Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Republican Agenda

Evidently there is a big debate going on within Republican circles whether to come up with a Republican Agenda to help win a Republican victory in November. John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, has a neat, simple, easy to enforce suggestion that neatly, simply and easily encapsulates the Republican philosophy of government. Boehner told reporters:

I think having a moratorium on new federal regulations is a great idea it sends a wonderful signal to the private sector that they're going to have some breathing room.

Brilliantly clear! It's clearer than the old "laissez faire," which, after all, is French, while "moratorium" is English. Much clearer than "limited government," which makes you wonder where the limit is. Definitely clearer than "free markets," which is not very specific.

Without regulation, what a year this would be. Businesses would have "breathing room" because they would not worry about anything except making money. The government would not be able to interfere in whatever businesses needed to do to build their bottom line. Banks would boost their profits by again making sub-prime loans; of course, they would call them "super-prime" loans. Industrial companies would not have to slow down operations because of safety concerns. Retailers would be free of concerns consumers may have about the safety of products they bought or whether consumers may get sick or be poisoned by some of these products. All those nasty regulations - gone. No worries for business.

Boehner's statement has the added advantage that it accurately represents Republicanism. In the overall political arena, whenever there is a conflict between business and ordinary people, almost always Republicans take the side of business. During the healthcare reform debate, Republicans were on the side of the health insurance industry and against ordinary patients. In the financial reform debate, Republicans were on the side of the financial insurance industry and against ordinary borrowers. In the current jobless benefits debate, Republicans demonstrate their disdain for the jobless and shamelessly vote against benefits.

Republicans can replace the old "deregulation" agenda with Boehner's "no regulation" agenda. But a much better Republican agenda and slogan would be: BUSINESS ABOVE ALL!

Posted by Paul Siegel at July 17, 2010 5:48 PM
Comments
Comment #303756

Paul, I believe there is some substantial difference betwee “new” and “existing” regulations that you apparently don’t understand or just plain ignore.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 17, 2010 6:25 PM
Comment #303769

Paul

We need some regulations. Obama and the Democratic Congress have grown the government too much. Maybe it would be time to wait and see how much harm what they did has done before doing more.

Posted by: C&J at July 17, 2010 8:57 PM
Comment #303772

Republicans grew government far more than Obama has even had the opportunity to, yet. Bush engaged us in two wars which have no good end for the U.S. at an enormous cost which we are still paying almost 10 years later.

Lest ye Republicans here forget, it was your president that put the entire tab for Medicare Rx drug service on the national debt. The military grew by leaps and bounds after the Clinton administration. And one cannot forget this 100 of billions in corporate subsidies of the Republicans for everything from Ethanol to religious charity subsidies and Charter schools.

The hypocrisy never ends with Republicans.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 17, 2010 9:26 PM
Comment #303778

David

Bush did wrong by growing government. It doesn’t help for Obama to pile on even more.

I truly don’t understand the logic when people point to Bush growing government too much as some kind of justification for Obama making it even bigger. The cure for the fat guy who got fat by eating too many Dunkin donuts is not more Crispy Creme donuts.

Posted by: C&J at July 17, 2010 10:24 PM
Comment #303780

Because your finger points.

You say Obama is growing government, hence, we need a Republican President.

But, we had one, and he grew government.

Do not most people speak of what they know or think?

What is so complicated about this?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 17, 2010 10:41 PM
Comment #303785

Marysdude:

No we need a Republican Legislature to go with our Democratic president. That seems to be the only combination in recent memory where the size of government actually decreases.

If we reduce government expenses to the same percentage of GDP as we had at the end of Clinton’s second term, we would be near Obama’s goal of reducing the deficit to a sustainable path.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 18, 2010 12:18 AM
Comment #303788

Marysdude

I have said on many occasions that I think Obama is too inexperienced, but in this case I am not talking about replacing him (yet). I merely point out that if Democrats thought it was bad that Bush bloated the government (I agree) how can they think it is okay for Obama to do it even more?

gergle

I believe in moderation in most things. I eat donuts and Hersey bars, but in moderation. I wouldn’t expect to lose weight eating more of them unless I changed other parts of my activities.

