patrick.net

The poll indicates most people don't know anything about history before they were born. Aside from that, it's true the 80's and 90's were the best of times, and from 2000 and beyond, we've had nothing but shit.
It's also interesting to note, each of the two periods of time had a democrat and a republican in charge?
1980-2000, Reagan and Clinton
2000-present, Bush and Obama

indigenous says

One of the reasons we've had so much difficulty this time is Republicans REFUSE to allow Obama the same remedy as Reagan:

Nope. Incorrect interpretation. The reason things aren't getting done is because about 1.2 nanoseconds after Obama was elected the entire GOP decided to act like 2 year olds and throw a tantrum: They simply have refused to do ANYTHING that is even remotely close to being a compromise.

Want a perfect example? That immigration bill everyone's making a big stink about: The senate passed the bill over a year ago. The only thing left is for the House to vote on it. Note I didn't say PASS it, but simply VOTE. Yes or no. Yet the GOP has refused to even do that. And hence why Obama is taking executive action.

If anything the GOP has succeeded in doing what they sat out to do from the very start of the Obama admin: To do nothing, totally freeze politics in Washington, and therefore lower the public's opinion of politics in general. Yes: They were totally willing and wound up ruining their own poll numbers rather than act like adults and do their jobs.

Reagan NEVER had the level of non-action from the Democrats. SO its a bit unfair to claim he was such a grreat president when he had at least a functioning government to work with...

indigenous says

However Obama has cast legislation that will probably kill this country.

yup. Just like most debates on this site, when one person doesn't have a point, try and wiggle out of it by making some outlandish statement that lacks any concrete proof or is totally devoid of fact.

Interesting because as I mentioned above Obama has had to clean up a legacy of crap created by Bush.

sbh says

They will do the same thing with Hillary.

And on that same note if somehow the GOP manages to find a halfway sane candidate and actually wins in 2016 the Democrats are probably going to treat the GOP the same way they got treated: By doing nothing. That would be every bit as bad as what Obama's admin has had to deal with and bad for the country.

edvard2 says

making some outlandish statement that lacks any concrete proof or is totally devoid of fact.

If you do not believe that the ACA and Frank Dodd are not going to sink this country you have not studied the history of these types of measures and the inevitable increase in cost. This has been true with Social Security and has been true with Medicare and it WILL be true with the the ACA.

If you doubt this go look at the easily found facts for yourself, I'm not your servant.

zzyzzx says

Thirty-five percent of voters said Ronald Reagan was the best president since World War II, receiving nearly twice as many votes as any other former president.

So, there's sampling bias?

"Survey was conducted at a Bagger convention of unborn fetuses"

Hey Kid do you like Obama?

No surprise.
And not really Obama's fault. This is the fault of the media driven reality game tv shows which herded the sheepans and sheepettes to the polls with the belief that they too could become a real life part of history by voting for the first black candidate for president, never mind that his experience level came nowhere close to the job requirements...

zzyzzx says

Obama worst president since WWII

It's the liberal establishment's fault for hyperventilating to their hussys that they, too! could become a part of history by voting for a black man, never mind the extremely limited experience level...

zzyzzx says

lakermania says

how does Carter only get 8% of the vote for the worst

It's all Obama's fault!!!

Call it Crazy says

At least Carter gave us peanuts.... We haven't got squat from O-Boy...

Well some people did get Obamaphones..

Typical liberal tactic, they can't defend Obama's abysmal performance, so they attack Reagan.

So has anybody actually seen what the questions in this poll were and how they were asked? The results can skew easily with the "right" emphasis.

I would rely far more on a poll such as this one:

http://hnn.us/article/48916

Historians pay a little more attention to the details, and their opinion about G.W.Bush was remarkably consistent.

How soon we forget.

indigenous says

If you do not believe that the ACA and Frank Dodd are not going to sink this country you have not studied the history of these types of measures and the inevitable increase in cost. This has been true with Social Security and has been true with Medicare and it WILL be true with the the ACA.

Most people who today rail against the ACA are also the exact same people who cry like 2 year olds whenever any mention is given as to adjusting Medicare and Social Security. Those programs were also equally chastised by the GOP when they were introduced almost 50 years ago.

