This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Monday, September 17, 2012

VENT PAGE LV ....Slow down, America!

 Our 55th Vent Page...and 55 puts me in mind of the nationally mandated, "to hell with the states, we know what's best for you",  55 MPH speed limit which was  the administration's answer then to the gas crisis! Pictured at right is Jimmy Carter who, up until the past year or so, was generally considered the worst US president of the post WW2 era!

Gasoline is nearing $4.00 a gallon. What will THIS administration try?

Whenever the number of posts on a vent page make it cumbersome to navigate, a new vent page is started. This is number FIFTY-FIVE in our series!

VENT PAGES are handy for posting of off-topic posts, rants, raves, rages, etc, which might not be appropriate on other threads where adults are having serious discussions. Childish rant? Need to call another poster a name? Just feel like spouting Or even if you have something to say and there doesn't seem to be any other logical place to say it....THIS PAGE IS FOR YOU!

I am betting that those few of you who even follow this "back section" of our vent page, will have already guessed which automobile I would choose to represent 1955.
Well, I won't disappoint you ! Here is the icon auto of 1955!

This was the first post war Chevrolet to have a V-8 Engine...the 265 Cubic Inch was the beginning of the new, small block v 8 which has dominated in one form or another until today!

It was NOT however, Chevy's very first V-8! They, in fact, had a 288 Cubic Inch V-8 way, way back in 1917.

That engine, appropriately enough, developed 55 Horsepower!

74 comments:

Happily Married said...

Its the economy stupid!! Ever hear that before. With that in mind I have tried and tried to find data driven sites that truly indicate that Romney's plan will help. I have found:https://www.politify.com/election/national and http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-vs-romney-economy-2012-6 and I have yet to find an outside source that has studied the plans that indicate that Romney has a better plan. I am looking for a reliable non partial source that supports Romney and his budget plan with actual data for backup - not opinion. See also:http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/do-lower-taxes-create-more-jobs/

Anonymous said...

HM,
We have plenty of "data" and "objective information" that the current administration's plan is NOT working. Can you at least see that??? Keep looking at the trees and ignore the forest.

NewGuy said...

Can't say it any better than "Nobody" did!

Nobody said...
Unemployment still over 8%.
Median income down over $4000.
Highest % of Americans below the poverty line in 50 years.
National debt over $16 trillion with more than $1 million in new debt every minute with no significant discernable benefit.
No federal budget passed in over three years (including the last year democrats controlled both houses of Congress AND the White House).
Democrats have complete control of the federal government Obama's first two years.
Gas prices approaching $4/ gallon.
Higher overall food and energy prices (which are not a part of the government's core inflation measure).
An American ambassador murdered on the 9/11 anniversay (and the President takes off for Vegas).
Mobs attacking our embassies in several Middle Eastern states.
The President refusing to grant a meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister.
The President spends more time playing golf than meeting with his economic council.

Unless you are just a diehard liberal,how can anyone argue that Obama deserves a second term???

Happily Married said...

Anon,

Please provide that data. If you look at the unemployment rates as Obama took office, the policies have dug us out of a hole that no other president has faced in modern times: http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-job-creation-by-president-political-party/ - and instead of saying thanks, you want to point out that we are still over 8%? The median income starting tanking in the middle of 2007 - and funny how the income of the wealthy is not suffering like the rest of us. I cannot see that the current policies are not working - they might not be working as fast as you want - the hole dug was pretty deep. Keep your trees and your forest - I look at data. I ask again for sources of analysis. I bet no one can provide one.

Anonymous said...

HM said....

"I ask again for sources of analysis. I bet no one can provide one."

http://www.bls.gov/


You lose.

guy faulkes said...

HM, I have given you the solution to turning Obama's failed non-policies around. You seem to be emotionally unable to understated that if we cut taxes, cut spending,and get rid of overly restrictive regulations, the economy will improve. This has worked in the past, as when Reagan fixed Cater's mess.

I think you have become so emotionally attached to doing other wise because you have to much "ownership" in the Democrat party. I can relate. I used to be the same way about the Republicans.

Happily Married said...

Anon, I asked for a source of analysis that shows Romney's approach will improve the economy. I did not lose you simply showed me the BLS website that shows where we have been. Here is another one: http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/dow/
The stock market is doing great - up about 5000 points- so Obama's economic plans must be working. If you want stats - why is this one not accurate?

