for a lot less. Back around that time I enlisted in the USCG. In any case this is a conservative area--one that will bite it's nose off to spite its face to remain so. IMO they prefer arguing personality over policy--though as far as policy goes things like America's dominant place in the world, pro-life and pro-gun issues are super important and unassailable. Over time people of different races are mixed more in better living areas here. OTOH if you went into the worst areas you'll find much higher %'s of blacks and hispanics which also serves to highlight stereotypes.

Remember all the misogynistic things some on the Right said about Hilary Clinton when she was running? I think that the terms being used on the President are in the same vein; lazy insults that seemed to fit. Just as she was called "shrill" and a "ball-buster", Obama is accused of being "uppity" and "promoted above his place". The people using them may well not even know that there's an ugly undertone to it, although the talk show guys know exactly what they are doing. Why do you think Trump is now yelling for Obama's transcripts? He knows how that will play. It works at a more visceral level than that socialist-communistic-islamo-fascist-secularist stuff.

"Obama is accused of being "uppity" and "promoted above his place".

Perhaps you could give a few examples?

27> and of course boy.

>28 lawecon:

If you need specific examples as to how much racism is in play, since Obama took office, then you are part of the problem as to what constitutes racism in America today.

SimonW11, I'd forgotten boy. And the famous picture of Jan Brewer (loony AZ Governor) lecturing him on the tarmac.

>23 faceinbook:. Oh, sorry, my mistake.

I don't know you so I have no clue as to how you speak of the man or if you hold any respect for the office of President but I do know that the Right has been relentless and unprecidented in their efforts to discredit this particular President.

If I hold any respect for the office??? Are you kidding me? Maybe you could start with assuming that I respect the Office of the President of the United States. That would be a good start.

Oh my goodness, do you not remember what was said about "BoooosHitler" by the left--contantly? Do you not recall the "Bush-is-a-monkey" stuff that was constantly flung around, for the 8 years of Bush's term?

So the fact that I won't admit that I don't see opposition of the Obama administration to be racisism makes me either stupid or dishonest, in your view? How in the world, then, can I have a conversation with you, about any of this stuff, if you call me stupid and a liar?

let me Google for you. RidgewayGirl

“I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button,” Mr. Davis said.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/gop-rep-refers-to-obama-as-that-bo...

"In 2008, Rep. Lynn Westmorland claimed he didn't know "uppity" had racial connotations when he used the term to describe then-Sen. Barack Obama. This is especially curious because Westmorland is from Georgia. In 2010, Harvard professor Charles Ogletree said Sarah Palin's habit of deriding Obama as a "professor" was code for "uppity." Limbaugh responded by saying the term was racist when applied to Clarence Thomas, but true when applied to Obama: "Obama is uppity, but not as a black. He is an elitist. He does think he’s smarter and better than everybody else. That’s what he was taught. He’s a Harvard man." (Thomas received his law degree, by contrast, from plebian institution Yale.)"

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/45321/

Here's some more fodder for discussion from Forbes: Who's better on the economy?

Gene, that doesn't surprise me, but it is good to have it substantiated. I wonder what excuse making and accusations will come out to counter it?

Robert

>32 labwriter:
"If I hold any respect for the office??? Are you kidding me? Maybe you could start with assuming that I respect the Office of the President of the United States. That would be a good start."

Never assume anything. There is precious little respect for the office of President coming from the Right. I do remember the Bush stuff and I didn't like it any better than.... but Bush commanded more respect from his Congress than Obama has. Obama has the juvenile conversations taking place within his governing body. Judges passing on racist jokes online. Didn't call you a liar or stupid. What I said was that, in my opinion, someone who wasn't willing to admit that a lot of what is going on in Obama's Congress is racism is doing so either because they don't WANT to or they don't understand it. Perhaps I should have added "about this particular subject" There....is that a bit better ?
I don't know you other than what you've said on this subject and on this subject I do believe what I've said. Pretending racism doesn't exist just makes it all that much worse.....

