Here’s what I’m starting to think. I’m starting to think Obama’s whole agenda has been like an arrogant personchallenging me to an underwater breath-holding contest in high school. We start out and they look really confident – like their going to be down there all day. Even after I feel my oxygen gone they still look fine. I start to feel a little pain. But all of a sudden they struggle to the top where they desperately cough and hack air into their lungs.

But seriously, I didn’t hear any more of the speech than Professor Dove and Divinity Dove offered to me and what I heard on NPR just now. What I did hear was Geithner defending the tax/charge/fee. He had some fine arguments posed in his usual sysinct and dry way. Of course the interviewer’s overall question was whether or not the tax was an effort to make up for Obama’s image of helping Wallstreet and leaving Mainstreet to suffer with 10%+ unemployment. And Geithner couldn’t make any argument against that – obviously – after Obama’s speech that even NPR reporters were calling [insert adjective here that I forgot denoting great magnitude] populous speech.

It’s a good time for Obama to make a big deal about something besides the Nancy and Harry Dem-only non-CSPAN healthcare negotiation.

I think things are looking pretty bad for the Chief. I’m starting to imagine myself a year – or ten years from now looking back – and with the benefit of hind-sight laughing at how truly ridiculous these whole past two years have been.

The whole Obama campaign will speak for it’s self: Mc Cain’s poor campaign, Obama’s numerous and specific promises of wonder, bipartisanship, and transparent fairness with no expense, Obama’s opposition to Iraq and the surge, his support of Afghanistan, Hillary not winning… Then right away cap and trade goes through the house on a party-line vote. Heathcare gets rammed through by the hair on its ass – also party line – and is now being negotiated in secret. Gitmo’s close date is two weeks away. Terror attacks are up. Afghanistan is worse. Iraq is a borderline vacation destination (safer than Mexico) thanks to the surge.

And take a look at this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_special_election-1144.html It’s a poll from last week for the two front runners in the election for Kenedy’s old seat as Massachusetts senator. Coakley, the Dem, was in excess of 30 points ahead of anyone else. Now she’s head to head with the Republican Scott Brown. If Scotty takes it that will put an abrupt end to the Dem super majority – lol – not that it matters. When the Dem’s order lunch they can’t order pizza because no one will give them half thin crush and half thick, half the thick side with no sauce, Half of each with pepperoni – including the sauceless thick quarter, the other half ham with green peppers on the thin crust/ham quarter, and extra cheese on the ham/thick quarter – and that’s just for the Senate. The house has allergy issues so they need one eighth of the pepperoni/thick quarter with no cheese – and that’s while the vegetarians are in the bathroom. They’ll come out at the last minute while the order is being placed over the phone and demand a change in language. And this is all assuming Sarah Palin doesn’t write anything about pizza in her blog.

Obama is down to his last-ditch devices – the ones he got of the ground with: Vilifying and blaming. He’s in trouble so he blames the banks and vilifies their CEOs. This is a common practice of politicians. It’ works really well but is short lived. People only follow vilifiers and blamers because it’s implied that you have a solution that will work. So far Obama’s only solutions have been to charm our enemies, and throw our money at the recession.

I get so irritated by noisy dove, because he has become a wind bag. It’s a bunch of emotion-laden ideas that “make sense” and are “logical,” but are backed up by little actual substance (i.e. facts). It reminds me earily of Limbaugh and Beck.

I don’t mean for Noisy Dove to sound like an ideologue. Indeed, it’s often a form of therapy for me. I simply summarize some news and give my evaluation of it without sighting the facts I use. This is because I’m lazy, and a lot of stuff I generally feel like anyone interesting in Noisy Dove should already know – thing like: China lies about its emissions, socialism isn’t defined as total socialism, and 1+1=2 no matter what. I’ll try to be more thorough from now on.

Also – do you actually read the articles? I ask because often I’ll write a very thoughtful two sided piece about an Obama decision only to have the editor in chief superimpose Obama’s likeness onto the face of a donkey, or onto the butt of a dog with his lips puckered. As funny as many of the images are – they are often out of context and can make Noisy Dove seem belligerently partisan. But what can I do? It’s the editor’s prerogative.