Guy - you have given me the same rhetoric Roiney's campaign has - I am looking for data analysis - you have obviously not read my info I have given or you would not be flippant about the approach. And no I am not a democrat and think both parties need a lot of work.

guy faulkes said...

You are correct that both parties need a lot of work, but incorrect about my being flippant about your sources (In my opinion they were opinion pieces. My opinion is as valid as is yours or more so as I am not emotionally connected to any financial policy. I beleive in what has historically worked.) or my quoiting Romney. I was saying the same thing long before I ever heard of Romney.

Do you really think the stock market reflects the economy? What was the feeling about the stock market a month before the crash? What will it be after the coming crash?

Anonymous said...

The price of stocks seems to be a little bit like the price of oil. Now that the dollar is worth so much less, it takes a lot more of them to buy something.

Nobody said...

HM,
Analysis of potential policies not yet in place is not "fact," it is prediction, and not guaranteed to come to fruition. You cite policy analysts like what they say is guaranteed to come true. It is not. The better course is look at history. What have been the impacts of policies in the past. Reagan, Clinton and Bush all lowered tax rates, especially capital gains rates, with phenomenal results (see this for information on Clinton lowereing capital gains and effects: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443847404577631434176518876.html ). By this time in 1984, Reagan's policies had ushered in the beginning of SIX consecutive quarters of GDP growth over 6% (a heck of a lot better than the paltry 1.5% we're seeing now). It is apparent that you are attempting to cast doubt on Romney, but I think everyone here notices how you avoid, like the bubonic plague, all discussion of Obama's economic record. And for the record, the economy of the seventies-early eighties was most likely worse than that of 2008 -- unemployment was higher and inflation was over 20%. Obama supporters like yourself always claim how much "worse" it would have been without his policies but how can one prove conclusively what WOULD have happened with different policies. You can't, and so you are unable to provide the "fact-driven" and "data-based" information you always demand. Just out of curiosity, what is your field of expertise, since you seem to project yourself an expert on everything from science (global warming) to economics?

Happily Married said...

Nobody,

I will go back to actual data:http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/do-lower-taxes-create-more-jobs/
Please note that the website is nothing but data. you point to an article in the "opinion" section and cite it as proof.
According to the data driven site, there is no past correlation between lowering taxes and creating jobs.

Two things: First, I bring up the stock market because the basic premise of lowering taxes will provide the job creators with more money to invest. Who do you think owns most of the stock. It is not the poor.

Second, my research has found sites that offer statistical analysis of the plans. Why is it that I cannot find a site that statistically favors Romney in its analysis. The only thing I could find is an article that indicated that many economists agree with the principles Romney puts out there - but did not offer data as proof. What I am asking for should not be that hard.

And by the way - "And for the record, the economy of the seventies-early eighties was most likely worse than that of 2008" According to research:
2008-2009 Recession
The worst recession since the Depression. The economy shrank in five quarters, including four quarters in a row. Two quarters shrank more than 5%, and Q2 2008 shrank a whopping 8.9%, more than any other recession since the Great Depression. The recession ended in Q3 2009, when GDP turned positive, thanks to economic stimulus spending. The recession was also the longest since the Depression, lasting 18 months.

I am at expert at some thing but just post opinion here. The one thing I do is try to back up my opinion with some fact - something most here wont do.

NewGuy said...

This Obama administration just flaunts the law whenever it suits them. Justice Department will prosecute Obama political "enemies" but not Black Panthers who violate other's voting rights at the point of a nightstick!
They refuse to enforce immigration laws; declare their own form of amnesty for groups of illegals; violate their own policies as well as the law in the "fast and furious" gun running scandal, and now the Secretary of HEW is using her official position to campaign for Obama. Supposedly, violators of the HATCH ACT are automatically fired...let's see what happens here!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/12/sebelius-violated-hatch-act-and-may-be-fired-obama-administration-lawyers-find/

Nobody said...

HM,
I and a lot of others, I think, would like to see you answer this question with a simple "Yes" or
"No." Do YOU believe that the economic policies of Obama have been successful. No qualifications, no equivocating -- just answer yes or no. It's evident to everyone with critical reading skills that you are one of many who are attempting to distract from the record of Obama with demands for "non-partisan" analysis of policy proposals of Romney. I will draw attention to the failed record of Obama, spending, debt, foreign policy, etc. every chance I get. For those that ask, "Why vote for Romney?" I will respond that I will gladly take a chance on Romney than risk another disastrous four years of Obama. If you were NEARLY as moderate and open-minded as you claim to be, you would at least OCCASIONALLY criticize Obama over something...