We've had this conversation before, but it always comes down to simple mathematics. The problem is that people would rather insist on unrealistic ideological solutions rather than economic ones. The problem today is that we have a frozen political system whereas any and all new spending is not met by anything remotely close to the economic support it deserves. Namely- taxation. The GOP's insistence on never-ever raising taxes and at the same time insisting on a lop-sided tax system which cuts taxes unfairly for the largest source of that taxable income is the main reason why many of this country's programs are grossly underfunded. Ironically its the GOP who then whines and complains about spending because they seem to be incapable of understanding that when you starve the government of funds then naturally that creates a deficit. I'm not even talking about the creation of new programs. I'm talking about existing systems that in some cases have been in place for generations.

Where am I going with this? Name me the biggest problem with programs like the ACA, Medicare and Social Security. Actually nevermind. The problem is that they cost money. So naturally I fail to see why there is this huge surprise in the GOP that somehow these programs are sometimes running in the red while at the same time they continually demand tax cuts and won't consider any other newer forms of taxable revenue.

What the GOP is basically doing is trying to run the country as if it can mysteriously function without basic economic principles: the cost of everything goes up over time. Naturally that means the cost of government programs also goes up.

The one and only thing that the GOP claims about taxes is that they "Hurt businesses and the middle class". But the reality of the situation is that its just as bad to NOT raise taxes because that in turn creates equally bad problems. The difference is that the GOP claims "X" "Will" happen when in fact negative side effects from their tax policies are happening as we speak. There has to be a compromise.

Lastly, you want to know what's ironic? Guess which countries in the world are ranked highest in overall happiness and contentedness? -Almost entirely those countries which have strong, affordable, and universal access to healthcare, education, and retirement security. Countries like Costa Rica ( ironically I've met my fair share of conservatives who plan to move there ) where as a citizen you have access to free healthcare, college education and decent retirement security. These things of course cost money and on a per-capita basis taxes there are more costly. The right would like you and I to believe that this scenario would make us all a bunch of communists. Its time to put that aside because just because your government makes your life easier doesn't mean its automatically a communist government. I visited Costa Rica last year. Sorry, but they are not in the slightest a communist country.

Perhaps a few conservatives could learn a thing or two by actually traveling to some of the countries where government programs aren't sneered at. Maybe, just maybe they would see right then and there that the bullshit they've been spoon-fed- which is this absurd belief any and all social programs are automatically bad.

The poll numbers do not look good anyway that you want to slice it or dress it.........................

The Professor says

Don't try to fight with a duck. You'll run around in circles and end up with poop on your shoes.

I'm sad for the people of this country. So easily controlled and manipulated. The whole liberal vs conservative is such a crock. There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties when it comes to major national policy. Obama got elected because he promised to get us out of Iraq- but then he held on to Gates as secretary of defense.

Great article by Charles Hugh Smith talking about the last 2 presidents and the damage they've caused. http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjune14/destructive-policies6-14.html
ACA = Medicare Part D
Bush = Obama
Iraq = Afghanistan
Tarp I = Tarp II
Dem = Rep

don't be a sheep, turn off Fox and CNN and think for yourself

FamilyForce6 says

The whole liberal vs conservative is such a crock.

I would consider it to be a more R vs D thing. Both ignore the real issues.

Great article, true how ignorant we are to foreign policy. But what he does not mention is the influence of defense contractors, which in my mind is the real catalyst to wars.

FamilyForce6 says

I'm sad for the people of this country. So easily controlled and manipulated.

Let me take a wild guess: People in this country are very easily controlled and manipulated, but lo and behold what that really meant was that of course that couldn't possibly include you because you surely have no real opinion about the matter.

Let me say that I for one feel so very humbled about that. I will make sure next time whenever any sort of debate which happens to have one point of view versus another to not state anything really useful other than to claim both opinions are dumb and thus automatically position myself as "being above" it all. Ingenious!

edvard2 says

Most people who today rail against the ACA are also the exact same people who cry like 2 year olds whenever any mention is given as to adjusting Medicare and Social Security.

True

edvard2 says

The problem today is that we have a frozen political system whereas any and all new spending is not met by anything remotely close to the economic support it deserves.

This is just economic illiteracy. It is not only math but the corruption and cronyism and politicians seeking votes, that causes the problems.

edvard2 says

The problem is that they cost money.

