Democrats & Liberals Archives

Pity is Their Defense for Fraud

Christine O’Donnell Lists three schools on her resume: Farleigh Dickinson, Claremont Graduate University, and the University of Oxford. She attended the first, and didn’t receive her degree until the beginning of this month because she failed to pay her tuition bill. They have no record of her at the Claremont Graduate Univerity, and as for the University of Oxford? Well, she took a course at the Pheonix Institute that had guest lecturers from there. But the program had no official Oxford Connection.

i'll tell you what the Republican response will be: The leave Britney alone defense.

Essentially they'll tell us that we're being elitist snobs, and that here life has been difficult, so she's almost working class, one of us, and we should stand with her against those big bad upper-class liberal twits.

One small problem: She's lying her ass off to make herself look like one of the educated elite. See, when she's caught, she's one of us. But before she's caught? Oh, she's got graduate degrees, and even went to Oxford, Just like Clinton!

Except Clinton actually attended Oxford, actually has graduate school experience. He wasn't lying. And neither is Obama, who wasn't claiming a degree from a place where he hadn't received his degree from, and who graduated from Harvard Law as well with flying colors. Republicans cast aspersions on Clinton as some backwoods hick, and on Obama as a Affirmative Action Graduate (despite a Cum Laude graduation, but what do they say about her making up large parts of her Curriculum Vitae?

Nothing, except to call Democrats elitists for bring it up.

But here's where the dishonesty comes in on their part, and her's as well. Why make all that stuff up to begin with? Why claim a degree from a place where before this year and month, they were withholding your degree for non-payment of tuition, where they successfully sued to get at it? Why claim that your Lincoln Fellowship at the Claremont Institute is attendance at the Claremont Graduate University, and that attending a course at the Pheonix Institute, with guest lecturers from Oxford, is attending the University of Oxford itself?

When it suited her purpose, she claimed this because it made her look better educated, like one of the elite, like she had the intellect to succeed at these programs. It gave her the appearance of merit. And isn't merit supposed to be what leads us to elect people?

Until it's not, apparently. The O'Donnell campaign and the GOP respond to charges like this by claiming that she's a victim of a media beatdown, by saying it's all just malicious bias on her critic's part. They let her play the victim, even though virtually every time, people are using her own words and her own actions against her.

The Republicans talk about Obama being an affirmative action graduate. Funny enough, I thought that Affirmative Action was about admissions, but Obama actually graduated in the top ten percent of his class, so Affirmative action, even if it was a factor, would have been long behind him in the rear-view mirror, and he would have demonstrated his merit. But when they turn around and defend a person committing resume fraud, they're frankly defining deviancy down, making a case that it's alright to pad your resume, alright to exaggerate and outright lie to appear to have better merits than you actually have, that this is behavior that you, the average person should not blame people for engaging in.

Look at your world right now. The Republicans made some terrible choices, and aren't willing to admit them. Part of what they've done since then, is lie to you about the causes of all these problems, scapegoating others for states of affairs they created. They'll run you around in circles with the facts to drop your approval for an initiative that the Democrats are pushing, and then tell you that they started the legislative push going against American's wishes. They'll take a provision allowing Americans to decide their own health decisions for critical care and end of life care, and turn that into a Death Panel, ready to off Granny to save money. They'll claim its a government takeover when it doesn't include the single-payer system that would be one, and they'll claim that Regulatory uncertainty is what's driving the economic doldrums, rather than admitting that the derivative fueled crash of 2008 is still a drag on the economy.

They want you to make a decision that benefits them as candidates, and as an institution that are not supported on the actual merits. They are fully willing to manipulate you, to deceive you, in order to maintain their institutional hold on power, and to recover their legislative hold so they can go back to reinforcing the power and the wealth of those who are funding their comeback this year.

O'Donnell is running, as are many other Republicans, to be part of a government that will determine this country's path going forward. They are not being honest with you, especially in the Senate. Senate Republicans have not let that body operate as normal since 2006, not by coincidence the year that Democrats took power. You have never seen a Democratic Senate allowed to perform as its majority would entitle it to peform. If you are underwhelmed, dissatisfied, disgruntled with how Congress has performed, it should occur to you that much of your disappointment, your anger at the way Congress has performed is a direct result of a concerted Republcian effort to keep Democrats from passing legislation out of the Senate.