Happily Married said...

I criticize Obama for his continuing occupation in Afghanistan. I criticize him for his budget proposals that do not cut enough of government costs. I do not criticize him for seeking to tax the rich more. Your black and white question is simple minded and ridiculous - yes he has done some good. you cannot say - actually looking at employment stats, that the stimulus was a waste. The employment turned around immediately. Could he do better - yes - His ideas are much better than Romneys who is actually going to increase the debt and give the money to the rich. If provding the irch with more money will cause them to hire - why are they not given the stock market is up by 5000 points. Why is it that in my research i cannot find a site that shows Romney's plan will end up being better - even hypothetically. Your approach is to just Try Something New - no matter where it goes is democracy at its worst. Were you the same one that indicated you voted for amendment one just because you thought its supporters were bullys? Anyone find the references I have asked for? I did not think so.

Nobody said...

By the way, what's wrong with partisan? Read both sides of an issue, analyze for yourself and reach a conclusion. Your demand for "non-partisan" is really an attempt to get others to exclude anything YOU deem partisan, which you will therefore discount. The article I linked above was written by economists and had "factual information" and even a chart! I've glanced at your truthful politics sight. Interesting, but what it does that is lacking is just present information with little explanation. That's great in that it allows one to draw their own conclusions, but in this issue, the question of "Do Lower Taxes Create More Jobs" ONLY compares employment to tax rates. Economics is not that simple. If it were, everyone would understand it. MANY other factors can influence unemployment. Many questions are unanswered: What percentage of the population paid the top marginal rate? What is the effect of the size of the population on the overall unemployment rate? When the tax rate was at its highest point just after WW2, how much of the low unemployment could be attributed to rebuilding after the war and how much to a tax rate? Do you HONESTLY believe RAISING taxes will increase employment? Economically, how would that work? Interestingly, I did not see that question posed on the truthful politics sight. If your response is that no one proposes that higher taxes lead to job creation, doesn't THAT say something?

NewGuy said...

What data are you referring to HM, when you say that the stimulus bill had an "immediate" effect on employment?
Certainly not unemployment rates - which are about the same as when the stimulus bill was first passed.

Nobody said...

"His ideas are much better than Romneys who is actually going to increase the debt and give the money to the rich."

WOW! And there, everyone, is all we need to know. Happily Married believes that a rich person's money is NOT theirs. It is the governments. If Romney takes LESS money from the wealthy, he is GIVING them their own money. It is very apparent to me you do not understand economics, but like to place unreasonable demands that everyone provide only non-partisan, fact-based, chart-and-graph illustrated, cited posts. One cannot base their posts on their own knowledge, experiences, college economics classes, etc. to argue their point of view on this blog. This will not satisfy her! Sorry, HM, but I actually AM happily married -- I have a wife (who grows frustrated when I spend multiple hours endlessly arguing liberals who will not answer a straight question honestly), school-aged children, a full-time job, aging parents and other responsibilities. I'll tell you what I believe. I'll discuss things I learned in Macro and Micro in college. I'll share my observations and conclusions. If that's not enough and you go away thinking that linking to lots of websites with lots of pretty charts and graphs constitutes a victory, so be it. I will not sacrifice time with my children or wife, or endanger my job to satisfy your demands. You avoid answering questions you KNOW will undermine your position, so I will help. Obama is a FAILURE!!! Romney is the better choice this election cycle. Maybe he'll even act on Obama's debt commission's recommendations, something Obama didn't like himself since it recommended LOWERING EFFECTIVE TAX RATES TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.

Nobody said...

New Guy,
Great question -- there will be no data for an event that never happened. This is what liberals do -- they claim, without EVIDENCE, that things would have been worse if a different course of action had been taken. There can be "estimates" of what might have happened, but that isn't fact-based, data-driven, non-partisan or chart-illustrated.

Nobody said...

"Please note that the website is nothing but data. you point to an article in the "opinion" section and cite it as proof.
According to the data driven site, there is no past correlation between lowering taxes and creating jobs."