The Democrats rightly complained about the growth of the deficit under Bush, even when it was headed down in 2006. Now none of Obama’s projected deficits are as low as any of the unacceptably high deficits of the Bush times. How can this be acceptable?

Posted by: C&J at July 18, 2010 2:04 AM
Comment #303790

Craig,

“No we need a Republican Legislature to go with our Democratic president. That seems to be the only combination in recent memory where the size of government actually decreases”

Wishful revisionism. In reality, the reduction of government spending and deficits during the Clinton administration was initiated by the passage of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993, also known as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. That five year plan reduced government spending across the board, raised revenue and significantly reduced the deficit. It was passed by a Democratic Congress without a single Republican vote. The decisive vote was cast by Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, a one term Democratic representative from Penn. Republican congressmen jeered her with cries of “Goodby Marjorie” when she cast her vote.



Posted by: Rich at July 18, 2010 7:32 AM
Comment #303791

I keep hearing IT IS BAD TO GROW THE GOV’T-BIG GOV’T IS BAD! Please define this vague statement? I would like some examples. To me it is bad to allow money grubbing corporations (who are only interested in the bottom line-money) to do whatever they like without any controls-would you play a football game without any rules. I think it is immoral to make money off of a person’s illness and then deny some people coverage to save your bottom line-money. I think it is sad that we don’t fully fund education and encourage innovation.

I think just saying it is bad to grow the gov’t doesn’t provide any information. Why is it bad? How is it bad? Are there areas of the gov’t that’s good to grow and areas that aren’t. Should we look at the budget and the percentages that are spent to decide what parts are bad and what parts are ok to grow. How big is too big? How small should gov’t be-to be considered not too big? Who decides when there has been enough growth and its time to stop growing. Are there periods when we need to grow the government and periods when growth isn’t helpful.

Big gov’t is bad, growing the gov’t is bad and similar statements are republican talking points-nothing more.

Posted by: Carolina at July 18, 2010 8:37 AM
Comment #303799

Carolina,

Hear! Hear!

Spouting off about overspending, government growth, immigration, blah, blah, blah, is all they can do. So, they do it over and over and over, ad nauseoum. After while they get a bunch of crack-pots (peabaggies) excited enough to think they’ve got all the answers…sane people know that those folks don’t even know the questions.

Republicans = big on talking points, big on mouth, sorry in action.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 18, 2010 11:04 AM
Comment #303803

Compare the growing government to the to big to fail banks or the to big to fail corporations. You liberals all complain about them. What do you think a growing
government will be? What happens to a corporation when they spend more then they take in? They go BUST. That’s what will happen to government if it gets to big. This country will go bust, but you liberals don’t think about those things you all live in that la la world where you think government is your mommy and daddy.

Posted by: MAG at July 18, 2010 11:38 AM
Comment #303804

Better a mommy government then the former dangerous one we had.

Posted by: Jeff at July 18, 2010 11:51 AM
Comment #303805

if anyone is interested

check out this article by Chris Hayes-its awesome

http://www.thenation.com/article/37534/deficits-mass-destruction

Posted by: Carolina at July 18, 2010 12:03 PM
Comment #303807

Like I said Jeff typical liberal attitude can’t do things on your own you need someone guiding your every step. You affraid to make your own decissions?

Posted by: MAG at July 18, 2010 12:45 PM
Comment #303811

Everyone, especially you males, who think size matters, the size matters only to the extent that it can effectively fulfill its purpose. Government should shrink and expand with the needs of the nation, efficiently marshaling what resources are necessary to deal with the nation’s challenges. WHO would argue the greatest expansion of U.S. Government ever in a 3 year period from 1941 to 1944, was unwarranted? Anyone who does, is an idiot.

During periods of economic growth and expansion, government should shrink, since the private sector will carry the lion’s share of the economic and financial demands of the American people. During times of economic contraction and national threat, the government should grow to meet and reverse those conditions.