And at a ever increasing amount. 1/3 of the budget is paid for with borrowed money. Do you propose increasing the taxes by 1/3? If this were the case the ONLY economic activity would be government spending using counterfeit money. IOW we are already the largest centralized government in history, economics do not work this way.

Sweden is the usual model held up by you liberals. The country has only been doing well recently largely because they are mostly free market, not a socialist country that you claim it to be.

edvard2 says

Ingenious!

No it is indigenous!

FamilyForce6 says

I'm sad for the people of this country. So easily controlled and manipulated. The whole liberal vs conservative is such a crock. There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties when it comes to major national policy. Obama got elected because he promised to get us out of Iraq- but then he held on to Gates as secretary of defense.

Great article by Charles Hugh Smith talking about the last 2 presidents and the damage they've caused. http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjune14/destructive-policies6-14.html
ACA = Medicare Part D
Bush = Obama
Iraq = Afghanistan
Tarp I = Tarp II
Dem = Rep

don't be a sheep, turn off Fox and CNN and think for yourself

Correct, all of the fighting that is going on how the Dems screwed us or it's the Reps fault is doing none of us a favor...........The media has compounded the issue greatly.

edvard2 says

The GOP's insistence on never-ever raising taxes and at the same time insisting on a lop-sided tax system which cuts taxes unfairly for the largest source of that taxable income is the main reason why many of this country's programs are grossly underfunded.

And yet it is the GOP that would prefer to simplify the tax system, lower the marginal rates while eliminating many dedictions, that in the end, would impact the wealthy more than anyone else... Nope, can't have that... We must have high rates AND lots of special dedications for special interests (but talk about only the special deductions we can blame on Republicans) in order to maintain more control.

edvard2 says

FamilyForce6 says

I'm sad for the people of this country. So easily controlled and manipulated.

Let me take a wild guess: People in this country are very easily controlled and manipulated, but lo and behold what that really meant was that of course that couldn't possibly include you because you surely have no real opinion about the matter.

Let me say that I for one feel so very humbled about that. I will make sure next time whenever any sort of debate which happens to have one point of view versus another to not state anything really useful other than to claim both opinions are dumb and thus automatically position myself as "being above" it all. Ingenious!

I have no illusions that I'm "above it all". I recognize that socialization and public school education have programmed my behavior and thinking. I am no better than anyone else, and no one else is better than me. I was being honest when I said it makes me sad and my heart hurts for the people in this country who are injured and affected by crony capitalism and fascism.

I'm also not above intellectually honest discussions. My point is that when discussions don't rise above the level of "Obama is ruining the US with the ACA" or "Bush enriched his wall street and defense contractor buddies with war and bailouts" is that people are often being intellectually dishonest. You don't like the ACA? How much did you howl and scream at Bush and the Republican controlled congress at the passage of the biggest corporate wellfare scheme in the history of county? (Medicare part D) Or if you bash Bush for catering to Wall Street and enriching the top 1% (actually the top .1% has done REALLY well over the last 10 years), why not rip Obama for re-confirming Bernanke as Fed chairman and pushing through Tarp II? But people can't see past their Red or Blue colored glasses that we've all been had by the crooks in Washington and the corporations they're beholden to.

Paralithodes says

And yet it is the GOP that would prefer to simplify the tax system, lower the marginal rates while eliminating many dedictions, that in the end, would impact the wealthy more than anyone else

lol--that is highly debatable...

tatupu70 says

lol--that is highly debatable...

LOL.. Another tatupo tautology... It's all "debatable" but thanks for the valuable observation.

Paralithodes says

LOL.. Another tatupo tautology... It's all "debatable" but thanks for the valuable observation.

Just pointing out that much of what you pretend is fact, is actually your (very suspect) opinion.

The GOP tax plan would help the wealthy, just like all previous GOP tax plans.

tatupu70 says

The GOP tax plan would help the wealthy, just like all previous GOP tax plans.

Given your unstated premise - specifically, that it would help the wealthy at the direct expense of all others ....

lol--that is highly debatable...

Paralithodes says

Given your unstated premise - specifically, that it would help the wealthy at the direct expense of all others ....

lol--that is highly debatable...

Please read below, math of Camp's plan. I posted this in February:

Is the plan revenue neutral? Details are emerging, but the answer cannot be "yes" while cutting tax rates at the top unless taxes are increased elsewhere.