I like the way you placed the word opinion in quotes, as if to discredit this piece. Did you read it? It was chock full of statistics -- I invite anyone else to go and read it and see if it deserves to be tossed aside as useless because it appeared in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal. Are the facts and data cited in the piece automatically not true because they appeared in the opinion section? Will you discount the following article - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577497442109193610.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop - that also appeared in the WSJ Opinion section even though the author's are described in this way:

"The authors are senior fellows at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. They have served in various federal government policy positions in the Treasury Department, the Office of Management and Budget and the Council of Economic Advisers."

Maybe it doesn't rise to the level you personally demand.

Nobody said...

Nobel economists endorse Romney's Plan:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2012/08/16/nobel-economists-back-mitt-romneys-plan

Oops, just another opinion piece! Sorry...

"Among the economists signing on to the statement are Nobel laureates Gary Becker, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Myron Scholes. Others have received the highest honors available for their academic work, some have advised U.S. policymakers, and all are longtime champions of economic freedom. It's a serious group of people who have a major impact on the study and teaching of economics in the United States and globally and who, let it be said, know what they are talking about.

"In sum," they say, the Romney economic plan "is far superior for creating economic growth and jobs than the actions and interventions President Obama has taken or plans to take in the future."

Happily Married said...

Nobody - I referred to the exact same OPINION article and noted it was out there. Why is there not some calculator website like politify that puts it to numbers. The theories exist - but the historical data does not correlate. I have even posted this article:

If the goal is to try to cure the problem by going "cold turkey"--without any regard for the (hopefully temporary) pain, unemployment, GDP shrinkage, and increased debt, deficits, and inequality that will result from this approach--Romney is right.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-vs-romney-economy-2012-6#ixzz26m8qHbHf

My problem is no one here will acknowledge the pain and the article goes on to indicate that most americans will appreciate Obama policy more.

I ask again for data - not opinion.

Anonymous said...

I have to fill out my absentee ballot. Any suggestions on who to vote for?

Nobody said...

Are you this dense? Data can be present in an opinion piece to support the opinion. It is perfectly acceptable to use these articles. You just don't like them because they demonstrate the failures of Obama and you are fully bought in to Obama. You are not as open-minded as you like to claim. You, like me, support one side here. Unlike you, I will state for everyone here to see - I support Romney. Obama has been a failure in every respect and does not deserve a second term. I will not act like I am a moderate undecided voter and then only attack one person and support the other. Are you a member of the press?

Anonymous said...

So...you are saying Romney then?

Nobody said...

Anonymous,
I will not tell you who to vote for - I will only tell you that I personally support Romney and will argue for him. You need to decide for yourself.

H said...

Nobody i simply have to wonder why there is not some similar site to politify that supports Romneys numbers. Did you even look at politify?

Happily Married said...

I also have a huge problem with tax breaks for the rich. The wealth gap in this country keeps getting bigger and the only ones suffering are at the bottom - not the top. The stock market is up and companies are hording billions instead of investing in jobs - and Romney wants to give them more money. I just don't understand.

Anonymous said...

All those other statistics aside you two here's my new favorite.

Mitt Romney thinks he's only president of 53% of the country.

Open mouth, insert foot, and try to reach around to get that fork out of your back mitt, you are toast.

ITCM said...

Romney may have destroyed his last hope of ever winning this election after the hidden camera footage was released yesterday. He's so out of touch with reality, it's almost laughable. He should write a book that's called "How to Destroy Your Own Campaign". It's good to know that Lord Romney would still allow me, as a mere peasant, to toil my lands. Every candidate makes a few mistakes, but when you write off half of the American people like that, you can pretty much call it a night.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/17/controversial-private-fund-raiser-video-shows-candid-romney/

Happily Married said...

Nobody-

You have a very black and white approach as well - "Obama is considered a failure in every respect" - Let's see, the country was tanking when he took office and losing 700,000 jobs a month - we have 40+ straight months of employment gains, Osama is dead, dow up 5000 pints - so what part of "in every respect" were you talking about. He has not been able to accomplish bipartisanship - but I think that blaming finger points to more than just him. The economy could be doing better, but I do not believe giving rich more riches will help the middle class or reduce deficits. I support Obama because I think it is deplorable to suggest giving the wealthy more wealth. I see the actual data that showed the employment bump due to the stimulus - to deny that patently absurd. No one in this race is perfect. If you truly believ 47% of americans are victims and mooching off the country then you are elitist or deranged and just sad that you think of America like that - i would almost call it unAmerican.

guy faulkes said...