>20 faceinbook: Palin "shuck and jive"... racist redneck spewing

What if Chris Matthews says it?

Or Obama spokesman Jay Carney?

Or Andrew Cuomo saying about Obama: "You can't shuck and jive at a press conference"?

#37: When a Democrat says it, their supporters will fall all over themselves trying to explain it away as a vocabulary malfunction owing to the generation gap. Like when Biden described Obama as the first "clean" African-American to run for president. But when a Republican does it, it's a sign of a nefarious unspoken conspiracy.

#36: "what is going on in Obama's Congress is racism"

While it's not quite at the level of "lizard people" conspiracy craziness, that's still pretty damn crazy. And no, nobody's convinced that you're being fair-minded just because you'd offer to suck the cock of anyone who happens to occupy the oval office regardless of party affiliation. You're being paranoid in the extreme. It's a conspiracy theory you've concocted to substitute for what you don't want to understand, and what you refuse to understand is that you're no better than your Republican counterparts.

ETA: Oh, I forgot to add the inspirational T-shirt of the day. Very fitting considering all this concern about racism lurking behind every word.

>38 Lunar:
Knock it off !!

Time I think for you to mute Lunar.

Racism isn't about words, it is about attitudes. "Palling around with terrorists" , birth certificate issues, school transcripts, Obama is a secret Muslim and most anything that comes out of Sununu's mouth, all of this speaks of Obama's difference. He is ...... he is Black. He grew up differently than most of us. It is a sad comment on this country that this difference turned into a lack of an ability to govern. We ought to be proud to have stepped out of the box and voted in an individual who stands for all we claim this country to be.

>40 SimonW11:
Probably...or I get to thinking I'm on Yahoo or some other site....which is totally depressing in it's lack of civility !

Anyone who doesn't think racism -- explicit, institutionalized or internalized -- remains one of the great flaws of American culture is kidding themselves. Just as anyone who doesn't think that misogyny and patriarchism is at the foundation of much of western culture is kidding themselves. The hostility displayed towards Hilary Clinton (and Sarah Palin, for that matter) in the last election was irrational to the point of hysteria. I think there is an element of that in Americans' response to Obama and it's foolish to deny it.

But I don't think it is a coordinated conspiracy, just an ugly aspect of American culture that is thrown into high relief by the fact that we have a black president. And the fact that we do have a black president is a good indication that this "fatal flaw" in our country is working itself out slowly, on a cultural level. Just the fact that overt racist attitudes are driven to outliers and extremists, while the more subtle, internalized attitudes are forced to justify themselves in other kinds of language and arguments ("elitist" "professor" "socialist") is progress of a sort. I was actually very moved when Obama was first elected--it felt like a true cultural triumph to see a black person swear the oath of office for the President of the United States. I honestly didn't think I'd see it in my lifetime.

>43 southernbooklady:
I don't think that the attitude taken by the Right is a conspiracy either. In fact, many of those who are displaying racism would probably not even realize what it is they are doing....which again, makes it worse.

"The hostility displayed towards Hilary Clinton (and Sarah Palin, for that matter)"

Yes ! The first woman president will have a difficult time. Pehaps harder than Obama. Ms Palin however, did not do herself a favor by posing for a picture in shorty shorts toting a hunting rifle. It is difficult enough for women when they reach a position of power to gain respect....using sexuality rather than brains or ability sets women back rather than promoting them.
Ms Palin was pourly treated by everyone. She was being used by a political party, made up of primarly white men, for political gain. I don't think Hillary is "used" by anyone. A stark difference in womanhood !

"I was actually very moved when Obama was first elected--it felt like a true cultural triumph to see a black person swear the oath of office for the President of the United States"

As I was ! Felt that we, as a people, had accomplished something that would speak volumes about who we were. Unfortunately the next day I saw the neighbors flag flying upside down. Kind of realized that people were not going to all feel the same. The fact that it has hampered Obama's ability to do his job should tell us that we have a way to go to be as integrated as we think we are.
We haven't had a woman president nor have we had a president who wasn't a Christian. In all reality, neither of these issues should be an issue.