So let’s see. You don’t believe in trickle-down or that tax cuts increase tax revenue. You even talk of Regan.

First, Regan had a recession and an energy crisis, like the gas problem we’ve had. Yet, despite this, his policies caused the largest economic expansion during peace time, starting in 1982, and created 35 million jobs.

• Joint Economic Committee, The Great Expansion: How It Was Achieved and How It Can Be Sustained, U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, 106th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 2000, pp. 4-6.

You claim, after accosting me for my emotional Noisy Dove rants, that I offer no facts. Yet you say you don’t believe tax cuts increase tax revenue. Why not? Tax revenue in 1980 was $500 billion and in 1990 it was $1 trillion. That’s an increase wouldn’t you say? Laffer curve – look it up.

• U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001: Historical Tables, February 2000, Table 1.3, p. 23.

The rich paid more taxes under Regan’s policies because they were making more money to tax. And they had more money because Regan cut taxes allowing them to invest more. He also encouraged investment. Indeed, many people became rich – that’s good.

The ‘gap’ that you are talking about – I asked you to clarify earlier – but you didn’t. So, I’ll assume you’re talking about the graph Obama’s people like to talk about, the one the Liberals are constantly pointing to. It was the one they used in their initial budget. It was a graph showing the % control of wealth. (I wish I could find it. )

Never mind. I found it. It’s a redo of the same graph by someone who obviously understands it though. LOL The trick is that what you’re looking at is %. As Noisy Dove also likes to repeat, the left sees income as a constant – not something people produce. So if the rich are getting a higher % of income while the poor a lower % – that equates to the rich bringing home more money while the poor bring home less. But that’s false – obviously.

It showed the difference between the poor and rich increasing in the past few decades. So, if the bottom 10% had their incomes increase by 3 times, and the top 10% had their incomes increase by 4 times, this graph would show a ‘gap’ in the increase, as though the rich were taking something from the poor. This is a classic socialist argument. It’s a false one too. The rich aren’t taking anything. They are creating wealth and the bottom % are benefiting with an increase standard of living – trickle down. Everyone is growing, but the ‘rich’ – the entrepreneurs – are growing fastest.

It’s actually quite funny. The very graph so many socialist use to show a disparity between the rich and poor is actual empirical evidence for trickle-down theory. It’s only logical anyway. I mean, the only way trickle-down wouldn’t work is if people found a way to make money without hiring anyone, buying materials, or using energy – and then horded all the cash. Likewise, the only was trickle-up wouldn’t work is if poor people put all their extra money into saving and paying off dept – like they are doing now – the reason the stimulus checks failed – Bush and Obama’s.

Reagan had to stop the crazy inflation of the late 70’s (Carter’s stagflation), so he tightened money. Houses had like a 12% mortgage rate when we were kids. Despite this, once Regan’s policies were in place, by 1983, the policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation resulted in unprecedented economic growth.

• This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II
• United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001: Historical Tables, February 2000, Table 1.3, p. 23.

The economy grew by a third – ffs (can’t let down Justin). Also, Regan didn’t invent this type of economic thinking. One guy you might like – JFK – he did a similar thing:

“The 1960s and 1980s were periods of record sustained high growth, mainly due to the tax cuts and reforms enacted at the beginning of each decade by Kennedy and Reagan, respectively.

The JFK administration, against the advice of many economic advisers, began cutting taxes in 1962, starting with businesses. An investment tax credit encouraged investment and changes in depreciation costs lowered the cost of capital for businesses. The top corporate rate fell from 52 to 48 percent, and the top individual marginal tax rate fell from 90 to 70 percent. The empirical evidence shows that these tax cuts stimulated growth:”  http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-taxes-affect-economic-growth

• Between 1962 and 1969, investment grew at an annual rate of 6.1 percent, far higher than the 3 percent annual rate for 1959-1962 and the 2.3 percent rate for 1969-1972 (While Carter was doing what Obama is doing now), after the JFK tax reforms had been repealed.
• Real GNP grew 4.5 percent during the 1960s, higher than the 2.4 percent growth rate seen from 1952-1960.
  • “Taxes and Long-Term Economic Growth,” House Joint Economic Committee Report, February 1997.http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/longterm/longterm.htm

In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent. To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.