Data can be present in an opinion piece to support the opinion. - Nobody

Well said!

Everything is an opinion piece in a way. You have to back it up with supporting data. There will always be those that disagree with this data and your opinion. HM is a prime example. She sees blue when looking at red. Her opinion does not mean the data or your opinion is wrong. It only means eventually more people believe one way than the other. That is called politics.

You have to make your choice and act accordingly as to the values you place on the data. Some choices are historically logical. Some are not,

I believe this is Nobody's point.

Happily Married said...

Guy and Nobody - I took the time to investigate GDP growth by president. You remarked how the opinion piece highlighted Reagan's GDP growth. Please read the following: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/06/economic-growth-rates-presidents-party.html
It show the average GDP growth and Reagan aint on top. Teh opinion piece cited did just as you said - highlighted one positive GDP stat to provide reason to support reupb policies. If you look at the article, the data does not lie. You cannot take snippets and try to argue overall performance. If you come back and argue Repubs in congress, the article and the data also prove otherwise. I am still looking for actual data that supports Repub policy - not opinion or general support from right wing economists. By the way, my research was based simply on GDP growth per Pres - not to support dems or Obama. Funny how i could not find anything in GDP growth that puts Repub policies ahead even when I research it that way. I am still looking for your data gentlemen.

Happily Married said...

Guy -

That is not what Nobody said. Funny, I am still looking for the opposing website to Politify (which is non partisan by the way). I thought that is how politics works - both views (and data to support them) are presented to the public. I will say again - data - not opinions.

Happily Married said...

Obama's job record is also not too shabby comparatively nobody:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/18/news/economy/obama-bush-jobs/index.html?source=cnn_bin

What i do not understand is the ignorance around facts. Ig alternate facts exist - no one is presenting them.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps HM, it is because after you have tried to make the same point for the hundredth time, people quit paying attention to you?

You don't seem to want to consider any one elses opionions or facts, just the ones you want to believe. You act as if you aren't even aware that it takes appx 125,000 NEW jobs every month just to keep pace with the increasing size of the work force.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

So when i make a point that is backed up bay data ragarding policy - it gets ignored. I agree that job growth needs to increase - to say that Obama is an absolute failure is black and white thinking and simply not true. I have simply pointed out ZERO statistical significance regarding lowering taxes on the wealthy and job growth: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3756.

So you guys can keep your head in the sand or point out where I am wrong with data - not opinion. Simply saying that "I am not happy with the current situation - so let's change it regardless of which direction it takes us" is irresponsible. I am not interested in going from bad to worse.

guy faulkes said...

HM, we have pointed out where you are wrong. The problem is you cannot accept it emotionally.

Anonymous said...

You know, I was worried about the election until you guys nominated Romney. You should have nominated Huntsman, but you did'nt. Now, you have to reap what you have sown and that fruit is going to be Obama for 4 more years. And, the possibility of a coattails democratic Congress. Thanks!

Sarkazein said...

Reason for Happy to do the Happy Dance.

Less people working means less people destroying the eco-system for our grandchildren... as they may have to live outdoors.

Happily Married said...

Guy - you have NOT pointed where any of my data is wrong. You have not proven any points. I will accept any data that refutes mine - and you guys are unable to produce any. You never were on a debate team were you?

The data provided so far: over 8% unemployment - correct - although it does not negate policy actualities of less taxes = more jobs. The situation would have been worse without the stimulus (see the chart - you know - actual data) Reagan had a few good quarters of GDP - but his overall record does not compete with Dems - once again see the charts provided.

the only thing I truly have a hard time accepting is that people can be so obtuse as to deny data and so intransigent as to accept the Fox new BS that gets fed to them based on opinion and not data. Its frustrating that the country might be run by people who disregard data in favor of opinion. I do have a hard time with that emotionally. I cannot figure if 1) You are so resistant to change as to ignore analysis 2)actually more concerned about social issues than the economy such that you are unwilling to change your perspective 3) too dumb to understand that statistical analysis more signifciant than opinion 4) prejudiced about poor and minorities such that you fear anyone other than rich white guys being in power.

guy faulkes said...

HM, people are not obtuse because they disagree with your OPINION on data that you see one way and they see another and the validity of the sources you publish. They'
unlike you, realize that it is very easy to manipulate statistics to say whatever you want. We have to make our own decision about issues, including the validity of your flawed data, just as you did.