Elimination of write off from State and local taxes while doubling the standard deduction to $22,000? This effectively removes the mortgage interest deduction as well.

Very few other itemized deductions large enough besides taxes paid and mortgage, therefore mortgage interest would have to exceed at least $15-17k to exceed the standard deduction. (assuming at most 5-7k in other itemized deductions)

At 4%, that means a mortgage balance of $375k. At 80% LTV, home value would be ~$470k. About twice the median home.

Effective capital gains tax rate increase from 23.8% to 24.8% for ultra-rich? Yawn. This will most likely be offset by the reduction in their ordinary income rate from 39.6% to 25%.

i.e. if 90% of your income is taxed 1% higher but 10% of your income is taxed 14.6% lower, .9% increase offset by 1.46% decrease. In order to pay more under this plan, the "mix" of income must be greater than about 93.5% capital gains and 6.5% ordinary income.

Anytime you see a reduction in the EIC, you know who is going to have an increased tax burden. With the EIC the working poor have an effective negative tax rate. You could make the standard deduction $100k, but you are never going to get a negative tax rate through deductions.

Lets look at a median income family of 4. $55k income, $100k mortgage balance, 6% state income tax rate, 1.5% property tax rate.

Under Camp's plan, this family would have standard deduction of $22k, taxable income of $33k and a tax rate of 10%, so taxes due $3300, less 2*$1500 child tax credits, taxes of $300.

Currently, this family has 4*personal exemptions ($3900) = $15,600. They have $4k in mortgage interest, $1.7k in property taxes, and $3600 in state income taxes. They take the standard deduction of $12,200 since it is greater. So $55k - $15.6k - $12.2k = $27,200 in taxable income. They pay $1,785 plus 15% of (27,200-17,850) = 1402+1785. Total 3187 less $2k in child tax credits, taxes of $1187. Plus they get EIC of $4455. This median family would get a refund of $3268.

Current law, they have net tax rate of -5.9%. Camp's plan would have a median income family of 4 PAY .5%. Effectively, the tax rate for a median income family of 4 would increase 6.4%.

control point says

Please read below, math of Camp's plan. I posted this in February:

I've read several different things, going back a few years. Some arguments against plans such as this either made specific but unfounded assumptions, or ignored other items ... according to other things I've read. Camp's plan has not been the only plan, and will not be the only plan ever proposed.

Conceptually, is it better to have a more simple tax system with fewer deductions than one with all sorts of special deductions that can be easily prone to manipulation for special interests? That's what some support.

Meanwhile... Getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction? Great idea!

Paralithodes says

I've read several different things, going back a few years. Some arguments against plans such as this either made specific but unfounded assumptions, or ignored other items ... according to other things I've read. Camp's plan has not been the only plan, and will not be the only plan ever proposed.

Camp's plan specifically:

1. Eliminated the EIC

Since I can assure you under current law, a median family of 4 with median income of $55k will get a refund due to the EIC, and it is not possible to get a refund under Camp's plan since it does not have and EIC, their taxes are going up. The only way to get a refund under his plan to have more children, which would give them a refund of $1500 per child.

Under the EIC, the refund would grow too.

All I am saying is the details released by Camp's camp on this specific plan, for this specific median income family of 4, would increase their taxes.

Meanwhile, a single capitalist that derives his income 90% from investments and 10% from working - his taxes would go down.

This is an indisputable fact. Respond to it or retract your "simplifying the tax system would impact the wealthy more than anyone else" statement.

Come up with any example of tax system simplification that would benefit the poor at the expense of the wealthy.

control point says

Camp's plan specifically

Camp's plan, specifically, is Camp's plan specifically. There may be parts of it that I may agree with, and parts of it that I may agree with you on, upon further inspection. There may be other plans worth considering as well, as there have been over the years. If you want to get into a discussion about all of the details of one specific plan at one specific point in time, which has zero probability of passing anytime soon, and like all legislation would likely look different at the end anyway even if it could come close to passing, then start a different thread.

Otherwise, discussion of the details of one particular, imperfect proposal among many over time does not invalidate the concept of a more simplified scheme with fewer deductions. Nor does discussion of Camp's plan in particular mean that any cuts in taxes to the wealthy, in any case, always come at the expense of the poor.