And because of our constitutional requirements, you cannot pass from Congress what does not pass from the Senate. Hundreds of appointees and Federal Judges remain on the sidelines, and hundreds of laws have not been passed that perhaps you would have liked to see pass. Now the Republicans will tell you that their obstruction has all been for your own good. But consider something for a moment: the GOP has done this since you elected these people majority. They have fought with record breaking obstruction on the premise that when you elected these people, you didn't know what you were doing, what you were getting yourself in for. They essentially think that the American people had some sort of nervous breakdown or failure of intelligence, and as a result, turned to people they shouldn't have.

Never mind that after failed wars, failed economic policies, and other such failures, they merited such a send-off. They think they were doing alright, and as if to prove that, they're basically just promising to run things the same way as they did before. They are trying to get you used to the idea that you don't know what's best, that they, the institutional right, knows what's best. If you elect them, all you concerns about oil spills, about corruption on Wall Street, about Healthcare, and about everything else, will take a backseat to the concerns of the people who the Republcians really believe know what's best for the country.

Democrats have not been perfect, no doubt. They will take some work to become the better party that deserves your support outright. But I'll tell you this: if you, the independent, the open-minded Republican, support us, you will find that the base of the Democratic Party wants its government to work for it as well, and not merely the elite. You will find that you are in common cause with a party of people who want to hold their leaders accountable, who are not satisfied with things as they are.

That kind of political coalition has a future. That kind of political coalition will let us pull our way back from nonsensical policies, from policies driven more by the hubris of ideology than any responsive relationship to the facts. If you help us overcome the bitter, vicious, and stubborn obstruction of the Republican Party, then you won't have to sit by and watch as a bitter, lockstep minority again and again uses its numbers to ensure that whatever problem we face as a nation, we won't see a response to it.

Sometimes in politics, you have to invest in the future. The question here is whether you join with those who value actual intelligence, value responsiveness to the real world in policy, value integrity in their candidates, value the interests of those who aren't already served by their own wealth and influence, or whether you instead decide to invest with those who simply don't want to actually do work on your behalf out there, people who will take your support of them as a signal they can sit around and do nothing at all for you, who will glorify their own inaction, and define down their failures, so that you don't hold them accountable for not carrying out their duties as elected officials.

Do you want to encourage laziness and deception on this scale in your government, or do you want to take a different direction, force a different direction in politics. If you want politics to be run on the merits, don't be taken in by Christine O'Donnell and her party. Don't reward them for lying to you to get ahead.

Update-:
Since I authored the original story, The Campaign took down the original page, and she claims that somebody else must have originally posted the misleading information, which you can see for yourself on this cached page. I want you to note something first here: she has 84 connections here. Quite a few for an obscure page. The qualifications she claims are pretty plain. Now you could ask, did somebody else write this for her? Well, if they did, they did it soup to nuts, and one has to wonder why somebody she would entrust with such a page would make such serious errors. Did she not read this thing over, before she let it into the world? Or perhaps martians wrote it with the intention of influencing Earth politics. Who knows?

One thing I quickly found out, though, doing a little detective work: one of the first things you are asked for when you start one of these pages on this site, is what your educational background is. This wouldn't be an oversight. This would be the first thing this page asks of her. Hell, it's the first bullet point of the first step. If she is lying, and the indications she was, then she was lying from the start on this page of hers. Literally.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2010 5:40 PM
Comments
Comment #309445

Hey, at least she didn’t join a Coven. As far as we know.

Posted by: Ray at September 29, 2010 6:17 PM
Comment #309450

Maybe she can get one of those mouse transplant brains they are fully functional you know. And maybe she can get some for her republican friends.

Posted by: Jeff at September 29, 2010 7:42 PM
Comment #309452

One has to wonder what the parents and grandparents of Delaware are telling their children and grandchildren considering that type of move would get one fired from any corporation. And why one could say it is funny or sad to think a candidate would not have caught a major typo, given 6 years of her representing the Citizens of Deleware I wonder how many people in Washington are going to take her serious?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 29, 2010 8:07 PM
Comment #309453

Alvin Greene Stephen, Alvin Greene.

Posted by: George at September 29, 2010 9:51 PM
Comment #309455

Ok, as long as were making puns, maybe she just hasn’t evolved from her monkey phase yet.

Posted by: gergle at September 29, 2010 10:10 PM
Comment #309456

I guess President Obama is proof that you can graduate in the top ten percent of your class at Hravard and still be a clueless ideologue who rules in direct opposition to 70% of your citizens. I thought he was not going to be President of red states or blue states but of the United States. Seems to me he has demonized the vast majority of the people in this country in the last two years, most of whom are the productive citizens of this country that make it work and pay the bills for this bloated pig we call the Federal Government.