What is needed is an educated electorate which understands this simple concept and willing to vote accordingly. The American people saw the need for change in 2008 and voted for it. But, the people they voted for are not delivering the change that electorate voted for.

When all is said and done, the HC reform effort will have been Democrat’s Waterloo. The worst thing a Party can do on a mandate from the electorate is disappoint their base. And Democrats have done that in spades with the HC reform absent the Public Option. Everything else Democrats do will now be viewed through the lens of HC reform, half-hearted compromised efforts which fail to address the challenges of the nation.

That, is the Democrat’s legacy, and it is insufficient to curry the favor a significant percentage of their own Progressive base, as well as the independents. Democrats may retain the majorities in November, but, it won’t be due to any love of governing by Democrats. It will be due to the public’s perception of Republicans as having created all these challenges facing our nation and defending their record.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 18, 2010 3:16 PM
Comment #303878

David:

Hitler going across Europe, and Pearl Harbor are pretty obvious threats. Obviously increasing the size of government to saving one’s skin, is understandable.

It is also understandable to increase the size and scope of government during a recession.

Why do we need to permanently increase the size and scope of government?

Why not keep the size of government the same, and change our priorities so that the neediest are better taken care of, and we reduce the help to the healthy and prosperous?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 19, 2010 3:38 PM
Comment #303918

Craig,

The Washington post did a great piece on Homeland Security and bloated government, today. I understand Frontline is also doing a story on it.

Posted by: gergle at July 19, 2010 11:52 PM
Comment #303919

David,

Size does not matter!!! Viagra cures everything, at least that’s what they keep telling me and my weary willie. (It’s not a slam on your name Weary, but I can’t help but think of that every time I see your name. I know there’s gotta be a joke behind that name).

But why does the President always have to have the biggest office, largest limo and biggest plane? And what’s with the Washington Monument?

On a more serious note, why have you changed positions on HC? You were praising it’s passage a while back.

Posted by: gergle at July 20, 2010 12:00 AM
Comment #303923

Craig asked: “Why not keep the size of government the same,”

The obvious answer is because the government size in 1865 could not POSSIBLY be sufficient for today’s national needs. Ergo, government needs to expand and shrink in accordance with the national needs of the time.

The trick is getting voters to hold politicians accountable for those times when it needs to shrink, and boot their asses out for new ones who will, when the incumbents won’t OR are ineffective in getting their comrades to.

We are working on that at VOID.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2010 4:53 AM
Comment #303924

gergle, like all the bills Democrats have passed, they do some people some good. Giving 30 million Americans who didn’t and couldn’t get insurance, coverage, is a very good thing.

However, it is a very short-lived ‘good thing’, because the Public Option or Single Payer plans were the only avenues to address the structural deficit that will bury us and our economy 6 feet under in about 9 years.

I am all for improvements in the quality of life for Americans and my Daughter going forward. The short-lived nature of the HC reform bill however, contains NOTHING praiseworthy in the long run, as our debt overruns us, primarily due to escalating Medicare and Medicaid costs, and unbelievably, a new baby boom generation apparently in the making. Gotta love them HIB Visas, eh? Would have been a whole lot cheaper in the long run to invest in the education of our own to fill those jobs.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2010 5:01 AM
Comment #303941

David:

The obvious answer is because the government size in 1865 could not POSSIBLY be sufficient for today’s national needs.

Another obvious answer is that the size of our government has been successful in the post WWII era.

What is not obvious to me at all is that the Federal Government needs to increase in size and scope to meet our future needs. I do believe it needs to change and adapt.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 20, 2010 10:46 AM
Comment #303944

Craig, then you don’t support the Constitutional requirement for growth in government as the population grows, eh? The founders anticipated and even required growth of government with the growth of population in mandating the census and increases in representation according to those population numbers. Constitutionally, the founders provided for growth in government as the future warranted.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2010 11:28 AM
Comment #303945

Did not the government have to grow with the Louisiana Purchase and its administration, apportionment, and administration? Did not the government have to grow to provide administrative services for the American Indians and their reservations? Did not the government have to grow during the Cold War to meet the Communist threat? Did not the government have to grow to prevent civil unrest during the 1930’s? Did not the government have to grow upon passage of the Civil Rights legislation to enforce these new laws within the States, especially those resistant to those laws. Did not the government have to grow in response to Prohibition to enforce those laws with the creation of the FBI?