I do not know if obtuse is the correct term for your absolute refusal to allow them their opinion. Maybe emotional fanaticism or conciet would be better served as an description.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active

Happily Married said...

Guy,

Now you are indicating that my data is somehow flawed? I cited non partisan
research info and made effort to verify sources. I think the difference is
I am seeking truth - you are seeking comfort in your ignorance. I notice
how you have still not supplied any data - only opinion.

After all of the research where I have tried to find info supporting both
sides and the failure of anyone here providing data that supports the
Romney plan, I have to conclude (remember this is science based people)
that the policies proposed by Romney simply wont work. To follow this man
is illogical - must be one of the reasons I cited earlier - obtuse or just
bigoted.

Anonymous said...

I guess one day of good sales does not offset long term bad will.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-chickfila-gay-moreno-20120919,0,3789684.story

Anonymous said...

Happily Married's Truthful Politics links to an article discussing taxes and job creation that has THIS wonderful quote:

"We understand that these graphs are simplistic to a fault."


To assume that tax rates are the only factors impacting the economy are, to quote HM, "simple-minded and ridiculous." Tax rates tend to be raised by government when the economy is growing, an action that is acceptable.


Her link to the cbpp.org has THIS description of itself:

"The Center conducts research and analysis to help shape public debates over proposed budget and tax policies and to help ensure that policymakers consider the needs of low-income families and individuals in these debates. We also develop policy options to alleviate poverty."

The Youtube video linked above takes you to the 2008 primary debate where Obama states he would raise the capital gains tax, even if it meant bringing in less money to the government, solely in the name of "fairness." He never contests the premise of the question posed by Gibson that historically, LOWER tax rates lead to GREATER revenue (which results in greater economic activity and a broadening of the tax base).

Happily Married said...

Anon,

Good job of research and I am relieved someone is actually reading the info I present. Your last statement regarding Gibson's assertion does not count as data refuting the basic premise-

Please please please show me some data that reducing taxes either creates jobs or increases revenue I have shown data, despite the tempering statements, that show otherwise.

Anonymous said...

HM,
Just curious - have you ever taken a college level economics class? You seem to know a lot.

Anonymous said...

Sark,

I thought Texas was conservative. Take a look at this - a mom was arrested in Texas for letting her kids play outside "unsupervised".

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/mom-sues-polices-she-arrested-letting-her-kids-134628018.html

guy faulkes said...

For the upteenth time, HM, go back and look at what has happened historically when taxes and spending are cut and unreasonable regulations are eliminated.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous 6:13PM- We have liberals here too. That was the government that arrested her.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

Yes I have taken college level economic courses and
Guy - for the upteenth time, I have looked at the data and historically speaking - not theoretically, but historically, the data data does not support it. Maybe that is because regulations were not reduced (which I am in favor of) but I seriously doubt that will happen here, even if Romney wins. So teh outcome is less taxes for the rich - same unemployment and higher deficits. Your "data" has consisted of opinion based mostly on theory and one snippet of growth during one quarter of Reagan's term. When the overall picture was presented, the historical data did not support it. i am perfectly willing for someone to prove me wrong on this (as i have admitted in other posts) but no one has presented any historical data to the contrary. How, in this case, are the numbers from Politify wrong?

guy faulkes said...

I will give you one thing. Nothing will change if Romney wins. As has often been stated, he is an Obama clone.

However, we were talking about what he says he is going to do not what he is.

Sarkazein said...

No longer part of the global I guess.

Sarkazein said...

From the book "More Stuff Conservatives Already knew":

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.
The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.
The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

You cite a reference from a dolt James taylor, who has no clue how weather works. The news just came out yesterday about the arctic losing the most ice ever. Here is the difference: Global warming has caused weather patterns to change and shift more moisture to the antarctic. As it is warmer there now (relatively speaking)more snow occurs. More snow means more ice build up - but only because it is actually warmer. the colder it is the harder it is to snow: http://www.weatherimagery.com/blog/too-cold-to-snow/

Yes, this does indicate Global warming. I get so tired of people not engaging their brains with these issues. Please do not respond until you can say that you truly understand the concept.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- Do yourself a favor. Watch some episodes of Aerial America. Minnesota, Maine, NY, and a host of others ALL have lakes or islands or as Maine does, a desert created by retreating glaciers. Actual global warming has been going on for thousands of years interrupted by eras of global cooling. Climate change has been going on for thousands of years. Some slicksters decided to politicize it for power grabs and financial gain. The only surprise to me, is all the willing suckers who bought into it. Al Gore thanks from the bottom of his mansions, private jet, SUV, and $500 massage therapists. Tipper Gore thanks you from her Malibu mansion and super high alimony pony.