#43--I think it was obvious right off the bat that Palin wasn't up to speed--or even close. Not necessarily a problem if talking about an ordinary person with geography issues--just for an instance. There's loads of people who could look all day long through an Atlas and not remember where Greece was/is. Hilary on the other hand is more than up to speed. I have a distaste for the Clinton's though--maybe not Chelsea. Why McCain picked Palin is a question and I think his intention was cynically driven more than anything and his campaign team certainly didn't vet her as she was much further right in her positions than McCain which all in all didn't help his campaign. And basically the flack that Sarah took--well a lot of it seemed deserving to me--as almost from the get go she was flaunting herself IMO--comments such as 'lipstick on a pig' repeated ad nauseum--emasculating remarks aimed at male politicians on the other side. Hamming it up with all her outfits. Looking back at it now seriously I'd have to consider hers a circus act.

Apart from that I agree almost entirely with your statement. Politics in this country are basically the domain of fat, white, arrogant--'I'm superior' thinking males. Business as well and religion too. As far as the glass ceiling though I have to admit that I don't really care about the opportunities presented to anybody--whether gender, racial or whatever because basically I don't trust people who rise to those kind of lofty heights any further than I'd be able to throw them. From my own experience generally people who get that high have got there by throwing other people under the bus. Their ambition more important than sympathy or respect.

Well, it certainly wasn't my intention to sound supportive of Sarah Palin. The woman is a card-carrying member of the Donald Trump School of Politics and deserved everything thrown at her for her general ignorance of how to actually run a country.

But the women in the last election -- even those peripherally involved, like Michele Obama -- came in for a ridiculous amount of completely irrational hostility. And while people may have scoffed at Palin, they positively frothed at the idea of Hilary Clinton, president. It was bizarre, really.

So here's my general rule of thumb when gauging political talk: if it's all about the person, not the policies, I don't trust the argument. Calling people names is a sure way to make me not take you seriously. So it is pointless for a teapartier to tell me that Obama is elitist, or a Democrat to insist that Romney "looks plastic." All that does is make me doubt the person's ability to make a rational judgment about the people or the issues involved.

Instead, I look at actions and track records and try to assess the candidate's priorities from what they've done, rather than what they say. Which is why I'm voting for Obama. He's disappointed me on some things, but not on most of the big things.

Re: someone's comment…

I too was glad to see a black president, and I am a conservative Republican. I'm glad that it was someone of character and dignity (for a politician) like Obama and not Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Obama doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would cheat on his wife, which is common in politics.

As John McCain said when he debated him, "this is a good man, this is a family man…"

But you all thought McCain was a racist, nazi, so…

>47 barney67:
"But you all thought McCain was a racist, nazi, so…"

Why would you say that ? I never heard anything like that said about McCain.....Palin yes, McCain not so much.

"As John McCain said when he debated him, "this is a good man, this is a family man…"

I believe John McCain said this at a town hall meeting where an elderly lady told Mr McCain that she was afraid of Obama because he was a Muslim terrorist. An idea the lady probably picked up on from Ms Palin.

#46--Really didn't think you were. IMO if McCain had chosen Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins it would have been a much more serious choice. It wouldn't have been all about their wardrobe or what outrageous thing either were going to do or say next. The problem with both Snowe and Collins really was that they were both consider too moderate for the more fanatical. McCain was already suspect himself for that--though in my eyes his being suspect as a moderate politician is a reach. Really I look at myself as an unrepentant person of the left and Obama falls short of my standards which is pretty much why I'm going to vote for Jill Stein.

>45 lriley:

Question for you : Do you think that some individuals are better in a leadership role than others ?

I'm not too sure I understand what you mean by "lofty" heights. I would agree that both money and power are often gained by being ruthless but I don't think that is always the case. Do you look at Joe Biden as being on a "lofty height"? I think he is about as real as can be....don't believe him to be ruthless or dishonest. Nor do I think he lacks compassion.