Like I said, the challenge facing voters today is how to unite around a VOID mandate to shrink the size and cost of government. Two Republicans were put on the spot on Sunday morning talk shows, asked 3 times, what they would cut to shrink spending and the size of government. They had not a clue nor answer !!!

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2010 11:36 AM
Comment #303947

David:

Obviously I am referring to Government as a percentage of GDP. This issue is interesting in a way since Government as a percentage of GDP (excluding WWII) peaked under Reagan and fell nicely under Clinton.

I have no issue and actually support the contention that Government should increase during times of trouble economic, foreign or otherwise. However all we have to do, to get out of this fiscal crisis is to reduce the size of govenment back to the size it was at the end of Clinton’s presidency. And of course I mean as a percentage of GDP.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 20, 2010 11:39 AM
Comment #303951

Craig, sorry, to do that, we have to halt the rising costs of health care and the Medicare/Medicaid programs, and then cut spending even more beyond those, to get back to the government spending level as a percent of GDP at the end of the Clinton presidency.

When you say, “all we have to do…”, you seem to be underestimating the enormity of that challenge, not only economically during a Recession, but, politically.

I guarantee you that the GOP has no intentions of actually passing cuts in Medicare/Medicaid if they win back power. The numbers of retiring Republicans they would alienate, not to mention their children who will feel compelled to make up the difference of the cuts out of their own family budgets, will guarantee they don’t remain in power very long at all. Its not called the 3rd rail of politics to be cute.

The answer is to drive down health care costs without cutting benefits for those in need, significantly. The capitalists will fight liberals tooth and nail on any agenda going down that road. Because all roads to cutting the cost of health lead to non-profit health care delivery systems. And its not a quality issue. Some of our best medical facilities and research hospitals are non-profit. But, capitalists and corporations will argue, where’s the profit in that?

The obvious answer of course, is in becoming a doctor or nurse or health care technician or administrator, instead of an investor in health care. An answer that doesn’t sit well with those profiting as middlemen in the doctor - patient relationship.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2010 12:34 PM
Comment #303964

David:

I agree that many things are easier to say than to do. It was difficult in Clinton’s time as well. Clinton had two things going for him that Obama does not at the moment. One is the peace divident. We used to have over 200k troops in Europe. He was able to wind down the cold war. Secondly, Clinton had a robust economy, which drives down the cost of government as a percentage of GDP. So I hear your point.

What I am reacting to is what “feels” like an automatic that we must raise taxes. I am actually not completely opposed to this concept. However, I am for cutting government first. We all know there are people getting benefits from the government that do not need them.

I also accept the point of many that right now, is not the time, but we can put the cuts in for later. Obama’s time table looks fine.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 20, 2010 3:07 PM
Comment #303977

Craig, That robust economy was also raking in tax revenues hand over fist.

We are in agreement on several points you make well, Craig. Taxes are an entirely separate consideration logically, from cutting spending, from an economy standpoint. But, the general public doesn’t appreciate that.

Business in America is sitting on cash reserves, not putting them to work in expansion and growth for one simple reason, the severe drop in aggregate demand domestically, and to a lesser extent, internationally. So, capital, which tax increases on the wealthy constricts, is not what is holding down our economic growth. Now, is the absolutely best time to raise taxes on the wealthy, while the demand for capital is so very low and disinflation and the absence of inflation are present.

To the extent that those tax increases on the upper income groups are diverted to spending programs that create jobs, or invest in the creation of increased consumer activity, or lower cost of living for the middle and upper middle class consumers, consumption will increase and our economic activity consequently will increase.