Paralithodes says

Nor does discussion of Camp's plan in particular mean that any cuts in taxes to the wealthy, in any case, always come at the expense of the poor

If a plan is revenue neutral, and if you cut taxes on the wealthy - by math, the equalization must come from the "not wealthy."

Paralithodes says

Otherwise, discussion of the details of one particular, imperfect proposal among many over time does not invalidate the concept of a more simplified scheme with fewer deductions.

Fair. So give me an example of one simplified plan, that is revenue neutral, that will increase the tax burden on the wealthy by lowering taxes on the not wealthy.

But the "expand the base" Romney camp is always shifting burden from the wealthy to the not wealthy.

Like I said, give an example or retract your statement.

control point says

If a plan is revenue neutral, and if you cut taxes on the wealthy - by math, the equalization must come from the "not wealthy."

IF a plan is revenue neutral And IF you cut taxes on the wealthy... Both assumptions that *I* didn't argue. On the contrary, I said:

Paralithodes says

lower the marginal rates while eliminating many dedictions, that in the end, would impact the wealthy more than anyone else...

Instead of retract, I restate, because I should have been more clear: "impact the wealthy more than anyone else.." was refering to deductions. In other words, a plan by which the the net result was the "wealthy" as a group were paying a similar proportion as they are paying now (some of them would pay more). YES, there are Republicans who have proposed this very concept. The news media tried to call them on this, accusing them of calling for raising taxes. THAT is indisputable.

control point says

This is an indisputable fact. Respond to it or retract your "simplifying the tax system would impact the wealthy more than anyone else" statement.

Retract your misquoting of my statement, in which you - for whatever reasons - remove my entire clause about deductions. If you are going to quote someone yet leave out part of what they write, using a "..." would be a more honest approach than directly misquoting them. You may have an indisputable fact about the Camp plan - I don't know enough to dispute your fact about that specific plan. I'm not interested in discussing that specific plan.

control point says

Like I said, give an example or retract your statement.

No, you said to respond to your indisputable fact about a specific plan, or retract my statement. You did not say, give an example of a different plan, or retract my statement. First an intentional misquote, and then changing your demands... Want a specific debate about specific details of specific plans? Start another thread for those interested.

Meanwhile, why do you prefer high rates, with lots of special deductables and carveouts? Why do you prefer things to be more complicated? For better political manipulation and control by your side, or some other reason?

That's why we need tea party, get rid of most big government out there.

zzyzzx says

A plurality of voters think Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II

That should read:

"A plurality of voters think Barack Obama is the most recent president since World War II"

Republicans have ALWAYS been the "business" party, and by that I mean big business - small business doesn't exist for them because they don't make bribes, er, campaign contributions. They will ALWAYS propose tax increases on the working class and a tax reduction on their pals' billion-dollar incomes.

Democrats aren't much better, but they do some things for the working class such as the ACA, that will be remembered, when all the failed foreign policy of empire is forgotten.

indigenous says

The point is that as the tax rate is lowered the government revenue is increased.

Ok Barney?

Tax revenue has been between 30% and 34% of GDP since 1980. Where is the point that it increased at? Let's see, Reagan tax cuts, drop from 33% to 30% then slowly growing back to 32% over 12 years. Clinton tax increase raise from 32% to 34%. Bush tax cut, drop from 34% to 30% then bounce to 33% with the housing boom then down to 28% with the crash. Slowly rising back to 33% over the next 6 years.

Yep those tax cuts sure made the money roll in. Do you ever read anything other than standard republican dogma?

bob2356 says

Yep those tax cuts sure made the money roll in. Do you ever read anything other than standard republican dogma?

Go fetch some real numbers not a percentage of a growing GDP.

bob2356 says

Yep those tax cuts sure made the money roll in. Do you ever read anything other than standard republican dogma?

Ignore list should be a pretty high bar, but "supply sider" is a shit-colored stain on the wall well above that bar.

sbh says

But, but, but there's this 700 page book.

Listen hear you illiterate tree fucker. I'm not a Republican. I have done my due diligence on this subject. It is a known and accepted fact that lower taxes increases revenue. If nothing else when the highest marginal tax rate is 70% people are going to spend more time avoiding or evading them. But the real reason is that the money gets invested into the business. That is the ONE driving factor in business growth which occurs in small business.