Hillary Clinton is another issue altogether.......she probably has the potential to be ruthless but she is a woman who worked her way up.....which is more difficult than for a man AND she has stayed in a marriage that is somewhat nonconventional.....not that I care, their business what they do but it takes a certain kind of person. Ms Clinton is not a beauty queen either....maybe men don't realize how the physical appearence of a woman can dictate her success or lack there of ? Yet, I don't see Hillary as being a totally cold hearted person. The sum of the parents shows in the daughter and Chelsea has class.

All in all, I think it takes a fair amount of ego to want to be a political leader. Don't think we all have what it takes to WANT to do such a job. Just don't believe that all of them got there by being ruthless...only the one's who are covering up for something they lack.

45> ...and his campaign team certainly didn't vet her as she was much further right in her positions than McCain which all in all didn't help his campaign.

That she appealed to the right side of the Republican party is exactly why McCain picked her.

>41 faceinbook:
The words from Sarah Palin: "shuck and jive."
The analysis: Proof of racism.

The words from Matthews, Carney, and Cuomo: "shuck and jive."
The analysis: This isn't about words.

Awesome.

>47 barney67:
But you all thought McCain was a racist, nazi, so…

Well, no. My reservations were elsewhere. (About certain policies--e.g., Iraq--rather than these broader and troubling labels.)

This said, I hope my disagreement with your formulation actually demonstrates that our values are closer than you seem to suspect. That there is some common ground and common goals that we can share. And maybe do something with.

Of course, it's up to both sides.

#41: Oh please, when it was Clinton in the white house those same types were saying that Clinton was palling around with Chinese campaign donors and that he was a secret philanderer. It's all part of the same incoherent partisan rancor you're always complaining about and yet always contributing to. And you're going pretend that you stand above the muck and can point to the same crap your system has always generated and claim that any time a Republican filibusters something in Congress that's because of "racism" at work in the Capitol building? It's one big fat just-so story telling yourself that your bullshit smells better than their bullshit.

>52 Carnophile:
Again......racism is more than words it is an attitude.....Ms Palin has displayed a consistant attitude toward President Obama since she entered the race.
I used one example of Ms Palins expressions and will repeat again, the fact that there are those who do not view some of the disrespect, this President has been shown, as racism, we have a long way to go.

I don't think anyone has claimed that this is all about racism or that both sides are blameless when it comes to problems within our government. The point being made is that the disrespect is hightened and the Right has moved way far to the Right and are claiming that there is absolutely no middle ground. When the arguement is put forth that "nothing is different" than we are not going to be able to move in any direction. Having a black President is different, being in two preemptive wars is different, our economic situation is different, our need to prepare for climate change is inevitable and the fact that the White race will soon be a minority in this country is a coming reality.
It would seem that some, particularly those on the far Right, insist that, instead of dealing with all that is different today, it can be dealt with by turning back the clock. The best way to do this is to ignore what has changed and disrespect any person or idea's that may move us forward.

~55

"Ms Palin has displayed a consistant attitude toward President Obama since she entered the race."

Maybe she thinks he's a moose?

>57 lawecon:
With or without lipstick ?

My sister was bitten by a moose once...

Was the moose racing ?

"Mr Obama’s first term has been patchy. On the economy, the most powerful argument in his favour is simply that he stopped it all being a lot worse. America was in a downward economic spiral when he took over, with its banks and carmakers in deep trouble and unemployment rising at the rate of 800,000 a month. His responses—an aggressive stimulus, bailing out General Motors and Chrysler, putting the banks through a sensible stress test and forcing them to raise capital (so that they are now in much better shape than their European peers)—helped avert a Depression. That is a hard message to sell on the doorstep when growth is sluggish and jobs scarce; but it will win Mr Obama some plaudits from history, and it does from us too. . .

Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further). At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises. Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more. . .

As a result, this election offers American voters an unedifying choice. Many of The Economist’s readers, especially those who run businesses in America, may well conclude that nothing could be worse than another four years of Mr Obama. We beg to differ. For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him." http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-ob...