Sarkazein said...

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

Nobody said...

HM said, "Your "data" has consisted of opinion based mostly on theory and one snippet of growth during one quarter of Reagan's term."

One quarter of Reagan's term? This is an outright falsehood. Reagan lowered taxes in 1983. Here is a chart showing growth in GDP following that action:

http://hearourvoices.us/image.axd?picture=2012%2F7%2FReagan+v+Obama+GDP+Through+12+Q.png

The chart compares the Obama and Reagan recoveries in terms of GDP growth. GDP is the official measure of the economy and measures the value of the production of all goods and services in an economy. The economy took off beginning in 1984 and witnessed six consecutive quarters of growth above 6% (a fact I've already mentioned on this thread but you apparently overlooked). Here is another chart with date specific GDP:

http://www.kathylien.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/1980gdp.jpg

This is obviously not one "snippet" from one quarter of Reagan's term, but a trend. What did the American people think about Reagan's job performance when he ran for reelection in 1984?

http://thefabulous80s.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/reagan-mondale-1984-electoral-college-map.jpg

Bush lowered taxes in 2003, to aid an economy ailing from the .com bust and recession of 2000 and terrorist attacks of 2001 (which devastated the tourism industry for a year). Here is a chart of GDP growth from 1999-2009:

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/images_lessons/904_em904_figure11.jpg

Finally, I've finally had the time to look at your truthful politics link. Interesting. Just as you said, there are lots of charts that would lead one to believe that there is no correlation between tax rates and job growth. But each chart has links below it that allows one to go to the original source of the chart. All but one link to websites that one could consider liberal leaning -- the other one is mentioned by nonnymouse above with the quote about the charts being simplistic to a fault. Claiming to be non-partisan is not proof of non-partisanship.

Like Guy, I will give you this -- taxes cannot always be lowered. A 0% tax rate is not possible. I do wish Obama would have acted on his own bipartisan debt commission that recommended lowering the top marginal rate to 28% and closing loopholes. Their assumption was that this would spur the economy, broaden the tax base and increase overall revenues to the government addressing the debt issue. This is another fact I have mentioned before but you have chosen to ignore. Why do you think this BIPARTISAN commission recommended lowering the top rate?

Finally, taxes alone cannot explain the economy, they are just one part. Taxes had nothing to do with the housing crisis that started this whole mess (another argument for another day). To only look at tax rates is, as you said, "simple-minded and ridiculous," so to demand proof that tax rates alone lead to job growth is "simple-minded and ridiculous."

I've now spent enough time on this issue. I have a job to go to and can't spend anymore time researching your flawed sites to verify what I learned in college and through years of personal experience and observation.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

i am very aware of the typical warming and cooling cycles that the earth has gone through in the past 400,000 years according to scientist. Please explain this:http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/climate-basics/climate-primer.shtml
atmospheric CO2 change and the rate of temperature change that is unlike any of the cycles in the past 400,000 years. that level of CO2 is not natural.
You responded without understanding the concept didn't you? Otherwise you would have acknowledged that antacrtic ice build up is the result of global warming (man made or not)

Sarkazein said...

Happy wrote= ..."atmospheric CO2 change and the rate of temperature change that is unlike any of the cycles in the past 400,000 years. that level of CO2 is not natural."

What did the scientists write their data on 400,000 years ago? Does data collection differ now than it did even 200,000 years ago? We are talking core samples which can chemically change over the millenniums and are from regions.

And we are talking man-made global warming.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

So science is wrong - probably wrong on evolution to. Are you one of those that believe Moses just forget to put dinosaurs on the ark and the planet is only 4000 years old. If so, this conversation is over as we are simply in two places. You did not acknowledge that the ice build up is the result of warming.

Sarkazein said...

Demean as you will Happy, but yes-- scientists are often wrong. In this case there are scientists of differing opinions. Evolution is a theory. Missing link is a term you might want to familiarize yourself with.

Anonymous said...

Sarkazien, how old you you believe the earth is in years?

Sarkazein said...