• U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001: Historical Tables, February 2000, Table 1.3, p. 23. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/icb2001.pdf

As for the Regan policies cutting aid to the poor, and causing homelessness, I can’t find anything substantiating this or refuting it. According to the fact’s I’m finding Regan actually increased domestic spending. (see chart above) This sounds more like the Liberal style of attack than actual fact – or just the general politician’s argument. You know, saying someone is against heathcare reform because they didn’t vote for Pelosi-care, or saying someone is for the war because they supported development of IED resistant vehicles. It’s just stupid.

The facts is – Regan helped the poor in ways no government bureaucracy could. He stopped Carter’s inflation and unemployment. People tend to propagate ideas like Regan destroyed the inner-cities and odd things like that. More likely the damage being done to inner-cities was the flight of factories from within them and the subsequent evacuation of people to suburbs in their fancy new cars – leaving only the poor who were too poor to leave. The only thing at fault for this is an increasing standard of living. So I guess you could blame Regan – his policies did increase everyone’s standard of living quite a bit. We went from one car to a family to one car to a person – from one TV to one TV in each room – from renting to purchasing homes.

And claiming Regan “ballooned” the debt is totally unfair, especially after you complain about his disregard for the poor. And not to mention he was defeating the Soviet Union – ffs.

Contrary to the Liberal sales pitch, inflation-adjusted defense spending increased 50% between 1980 and 1989. After the cold war the spending was reduced and fell by 15 percent between 89 and 93. Means-tested entitlements (poor people aid) – not including SS or Medicare – rose by over 102% between 80 and 93, and continue to do so.

• U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001: Historical Tables, February 2000, Table 1.3, p. 23.

Regan’s policies were sound enough that Bill Clinton, as did Bush Sr., continued them resulting in the continued economic success we all grew up accustomed to and that gave us a surplus despite continued increases in entitlements. In other words, Regan’s economic policies did work. They balanced the budget, just not in his term, which would have been a hell of a thing to ask.

Actually, Clinton even followed the Regan philosophy of increased self reliance and reduced Federal involvement with his welfare reform bill: http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9608/22/welfare.sign/ . Of course, Obama reversed Clinton’s reform in the stimulus bill: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTY3NzZhNDBkNjU5MjAzZTE4YmQ4MmU5MTk2YTIxNTQ

And George W, he continued the policies as well. You again Dr. Dove– unfairly claim – “That didn’t exactly work out either.”Maybe with facts we can see what really went on. Hmmmm. Now let’s see. What happened during the Bush administration that might have hampered the economic progress the Bush tax cuts likely made? Hmmmm. Oh wait. Could it have been – oh – terrorists using airliners to destroy the world trade canters and cripple the financial district?????????????? I don’t want to irritate you with my wind-bag-ed-ness, but are you fucking kidding me????????? People were shitting their pants Dr. Dove!!!!!! People were stocking plastic and duct tape in case of a chemical attack!!!!!! People were afraid to go to work let along the fucking shopping mall! And what kind of investment climate is that – fucking airplanes crushing building out of the blue…?

And as you know, we went to war. So your claim is miserably unfair – and I think – roundly disproven, if not simply by the fact that the economy continued to grow well, despite domestic attacks and war, until the collapse of the housing bubble and subsequent failure of the derivatives market and the subsequent credit crunch.

So you see? Tax cuts work. Call it JFK’s economic policy if it makes your Liberal bone less tender. And stop absorbing these weird Liberal lies. You even had me believing the one about Regan’s policies being bad for the inner-cities… shit. I’m glad you compelled me to look into it. See – this is the value of discussion.