Thanks for posting that Theoria--that's a pretty fair assessment.

America seems to have this A/B way of thinking: that if you choose A, and it doesn't turn out absolutely PERFECT, then obviously you should have picked B. I don't know how we got to thinking that way, because it's ridiculously inefficient. The fact that the GOP has to literally pretend that the auto bailout wasn't the right choice or that killing bin Laden wasn't a big step in the fight against terrorism, (etc, etc.) demonstates this: since there's no middle ground, we literally have to be 100% for or 100% against everything all the time.

President Obama and NJ governor Chris Christie showed how silly this mentality is on Thursday by working TOGETHER instead of battling each other. What a concept! To be on the same side (as Americans) instead of opposite sides (as parties) they were able to work so much more efficiently.

Imagine what our country would be like if we woke up every day trying to get things done (regardless of who got credit for it) rather than trying to prevent our (supposed) enemies from accomplishing THEIR goals. It almost makes too much sense to actually be feasible.

62> Politics is about opposition. Governing involves compromise and cooperation. The Congressional Parties have substituted the former for the latter, which begat the Tea Party Republicans. It is telling how bad things are when a moderate business-oriented Republican (Bloomberg) fails to endorse another moderate business-oriented Republican (Romney) in favor of a Democrat (Obama).

When you're top goal is to defeat the other party, actually working with members of the other party is counter-productive.

More about who is better for business.

It's time to blow the head off the zombie lie that Republicans are better for the economy than Democrats. It just isn't so.

Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending.

He also wants to unload all the GM shares the government currently owns, while the stock price is abnormally low. This would potentially cost the government billions of lost revenue.

Gee, I wonder who would be able to pony up billions of dollars to buy artificially low auto manufacturer stock?

>55 faceinbook:
Yes, yes, you've achieved epistemic closure, congratulations.

Sure. Good points. I'm sure that the people in Guantanamo or subjected to extraordinary rendition are very worried the economy and the "what if" arguments surrounding such blather.

#68

Neither of those topics are on the table, or subject to change, regardless of who might win in November.

~70

Let's see now.

Applicant A for an advertised job comes and makes a bunch of promises at his interview. When he is an utter failure in carrying out any of his promises he excuses himself by saying "Well, you know, none of those things are on the table. I mean, they're politically impossible and any fool would know it!"

Your reaction is?

Apparently you'd accept the excuse.

I'd fire the SOB. But that isn't acceptable, is it? I mean, he's the President, and we know what that makes you.....

This election comes down to 'vote for me because the other guy will be worse and truthfully I think that Romney is worse. OTOH I don't think Obama and his broken promises deserves my vote again. I suppose that creates a dilemma but it's easily solved by not voting for either.

~71

That was my solution. I also got to resign from my second "major party" half way though the Obama deceit. That, at least, was satisfying, since I did so at Democratic Party headquarters.

70>

I'm repeating myself here, but when you say "you'd fire the SOB" you're implying that you have standards for a first-term President that obviously were not met by Mr. Obama, correct?

Okay, so I ask you, what are those standards based on? If it's past presidents, that's fine--just list 7 or 8 presidents off the top of your head who accomplished everything they said they would before the end of their first term (and list those accomplishments so we can weigh them ourselves and see if we agree on terms like "accomplishment" "completed" and "promises").

For example, Romney has "promised" that he'll "create" 12 million new jobs in his first term, yet just two weeks ago it was made public that the government expects 11. 8 million more jobs to exist by 2016 "regardless of who is president." So, would Romney be "credited" with all 12 million or just the 200,000 he would add to that number? Would Romney's "goal" have been met or would we admit that he just made his goal line up with what had already been projected?

How far could we take it? Could Romney say that his goal is to prevent China from attacking Sweden? Could he say his goal is get people to "keep texting each other"? Could he make it a goal to stop the NFL and the NHL from merging?

I'm sure there are more obvious ones that I'm not thinking of right this second...