Unemployment benefits for example provide the most effective and direct stimulus to our current economy, because those benefits will not be held in cash reserves, nor invested, but spent dollar for dollar in our economy stimulating consumption and economic activity. Now, I grant you, the total of unemployment benefits over a period of months only adds 10’s of billions in increased economic activity in a very much larger GDP economy, but it gets the most stimulative effect for government dollar spent, aside from the creation of private sector jobs like those created by federal dollars used in road, bridge, and other infrastructure repairs and maintenance.

The people gaining government benefits that do not need them are to be found the upper 5% of income groups, predominantly. Corporate subsidies, net effective tax rates in that upper income bracket well below that of middle class workers, and consumption of a wide array of government services by these upper income groups from all levels of government, constitute the lion’s share of legal benefits which they do not require without associated costs, and user fees, though that is being partially addressed in some of the legislation passed in the last 18 months, in the form of increased investment transaction fees accruing to the government to compensate for costs of regulating investment communities, for example.

Combined with the black market economy and wholesale small business tax dodging, the dollar amount of wealthy government services dwarfs the more collective benefits received by the less wealthy who do not need them, middle and upper middle class retirees receiving Soc. Sec. for example, thought that was a contractual arrangement for those now receiving those benefits, and we have an obligation to honor our past contracts to the extent possible.

There are a great many spending cuts that could occur today and over the short term without serious economic consequences, especially in the area of defense and intelligence industries, for example. But, yes, you are absolutely right we can, and absolutely SHOULD be legislating the spending cuts today to become effective as economic activity picks up. And those cuts will have a compounding positive effect going forward by offsetting the dramatic increase in unfunded mandates of Medicare and Medicaid. There are no substitutes, however, for legislating away the health care expense growth that threatens our entire economic viability by the end of the coming decade, and means testing government benefit programs ASAP.

This is where Democrats have so far, entirely missed the boat. I think Obama finally gets it as he explained yesterday that the structural debt has got to become the a top priority, and that right quick, if our future is to have a chance. Whether he can bring enough Democrats and Republicans to agree on such a legislative priority is, however, very much an open question, and I suspect, very much in doubt. But, we shall see.

Making that priority publicly visible in every venue is the first step, as it will rally the independent voters around the concept and concept. And I am convinced, the independent voters have a rude awakening in store for incumbents of both parties over the next couple of election cycles, and across all levels of government.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2010 5:48 PM
Comment #304037

I don’t care who you are, or what you believe about Rachel Maddow, if you do not watch this clip, you will never understand the impact of dishonesty in American media politics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/21/rachel-maddow-white-house_n_654134.html

Posted by: Marysdude at July 21, 2010 2:00 PM
Comment #304045

The dishonesty runs both ways Dude. I for the first time in a long time watched Beck and he slammed those that brought this atrosity up. Why didn’t the NAACP come to her aid seeing how they had the unedited tape.

Posted by: MAG at July 21, 2010 3:46 PM
Comment #304050

David:

Lack of aggregate demand is one reason for Corporations to stock pile cash. However, are others.

For instance there are several uses that Corporations can put the cash to use. They can buy back their own stock. When earning next to nothing on cash reserves if your own stock is earning up to in some cases 5%, that is a good buy!!

Another use of the cash is to simply increase the dividend and pay it out to shareholders.

Of course there are mergers and aquisitions.

Part of the equation I believe is the activist government. I think the wealthy are sitting on the cash because they are unsettled with one party in power and all the intrusion into the economy. (I’m not arguing with the the need for much of the intrusion, only showing an unintended consequence).

Merkel feels the same way and is cutting the deficit in order to spur demand. It is counter intuitive but with large deficits it makes people feel uneasy and increases their desire to hold on to their cash.

