soakya: That's how you explain what your statistics are supposed to indicate? By changing the subject?
You are no better with quotations than with statistics. For one, you quoted something attributed Alexander Francis Tyler not Alexis de Tocqueville. There is no reliable record of Tyler having even made the statement.
Are you quoting the Thomas Jefferson who said "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."? Probably not. Your Thomas Jefferson seems to say the opposite.
So tell us what the framers meant when they wrote "general welfare" means. And while you're at it, tell me what I think it means and I'll tell you if you're right.
Or you can change the subject again.
While you are right in bemoaning the crumbling infrastructure and fewer jobs, corporate taxes are at an all time low. The effective rate on corporate profits is about 13% --no one pays the statutory 35% rate--and many corporations pay no tax at all according to the Government Accountability Office. See http://aneconomicsense.com/.
soakya: Here you go again, trotting out your statistics once more. What exactly are they supposed to mean? You'd think you'd discovered the economic equivalent to the cure for cancer by learning that unemployment goes up when the economy goes down. And that when people don’t have work they don’t earn an income so per capita incomes will come down. Well....
Per capita income. A simple example. 1 income of $1 million and 9 incomes of $100,000. Per capita income = $190,000. Now, 1 income of $1 million and 5 incomes of $100,000 and 4 of $0 (because they’re unemployed). Per capita income = $150,000. The per capita income has come down yet not all individual incomes have. So in that sense, per capita income may not be a very helpful indicator of what is actually occurring. It doesn’t tell us, for instance. how income is distributed.
In fact, since 2007, the wealthiest Americans have suffered very little from the economic collapse. The per capita income may have come down but the individual decrease in incomes has been largely felt by the lower 90% (less than $150,000) of income earners. And that is a result of government policy.
One of the major functions of government is to redistribute wealth. Providing fire protection, providing public education, providing national defense, building roads, ensuring food safety, ensuring banks behave responsibly etc. are all done by redistributing wealth. The Constitution says the government’s duty is “to promote the general welfare” not the generals’ welfare, be they social, economic, political or military.
francisco: name calling. It's all you got. Facts you don't. On the federal deficit: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/14/nation/la-na-deficit-shrinking-20130515. Or http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0515/Why-federal-budget-deficit-is-falling-faster-than-CBO-expected.
Drew, Drew, Drew. What is behind all this vitriol? What is the real reason for all this bitter umbrage? The federal deficit has been cut significantly, banks have been bailed out and not one bank executive has been prosecuted, Bush tax cuts have been extended beyond their expiration date, Republican-invented Obamacare has been passed, he even acceded to industry (the golden calf of Republicans) requests to delay implementation for a year. In short, President Obama has done everything that Republicans wanted. So what exactly has the President done that is so bad? If anyone should be complaining it should be Democrats. And they do. But at least they have the manners to do it respectfully.
soakya: The president has been a complete failure? See above.
Have you been doing a Rip Van Winkle and were not informed that the economy almost tanked after 2007? Apparently you’ve also not grasped the fact that some incomes are going to come down in an depression, that’s why it’s called a depression.
The per capita income you quote is meaningless figure. That’s like saying if Bill Gates (net worth $72.7 billion) walked into a bar with 9 truck drivers in it, the per capita net worth of the people in the bar is $7.27 billion. I guess all true conservatives need to do to be rich, at least for a while, is invite Bill Gates over for a drink.
The definition of free enterprise is like the scientist’s definition of absolute zero, easy to define on paper but impossible to achieve in practice.
“People knew this was going to be a bad law.” is about the most revealing statement you’ve made. How do they know that? It is a law that has its genesis in a paper by the ultra conservative Heritage Foundation and is modeled on the successful Massachusetts health care law signed by a Republican governor. Now that a Democratic President has proposed a similar measure, Republicans claim the sky is going to fall. Strange they didn’t see it when their side proposed it and enacted it.
I’m not sure where you are getting your information about the law.
Wether you keep your doctor or not is no different under Obamacare than it has been before. It all depends on the insurance carrier. If your employer changed insurance carriers the doctor you had been seeing might not be in the new carrier’s network and you’d have to change doctors. Nothing new here.
According to the Washington Post, Obamacare insurance premium rates in California, which has a huge number of uninsured, will be much lower than even the Congressional Budget Office had predicted. In New York insurance rates under Obamacare will be 50% lower than they are now.
The present insurance system is solely designed to profit those who own and manage insurance companies. It has failed miserably in ensuring access to quality healthcare for Americans. No system is perfect, certainly not from the beginning. How could Obamacare be worse than what we have now? A person truly concerned about the situation would give it a try and modify it when experience dictates that changes are required. Republican baseless fear mongering is not a productive solution to the problem.
On the jobs bill: According to The Hill.com website Minority Leader McConnell made it clear that he demanded a vote on the bill in order to embarrass the Democrats. That describes the sum total of Republican commitment in legislating in the national interest. If anyone is a tyrant in the Senate it is Make-Obama-A-One-Term-President McConnell.
Many economist believed that the stimulus bill was not as effective as it could have been because it was too small. It’s also interesting that more than half the Republicans who voted against the stimulus bill took credit for it when it supported projects in their districts. According to Newsweek, many who said it would not create jobs requested money from the stimulus fund on the grounds it would create jobs. I’m thinking hypocrite.
Yes, Obama increased spending because we were in economic difficulties and many of our fellow citizens needed help in a crisis not of their making. Contrast that with Bush’s increased spending for a war that was unnecessary.
Neither political party is blameless but the most guilty of creating and continuing the mess we are currently in are the Republicans. By a mile. Maybe ten. They promised us jobs and all we've gotten from them is attacks on womens reproductive rights, voter suppression laws, and assaults on the poor and vulnerable.
Unfortunately, race is very much part of the argument, if that doesn’t apply to you, then I apologize.
I still contend your data reflects the effects of the economic times we live in, not the deals themselves. You are basically Monday morning quarterbacking here. Neither the corporations nor the governments they deal with can with certainty predict what the future will bring. Neither would have entered into the deal if they didn’t think it benefited them. Would you have voted for Fleischmann knowing what you know about him now?
And Fleischmann is no RINO. He is a real Republican. And so is the Chamber of Commerce. That’s the problem.
rick1: Of course you can only point to 4 Republican votes. What does that prove except that’s what you get when the Republicans have made it their policy to see a black Democratic President fail rather than seeing America succeed and solve the problems Republicans have largely created? Point to one thing that Republicans have supported in the last 5 years that would improve the economic, social or political lives of ordinary Americans. They have spent more time embarrassing the President and this country that they have trying to promote the general welfare. (As the Constitution they claim to hold so dear states.) In any other country that would be called treasonous. And it should be here, too.
soakya:Looks to me that you are implying that our economic woes today are President Obama's sole responsibility. Why else talk only about post 2007 conditions? All of your numbers mean little more other than there was an economic catastrophe. We all know that. How did it happen? Are you saying that if it hadn't been for that black Democrat in the White House this would never have come to pass? Republican obstruction to any attempts to ameliorate the situation has nothing to do with the numbers you quote?
I wonder what "A well regulated militia...." means.
Robin in Wonderland.