I thought I already answered these questions. Perhaps you should reread what I already posted above rather than giving a stump speech on your philosophy that politicians really aren't responsible for anything ever.

I asked you to give me examples. I knew you didn't actually have any, but I thought I'd let you demonstrate that yourself.

#55: "Again......racism is more than words it is an attitude.....Ms Palin has displayed a consistant attitude toward President Obama since she entered the race."

What an inane definition of racism. So now anyone who speaks in opposition to the president and uses some random colloquial expression could be a racist. Sure, you say not everyone... but anyone. Sarah Palin may be a ditz, but only someone with shit for brains would think she's a racist.

... the fact that there are those who do not view some of the disrespect, this President has been shown, as racism...

Ugh... please tell me you haven't gone back to capitalizing common nouns.

~75

I am sorry about your reading problem, Jason.

Before we futher discuss the fact that some of the problems within the government today may be racist, it is perhaps important to know the meaning of what constitutes racism. According to the Random House dictionary :

Racism : 1. A belief that human races have distinctive characteristics that determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy of enforcing such asserted right. 3. a system of government and society based upon it.

Had to pause after reading this. In prior posts I have asserted that it is my belief that different ethnic groups have different strengths and weaknesses. It is still something that I believe and I would suppose that would label me as a racist as well. However, I do not find one race to be superior to another....just different. Still conclude that the when dealing with the issue of race and/or culture we can not fail to look at the differences and recognize them as such. Differences that are not superior or inferior in any way....just different. If we can't do that...we fail to overcome our "fear" of that which is different. The first thing a marriage counselor will do is have couples recognize the difference as to how men and women approach issues, neither being wrong, just different. Without compromise for those differences, couples are bound to fail. Why would race/culture be any different ? The only reason I can see for NOT recognizing our differences would be if we felt we were all the same...and when we find that we are not indeed the same, we get upset because of course....THEIR way is not the CORRECT way. Racism.

In other words....it really doesn't matter what one "says" or doesn't say.....racism is a belief. Often how we express ourselves is a reflection of what we believe but not always. We may copy something being said without realizing the implecations or we may be silent on a subject while harboring a very strong belief about that issue.

When looking at today's political climate, I guess we can not be certain who amongst our lawmakers are truly racist. What does seem apparent is the fact that some of those in office and some inspiring to get into office are using words that touch on the racism of the under educated, "fear" based population. I'm not so certain this is any better than being an out and out racist.

>77 lawecon: Lawecon....if so many people have problems reading and understanding your posts, maybe it would be wise to look at how you word them ?

list 7 or 8 presidents off the top of your head who accomplished
everything they said they would before the end of their first term

Obama was knocked back 80% of the time by filibuster,
the next most use of that method was 8% in the 60's.

77>

It's a good thing you're not a politician. You would be in Cleveland telling the crowd that you refuse to explain your position because you just explained it yesterday in Cincinnati.

~80

"It's a good thing you're not a politician. "

Yes it is. That means that there is one less lying scumbag deceiving fools.

#78: In prior posts I have asserted that it is my belief that different ethnic groups have different strengths and weaknesses.

This is not borne out by any evidence. Certainly, when it comes to health issues, different ethnicities carry their own batch of health risks. But typically when someone spouts this bullshit about races having different "strengths and weaknesses," they're talking about things like intelligence or athleticism. The evidence we have suggests intra-group differences are greater than any supposed inter-group differences meaning that "race" is not the indicator of "strengths and weaknesses" you seem to think it is. Borderline racist? Maybe not. But definitely among the stupid shit that old people believe.

I'm not so certain this is any better than being an out and out racist.

If it means we don't have to listen to the boy who cried "Racist!" every time anyone doesn't suck the cock of their favorite murderer-in-chief, yes, it would be much better.