There are some pretty sharp economists that are saying that the market is going to rise from here. The thesis is simply that America loves a divided government. The idea is that with Obama plus at least the house in Republican hands will hamstring government and the stock market will take off like it did in 1995. (plus 37.58% on s&p 500)

(Of course one can pick an opinion on the market and I can find a very good economist to agree with them)

My point is that there are several reasons why Corporations might hold cash. You have mentioned one of them.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 21, 2010 4:34 PM
Comment #304055

Craig said: “Merkel feels the same way and is cutting the deficit in order to spur demand. It is counter intuitive but with large deficits it makes people feel uneasy and increases their desire to hold on to their cash.”

True enough. Here, though, we absolutely NEED people to save. Increasing our savings rate is one of the investments needed in our future. And it is very straight forward. The more Americans save here, the more their savings remain here to circulate and underwrite our own economy, as opposed to our borrowing from from overseas, in which case not only does the principle end up overseas, but, the interest as well, underwriting foreign economies. Like all factors economic, every upside has its downside, and every downside, has its upside, provided the economy remains intact and relatively stable.

Increased savings has its short term downside in constricting consumerism and acting as a brake our economic activity. Longer term, however, provided the economy remains intact, those savings will underwrite expansion in a self-reinforcing fashion, with returns on investment (savings) going back to Americans who will in turn spend some and reinvest some again, underwriting even more economic activity.

Most folks I know don’t understand the difficult balancing act we are engaged in at this moment, deficit borrowing to keep the current economy out of negative territory in the present, while promoting increased savings and low interest rates to promote longer term capital investments (which has yet to really take off). Those businesses, as you imply, are hoarding cash out of a sense of uncertainty regarding which way the economic winds are going to blow both short and longer term. But, you know, that is pure psychology.

They won’t be hoarding that cash very long, because doing so, instead of putting that money to work somewhere for their investors and shareholders, will come to be viewed as a breach of fiduciary duty, and the pressure will increase to put that cash to work for the business in one way or another. One very positive sign of all this cash hoarding is that businesses have neared the end of their non-human capital investments toward productivity gains and efficiency. That means when business orders increase, hiring will begin to pick up as well especially in the service industries.

I actually believe that the balancing act taking place at the moment is just about as perfectly handled as anyone could possibly expect, given the depth and breadth of the recession, and the still enormous amount of negative assets on the books of the financial industry players and real estate markets. It was in April or May of 2009 when I realized just how really bad shape our economy was in. I truly did not expect our situation to be as good as it is just a year later.

We are not out of the woods yet, but, I think we can see the clearing ahead between the trees, even though it may take another 3 to 4 years to get there hobbling along. Of course, if the international economies continue to improve, that time frame for our own economy’s recovery could speed up considerably. Too many variables and unknowns however, to make any high probability bets.

The private sector has yet to put their reserves to work, the GSE’s have yet to be reformed and put on a path of recovering from their bad assets, elections have yet to be held, (and those could turn out real bad for our economic future if gridlock sets in), health care inflation has yet to be dealt with as well as reforming Medicare/Medicaid, and the illegal immigration issue has yet to be resolved. All these and more will directly affect how slow or fast our economy recovers and will shape whether or not our longer term economy has a snowball’s chance in hell of surviving. Sure wish my crystal ball worked.


Posted by: David R. Remer at July 21, 2010 6:50 PM
Comment #304056

MAG,

I see you are still defending this crap, or changing to Independent, or…or…or…but, did you see the way Maddow jumped on the administration as hard or harder than she did FAUX Noos? It’s called credible journalism. That’s something your side(s) are in short supply of.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 21, 2010 7:23 PM
Comment #304059

Dude I watched her to. I don’t care for her and she is NOT a journalist she is a commintator on the order of O’Riely, Hannity and Beck. She is to far left for me.