Happy- Can you imagine the confused looks on the archeologists faces if they dug up the remains of Janet Reno and Robert Reich on the same dig. All of the sudden, theories would change on evolution... again.

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous, do you want the answer in years as determined by man or God? How long is a year to god? A year to man is the lenght of time it takes a planet to orbit its sun and varies in absolute time as God made countless planets orbiting countless suns.

I do not know what a year is to God, do you?

Was the Bible speaking of man's definition as per earth's rotation or God's definition? How do you know? Is it a matter of faith, as it is with those that beleive in man made global warming?

Why do you care about how old the earth is? Do you deny climate change has occurred since the beginning, long before man?

ITCM said...

Guy, the bible was written by man, not God - edited, rewritten and only a collection of what was deemed worthy is even included. Do you think Moses actually wrote the book of Genesis? It's only a collection of oral myths passed down and borrowed from other cultures and religions of history. Anyone who takes the bible literally is either blinded by faith or refuses to accept our miniscule existence in a vast universe. Ancient man had no understanding of science - as is evidenced right away in Genesis 1:3 - "let there be light". Where did the light come from? We don't find out until Genesis 1:14-19 when god finally creates the stars, sun and moon. Oops.

Sark, I think this infochart was made just for you. You can print it out as a poster and hang it on your wall.

Mankind creates things - and is a destroyer as well. Man has destroyed the Earth with pollution and is the cause for global climate change. Have you never picked up a National Geographic or

"Evolution is almost universally accepted by those who understand it, almost universally rejected by those who don't." - Richard Dawkins. Apparently, you people who keep saying that evolution is just a theory have not studied biology. You have an issue with man descending from a same common ancestor as the great apes, but don't have an issue with women being instantly created from a rib??? You're about to vote for a President who believes that man comes from spirit orbs that were created by a god who lives on the planet Kolob.

Sarkazein said...

ITCM wrote- "Man has destroyed the Earth..."

Only in your mind. Do you live in a ghetto or slum? Try and take the bus out of there for a while and view other parts of the country. Go to Yellowstone, The Blue Ridge Mountains, the Texas Hill country with its crystal clear rivers, or South Beach in Miami Beach.

Liberals have to lie and/or exaggerate beyond belief to try and prove their bogus points.

guy faulkes said...

ITCM

Yes, the Bible was written by men and has been edited and translated. As a matter of fact, many books such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene were left out of the Bible.

So what? It is still a reference an a source of faith for millions.

This is why I am very religious, but do not believe that organized religion is necessary. Your religion is between you and God.

If you have to do so to understand, consider the Bible to be like the studies on man made global warming that were proven false by the leaked documents of those that proposed them but in which you still have faith. It is not the same, but it may be all you can comprehend. Explaining religion to a non believer is like explaining color to a person that has been blind from birth.

Notice I said religion, not faith. Not believing requires as much faith as does believing.

Sarkazein said...

"This is why I am very religious, but do not believe that organized religion is necessary. Your religion is between you and God." Guy Faulkes

A free man.

ITCM said...

If that's the case, then keep your religion between you and your god and out of the government. You can tell that to your Republican party & fellow conservatives.

Sark & Guy, you're both blind to facts. Where have you been for the past half-century? Answer: an alternate reality, a self absorbed world where you are unaware of the terrible state our planet is in. One where you pray for personal blessings while thousands die of starvation or disease each and every day outside of your perfect little bubble.

guy faulkes said...

We have as much right to our political beliefs as you do, ITCM. As long as we do not propose an official religion for the country, we are keeping our God out of the government. We are entirely free to vote our moral convictions just as you are free to vote the lack of these convictions.

I would suggest that praying for the "thousands (that) die of starvation or disease each and every day" is certainly better than ignoring them as you do.

I would venture to guess that both Sark and I make more charitable contributions in a year than you do in ten. We would make more if our money was not being stolen by socialist big government.

Please pay attention. Once again, I am not a Republican.

Anonymous said...

It is going to be hard for the Republicans to win the White House this year. But, the anti-religion God denying democrats who keep spewing their hatred on the web, will convince many Americans to vote against them!

Sarkazein said...

"Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets . . . You may get killed with your own gun, but he'll have to beat you to death with it, cause it'll be empty."- ?

Anonymous said...

RANGER'S PRAYER....

"and Lord if today is truly the day you call me home, let me die in a pile of brass."