#79: Obama was knocked back 80% of the time by filibuster

There have been no filibusters during the Obama administration that I am aware of. That's just something the Democrats pulled out of their ass. A real filibuster is when a congress member holds the floor until forced off the floor by a cloture vote. What the Democrats have been doing is pretending that you need to have a cloture vote to move forward any time someone raises their hand in objection to the actual vote regardless of whether the objectioner actually tries to hold the floor or not. This kind of bullshit works wonders at feeding the persecution complex of the Dem's ignorant constituents.

>81 lawecon:
"Yes it is. That means that there is one less lying scumbag deceiving fools."

I know you are good with words but....you might want to read that over again.

82> A real filibuster is when a congress member holds the floor until forced off the floor by a cloture vote.

That hasn't been what a filibuster is for many years.

>84 jjwilson61:
Now they just threaten to filibuster. And go home.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/tom-harkin-looks-to-courts-to-reform-...

Harry Reid mentioned that his first order of business should he return as the Majority Leader will be to eliminate the filibuster. I'm not sure I agree, but many are talking that way.

>86 geneg:
According to the information in the link, Harry Reid didn't have much interest in changing it a while back. Would be nice if a filibuster was a filibuster and not just a threat. Would have to be really important for our current lawmakers to actually dedicate themselves whole heartedly to accomplish what ,they believe in rather than sticking to an agenda they use to get themselves back into office.

There's nothing wrong with the filibuster, but Senators should be forced to remain on the floor of the Senate and to speak continuously through its duration.

It would certainly reduce the number of filibusters, what with most of the representatives being elderly and what with important tee times and all.

>88 theoria: & > 89 Agree !

The is from the Report the Republicans Don't Want You to See. This is a PDF of a govt report so it's going to be long and detailed. Keep in mind, also, there's nothing new in here, we've known this for a long time, but this report gathers all the evidence in one place, presents it and arrives at the following conclusion:

There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced.

When the cognitive dissonance gets too much Republicans just stick their fingers in their ears, shut their eyes, and go "neener-neener-neener. I can't hear you. I can't see you. Neener-neener-neener." Just like the twelve year olds they are. Facts just make the factually challenged nervous and uncomfortable, as if there is something going on, but they just can't grasp it. Anyway, this is more evidence that the Republicans don't know jack shit about the economy, how it works or what it does.

~88

"There's nothing wrong with the filibuster, but Senators should be forced to remain on the floor of the Senate and to speak continuously through its duration."

Well, there is, of course, a great deal wrong with the filibuster. It is merely a tactic used to impede a legislature from doing its job of concluding debate on a measure and bringing it to a vote. It originated in the notion that a Senator was a man of honor who was entitled to speak and have other people listen to what he had to say. Obviously, the premise is no longer true, and thus the practice resulting from that premise should be abolished.

#84: Two years isn't a long time since Bernie Sanders filibustered for 8 and a half hours. Members of congress know a what a real filibuster is. It just happens to serve the political interests of both sides to have such a lax definition. Republicans can pretend they stood up to The Man by putting in their token filibusters and Democrats get to play the victim card over nothing. And voters on both sides eat it up like a bunch of idiots.

I suppose I have a flippant attitude about the filibuster. Sometimes the accomplishment of legislation passed is like a cure being worse than the disease. Is gridlock always bad? I don't think so. As far as Senators rattling on inanely for hours and hours--most people aren't watching anyway.

>94 lriley:
Would seem to me that gridlock due to differences in priniciple could possibly force a compromise....which is a good thing. Gridlock for the sake of gridlock is counter productive. Senators rattling on until a compromise is forced is not such a bad thing, when you can stop governing by "threatening" to rattle on makes it far to easy.

93> Are you talking about how the rule on filibusters could be changed with a majority vote since its just a rule of that legislative body? (Although couldn't that vote be blocked by a filibuster?). Or are you saying that you want to go back to the form where the Senator has to talk through the whole thing?

~94

I see a difference between a position that says "The filibuster is a part of the normal and desirable functioning of a legislative institution." and one that says "A legislature functions best when it is not functioning." But apparently that is just me.