Posted by: MAG at July 21, 2010 8:06 PM
Comment #304070

MAG

From Wiki:

According to The Elements of Journalism, a book by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, there are nine elements of journalism [1]. In order for a journalist to fulfill their duty of providing the people with the information they need to be free and self-governing. They must follow these guidelines:

1.Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.
‘Rachel is honest’
2.Its first loyalty is to the citizens.
‘Rachel is a loyal person’
3.Its essence is discipline of verification.
‘Rachel is this above all’
4.Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
‘Rachel is independent’
5.It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
‘Rachel picks on ALL miscrients’
6.It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
‘I’m not sure what this means, but her forum is public’
7.It must strive to make the significant interesting, and relevant.
‘Rachel’s commentary is relevant, and certainly interesting’
8.It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
‘Rachel is comprehensive’
9.Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
‘Rachel absolutely has a conscience’


Rachel is a journalist.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 21, 2010 10:53 PM
Comment #304083

Dude, I guess in your mind she is all that. But what left winger wouldn’t? IMO she is an over educated biased left winger.

Posted by: MAG at July 22, 2010 12:03 AM
Comment #304086

David:

Well there are some brilliant people who have less confidence about our future. Ben Bernanke today said there is quite a bit of uncertainty. Krugman believes we are in a 19th century style depression. The VIX index is still way high. I think the fed was talking 5 more years of this.

I am not sure I am with you on Corporate cash and shareholders pushing them to use it. One thing drives Corporations and that is earnings. Earnings look very good. In fact some are projecting earnings for 2011 are for a record on the S&P 500. Also this hoarding of cash has been going on for some time. Corporations are doing just fine with out spending their cash. I read somewhere that cash has increased 25% during the recession.

Chamber of Commerce blames Obama for the hoarding of cash.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 22, 2010 12:38 AM
Comment #304102

Dude, I’m with you 100% about Rachel Maddow. I’ve watched her since her earliest appearances and have enjoyed seeing her find her comfort zone. Her trip to Afghanistan and the information she shared from that was great. I agree, also, that she will nail someone (anyone) in the current administration as fast as any of us did with Bush, et al. Above all else, she is intelligent , and that is not something that Faux can say about most of their mouthpieces.
She is not the only one who will be brutal equally. Olberman ripped several people a “new one” tonight, up to and including Obama.

Posted by: jane doe at July 22, 2010 4:43 AM
Comment #304108

>IMO she is an over educated biased left winger.
Posted by: MAG at July 22, 2010 12:03 AM

MAG,

Is thia the opposite of ‘undereducated biased right winger’?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 22, 2010 9:15 AM
Comment #304114

Dude like I said who on the left wouldn’t like her. I don’t.

Posted by: MAG at July 22, 2010 10:23 AM
Comment #304132

MAG,

No, you’ve consistently equated Rachel with Beck, Hannity and O’Reiley et al. I’ve pointed out that there is fallacy in that equation. I don’t give a rat’s pittooty if you like her or not, but I would like to see you give your devil her due. It would not kill you to admit the others are bought and paid for entertainers while Rachel is an actual journalist. That admission would not change your views of the left politic, or your belief in the pundit/comedians of which you sympathize.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 22, 2010 11:48 AM
Comment #304135

They are commentators as is Shultz, Olberman and Maddow. They are NOT journalist. Maddow has a degree in Political Science NOT journalism.

Posted by: MAG at July 22, 2010 11:55 AM
Comment #304142

Wow!

Posted by: Marysdude at July 22, 2010 12:50 PM
Comment #304229

MAG,

Let’s see…Rachel has a degree in political science, has a commentary on a major network, researches her subjects better than almost anyone, presents the information in an articulate way, stays on top of current political events and stays as fair as can be expected from someone who has a political leaning, but you say she is not a journalist. I’m not sure I understand just what you would look for in a journalist. Please enlighten me.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 22, 2010 10:54 PM
Comment #304233

Dude, STAYS ON TOP OF CURRENT POLITICAL EVENTS, Wikipedia listing of PUNDITS or in the simple english POLITICAL COMMENTATOR you will find the name RACHAEL MADDOW. Journalist gather and report on everyday NEWS STORIES such as murders, plane crashes, robberies, and everyday current events. Maddow does none of those things, she gathers and comments on political stories or basically the screw ups of the Rep party. But today to her credit she commented on Charlie Rangle and the deep s—t he is in.

