US household income disparity

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sahil-kapur/mitt-romneys-breathtaking_b_489247.html

Don't take my word for it. The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board proclaimed that "commonwealth's 2006 program" -- as "championed by former GOP Governor Mitt Romney" -- "closely resembles what Democrats are trying to do in Washington." Still not convinced? Here's the conservative/libertarian Cato Institute: "In 2006, the Bay State enacted a slate of reforms that almost perfectly mirror the plan of Obama and congressional Democrats."

Here is a good endorsement.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/28/m...alth-czar.html Originally Posted by WTF
I didn't say I wanted him, I said he had done corporate turnarounds -- which as DG noted are a hell of a lot easier than dealing with the "worlds greatest deliberative body".

And yes Massachusetts health care is a screaming disaster and a preview of what the rest of us are in for. Granted Romney signed that PoS, but it was written by a Democratic legislature, so its a bipartisan piece of shit.
Actually, the only one who has done it is Clinton. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
WTF are you talking about? Actually, on second thought never mind. Originally Posted by pjorourke
What's the matter? You can't give him credit for anything? He left the WH and federal gov't in the black after it had been in the red for decades. Then, along came Bush and his costly wars, and all of a sudden we were in the red again. And our kids to their 4th generation at least will be paying off those excessive expenditures.

(And you had a second thought?)
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 07-26-2010, 07:16 AM
WTF are you talking about? Actually, on second thought never mind. Originally Posted by pjorourke
PJ, don't listen to Charlie, you had it right the first time. Mitt gave Mass. Healthcare!


!
My second thought was that I really didn't care what kind of drivel you were going to come up with now.
However there's a small but still significant group of super-rich who have a significantly higher income growth than the poor or the rich. Such financial oligarchy can easily lead to plutocracy. Originally Posted by ..
Yes, and they all support big government -- because thats who feeds them.
Rudyard K's Avatar
What's the matter? You can't give him credit for anything? He left the WH and federal gov't in the black after it had been in the red for decades. Then, along came Bush and his costly wars, and all of a sudden we were in the red again. And our kids to their 4th generation at least will be paying off those excessive expenditures. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
It is because you are imbecilic in your arguments that no one pays attention to you (come to think of it, that might be spilling over into your BCD dissatisfaction as well).

It is not necesarily who is at the controls who should recieve the accolades...or the condemnation. Of course, Wild Bill did some good. But excatly what policies did he put in place that were the good ones? Just like Obamacare will have ramifications far past OB's term...Wild Bill's policies, Bush I's policies, Reagan's policies and GWB's policies have ramifications far past their own terms. But the idealogs jump back and forth when it suits them. Wild Bill was great because we were prosporous during his term? Was that because of his policies or his predecessors? And were those policies actually their policies?...or simply something compromised with congress upon? It is a bit incongruous to lay all the accolades on Wild Bill, simply because of prosperity during his term, much like it is incongruous to lay all the horror upon us today on Obama.

Once you get out of your "neener, neener" mentality you might find all kinds of things open up to you.
Wild Bill? I thought he was Slick Willie? or do we call him Wild Bill now that he is an "elder statesman"?
Rudyard K's Avatar
Wild Bill? I thought he was Slick Willie? or do we call him Wild Bill now that he is an "elder statesman"? Originally Posted by pjorourke
He got a BJ in the WH. That's a man to be admired, if for nothing else.
Agreed!
Big Bill was a man of courage.

I'm afraid I would have run like hell if I'd seen Monica in a thong!
Rudyard K's Avatar
Big Bill was a man of courage.

I'm afraid I would have run like hell if I'd seen Monica in a thong! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
And if you woke up next to Hillary every monring???? What then?
ThrillBill88's Avatar
I'm afraid I would have run like hell if I'd seen Monica in a thong! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I thought it was Bill wearing the thong.
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 07-26-2010, 09:56 AM
And if you woke up next to Hillary every monring???? What then? Originally Posted by Rudyard K
You'd beg her to give you your balls back!


Was that because of his policies or his predecessors? And were those policies actually their policies?...or simply something compromised with congress upon? . Originally Posted by Rudyard K
I think we might be giving admin's policies' a bit to much credit and not the natural tendency's of the market. I am of the opinion that it is more the luck of the draw as to when one gets elected than what their particuliar poliys are in the overall scheme of our country's well-being.
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 07-26-2010, 09:58 AM
Big Bill was a man of courage.

I'm afraid I would have run like hell if I'd seen Monica in a thong! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
Me and Bill got that in common
And if you woke up next to Hillary every monring???? What then? Originally Posted by Rudyard K
Oh, jeez -- what a thought!

Actually, there's a lot I liked about Big Bill. Obviously he made a few wrong turns here and there, such as Hillary's disastrous set of health care proposals.

But he did one big thing that's widely unappreciated. In 1993, there was something of a debate going on between Bob Reich (Secretary of Labor) and Bob Rubin (policy advisor and later treasury secretary). At the time, an economic recovery was underway but was a bit weak. Reich is sort of a somewhat less radical version of Paul Krugman. He's always interested in stimulating the economy by Keynesian means, despite mountains of evidence that such efforts never produce the desired results and often inflict serious damage on an economy over time (as we're about to see).

On the other hand, Bob Rubin argued that we needed to restrain the growth of government spending in order to calm the bond markets. The term "bond vigilante" was in widespread use at the time. Deficits then, of course, were miniscule compared with today, but were of enough concern that Perot gained a lot of support when he went on TV with all those charts.

Needless to say, Rubin was right and Reich was wrong. Clinton was smart enough to see that and eventually resisted calls for more foolish "stimulus" spending.

One of my favorite comments about stimulus packages was made by Bob Kerrey, former Democratic senator from Nebraska. He said the only stimulus package he supported was the one that had been provided by his ex-girlfriend, singer-actress Debra Winger. Wise man!

Big Bill was also very lucky. A lot of clueless liberals were tossed out of congress in the 1994 housecleaning, allowing him to run against Newt's congress in '96 and take advantage of the fact that a lot of voters were beginning to decide that they liked checks and balances.

If Obama is lucky, we'll see a 1994-style housecleaning this fall. That would allow him to run against a Republican congress and blame it for things such as a continually struggling economy with high levels of unemployment. He could also constantly remind voters who like checks and balances of what happened the last time Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of congress.

If Obama's not so lucky, his 2012 opponent will be able to hang Pelosi's out-of-control congress around his neck like a dead albatross!