#95--I don't know how many times you have actually sat down to watch hours of some legislation being debated. C-span does a pretty good job--keeping in mind that entertainment value is almost always extremely low even if what they're arguing about is going to affect your life in some personal or economic way which most legislation will--however marginal. The point is generally if passed it comes down to a compromise of two different solutions. The point I'm making is sometimes neither solution is going to be good for you (or me) nor will be the compromise. Throwing aside for the moment 'democratic' principles--that those debating are the proxies of the 'people' of their respective states working for 'us' and not really some fucking oil company or pharmaceutical multinational--sometimes gridlock can be a good thing.

#97--I did say I was flippant. But basically I start with the premise that legislatures at least are somewhat dysfunctional and go from there.

>98 lriley:

So the gridlock that has marked the past four years is a "good thing" ? If the gridlock is taking place because the lawmakers are doing their job...yes, I would agree. If there is an imposed gridlock on a President because the losing party are sore losers and want to gain back the top seat, I don't agree at all. I get the feeling that much of the past year has been due to the second reason and not the first as most often a compromise was made BEFORE the threat of the filibuster.

#99--I wasn't just talking about the past 4 years--there is a historical perspective and I can tell you that this is not the first time that a presidential administration from either party has run into a hostile senate from the other party. Clinton by the way (who I detest) was very good at running circles around congress--twisting arms when he wanted something. So to me it's not just a matter of 'they hate Obama'. It's up to him to find a way if it's important enough.

To continue--at least in my own view the idea of a representative government doing 'the people's work' or representing 'the people's will' in this fair land of ours is not even close to a reality. To start at least half of those who vote are voting because they hate one of the two parties or the other. They're not really voting for anything other than they're voting for the good guys and your Senators and your representative in congress know this unless they're complete imbeciles. Some people may have 3 or 4 issues they really feel strongly about--a lot of these feelings are based more on sentiment/or some fucking thing they believe they believe (I know I said they believe they believe) than they are on anything logical (they could fairly supposition) let alone they could prove it. Over the course of any given year we are talking about many more than 3 or 4 issues and in any case more often than not those 3 or 4 issues have really been decided upon and left to rot where they are a long time before. The electorate are a long, long ways behind as far as savvy in how the political process works than the elected and if you're wondering why this country is building it's own elite/aristocracy controlling the wealth and politics/law--what's right, what's wrong--this is how I would explain it.

In my own view the only way forward is to get your head around many issues--and if the candidate you vote for wins because you think he/she is more than less on the same page as your are--then then you must hold them accountable to the words they've said. If they try but fail that is one thing--half hearted efforts though don't cut it. Neither does new knowledge cut it if it isn't transparent enough for you to see why. Maybe this will help to explain why it's Jill Stein for me this election and not Obama.

#96: I'm saying that instead of bitching about imaginary filibusters the Dems could (if they were serious), call the Republican's bluff. But they won't because they have more to gain from telling their supporters about how it was the Republicans who spoiled everything.

~100

"In my own view the only way forward is to get your head around many issues--and if the candidate you vote for wins because you think he/she is more than less on the same page as your are--then then you must hold them accountable to the words they've said."

Once again, it is the fault of the lied to rather than the liar. And how would you suggest that you hold an officeholder accountable for not keeping his promises? Perhaps you can hope that his opponent the next time is "less bad" than he is? (Or at least sounds better.)

What absurd grade school civics !! (See, teacher, I've learned not to say "grammar school," since "that is an anachronism" ;-).)

" If they try but fail that is one thing--half hearted efforts though don't cut it. Neither does new knowledge cut it if it isn't transparent enough for you to see why. Maybe this will help to explain why it's Jill Stein for me this election and not Obama."

Who the heck is Jill Stein?

>102 lawecon:

"Who the heck is Jill Stein?"

The candidate Iriley is voting for.

Dang, and to think I had to vote for Porky Pig. Of course, I did like his slogan: "He is the only one to admit he's a pig."

I prefer Alfred E. Newman's slogan: "You can do worse; and always have!"