Posted by: MAG at July 23, 2010 12:19 AM
Comment #304336

MAG,

Okay, we agree that Rachel is a fine journalist, and since she drives a stake into her President now and then, and takes on power brokers like Rangle now and then, she can be seperated from the common herd of TV shouters who bray their venom indiscriminately, such as Beck, Hannity and O’Reiley.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 24, 2010 1:47 PM
Comment #304338

PS:

Your description of journalist sounds so very like ‘reporter’ to me. Are you saying that only reporters are journalists? You still have me confused. I’m sorry if I seem obtuse on this issue. Did I not give WIKI’s look in on journalism in #304070, did you not read it or did you disagree with it?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 24, 2010 1:54 PM
Comment #304346

Dude No just your comparison of Maddow 1. She gives a liberal perspective 2 also only to liberals 3 see 1 4 also see 1 5. Not 6. with only a liberal perspective how could there be compromise 7.see 2 8. to liberals 9. As long as they are liberal. Like I said she is a liberal comentator not a Journalist. If you google each of the comentators for Fox and MSNBC you will find that 2 or 3 have majored in Journalism in college and Maddow is NOT one of them. 1 is O’Riely, 2. Shepard Smith and 3. I think is Ratigan.

Posted by: MAG at July 24, 2010 5:00 PM
Comment #304408

Majoring in journalism makes you a journalist, but BEING a journalist does not? Again I say WOW! Being biased does not preclude journalism, as it requires more honesty than lack of bias. Those whom you mentioned, and I admit to being too lazy to look up your assertions about them, lack the ‘honesty’ ingredient. Sorry, but they have to go to the back of the journalism bus.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 25, 2010 6:12 AM
Comment #304434

Commenting on the news does NOT make you a journalist Dude. Many on the MSM’s report news but that just makes them a reporter or commentatorwhich Maddow is one.

Posted by: MAG at July 25, 2010 12:58 PM
Comment #304484

Forget it MAG, the word journalist is too much for you to handle, and the concept of journalism has you completely befuddled.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 25, 2010 10:55 PM
Comment #349002

ZY-Congratulations! Are asos discount an expecting mother with a Women Mulberry Shoulder Bags frame? Then, you http://www.womendress-hot.org/ need not fret to find petite tapered jeans fashionable clothes.Gone are the Asos Evening Dresses when expecting mothers wore ill-fitting clothes. Nowadays, Women Mulberry Purses pregnant women want to flaunt men bootcut Jeans expecting bellies, hence wear trendy Asos designer dresses clothes. It can get frustrating to find petite roxanne mulberry bag for every trimester during pregnancy. A LOWKY 0074N of companies have started a line of http://www.sale-mulberrybags.org/ petite Asos maxi dress sale wear. Trendy maternity clothes like tops, blouses, jeans, pants, skirts, evening gowns, etc. mulberry satchel available.It is noticed that there KOOLTER no standard specification of petite size. Hence, most Asos women sandals uk the clothing lines have their own sizing mulberry outlet these clothes, and the sizes differ from one brand diesel store another. On an average, a woman of height Asos uk party dresses cm and below is mulberry bags alexa as petite. Many manufacturers label their small-sized diesel online range as petite size clothing http://www.dieseljeans-sales.biz/ .

Posted by: diesel g-rubia at July 20, 2012 10:39 PM
Comment #363105

Barbour jackets what began in 1894 in South Shields is now a global brand’s British heritage.The Barbour products are sold throughout the world.The Barbour jacket has now gained cult fashion status.For impeccable British heritage and technical excellence the Barbour coat range lead the way.Now,you can get a women barbour jacket or mens barbour from our uk barbour shopwith a big discount and free shipping worldwide.women barbour shop sale barbour at 50% off!We provide barbour wax,quilted barbour and">http://www.barbourjacketwomen.com/barbour-international-c-10.html”> barbour international for women and men.It’s the best time to buy a barbour jacket from our barbour store,if you want one!

Posted by: barbour factory at March 20, 2013 10:37 PM
Post a comment