He blames Bush, Fox News, Republicans, and now he blames the rank and file members of his own party for all of his problems. I obviously did not and will not vote for him, but I certainly would have more respect for him if he would man up and accept some responsibility for his failures on jobs and the economy.

Poke fun at O’Donnell if you must,but you Dems put up an admitted Communist while you rant against us for even mentioning the word socialism.

Since you use the term fraud Stephen, how about the Dem candidate for Senate in Connecticut? In my mind,Blumenthal claiming he served in combat in Viet Nam when he did not, is about as slimy as it gets and shows a total lack of respect for those who have served in combat. Will you suggest that Dems not vote for him because they would be rewarding a liar? I did not think so.

You wrote:
“And because of our constitutional requirements, you cannot pass from Congress what does not pass from the Senate. Hundreds of appointees and Federal Judges remain on the sidelines, and hundreds of laws have not been passed that perhaps you would have liked to see pass. Now the Republicans will tell you that their obstruction has all been for your own good. But consider something for a moment: the GOP has done this since you elected these people majority. They have fought with record breaking obstruction on the premise that when you elected these people, you didn’t know what you were doing, what you were getting yourself in for. They essentially think that the American people had some sort of nervous breakdown or failure of intelligence, and as a result, turned to people they shouldn’t have.”

I can’t wait to throw this BS back in your face when the GOP takes over Congress and the Dems become the obstructionists. Face it, Obama ran his campaign like all liberal Democrats do. He lied about what he intended to do and pretended to be a centrist thereby sucking in the independent voters. Once elected, his far left “extreme”(You guys love that word) agenda has lost him the support of the independents. You can’t govern to please the 20% on the far left and expect broad based support.

Stephen,
I usually enjoy your posts even though I disagree with most of what you write because you do get me thinking. This post is definitely not your best stuff.

Posted by: Skeptical Boomer at September 29, 2010 10:39 PM
Comment #309459

Sounds like a great running mate for Sarah Palin.

Posted by: john in napa at September 29, 2010 11:47 PM
Comment #309469

I understand she studied witchcraft, kind of surprised she didn’t list Hogwarts.

Now how do we know Obama’s campain themes were all lies and the jobs and economy are his failures? Because skeptical boomer says so. He never said a word about health care reform while campaigning did he skeptical boomer?

Posted by: Schwamp at September 30, 2010 8:20 AM
Comment #309474

George-
Alvin Greene is not being apologized for by Democrats. They consider him an embarrassment. The Republicans aren’t putting out better candidates, they’re putting out worse, but shamelessly promoting them anyways, lowering their standards so they can win races with candidates who lack for merits. Most Democrats would in fact breathe a sigh of relief if Greene lost, and would never again neglect that particular primary.

Skeptical Boomer-

I guess President Obama is proof that you can graduate in the top ten percent of your class at Hravard and still be a clueless ideologue who rules in direct opposition to 70% of your citizens.

On what result do you base this claim? Direct opposition means that they oppose him on most if not all counts. That simply not true.

Stem Cell Research. Majority for it, so is Obama. Guess what the Republicans think?

Wall Street Regulation. Majority for tightening them, Obama for doing the same. Guess what the Republicans think?

Renewable energy and regulating oil companies more. Majority is for it, Obama for doing the same, Guess what Republcians think? Well, you don’t have to guess, they were apologizing to BP for them having to pay into a fund to compensate their victims.

DADT? Obama supports its repeal, the Public supports it, too, the Republicans oppose it.

Public Option? Republicans opposed it, Obama had no problem with it, the Public overwhelmingly approved of it.

I could go on, but the point is this: he’s not governing in direct opposition. In many cases, he’s on the majority’s side. However, Republicans have been relentlessly pounding out generalities that don’t reflect either the truth about how Obama’s truly governed, or how they truly govern, and this idea you put forward is one of those dishonest talking points. You would do well not to embarrass yourself further by not making this claim again.

thought he was not going to be President of red states or blue states but of the United States. Seems to me he has demonized the vast majority of the people in this country in the last two years, most of whom are the productive citizens of this country that make it work and pay the bills for this bloated pig we call the Federal Government.

Seems to you? If I watched FOXNews all the time, it might seem that way to me, too. But that is your opinion, and for my part, I would say this: Obama has fought for religious tolerance, healing of the racial divides, a sensible solution to the immigration problem in the border states. His most forceful rhetoric has been against the Wall Street Fat cats, but he didn’t have to turn people against them. The Fat Cats managed that fine themselves.

No, you want to believe he’s divisive, but the hateful rhetoric mostly comes from your side. As for the Federal Government? Well, inevitably, it will become more ineffective and inefficient in the hands of those who believe that it shouldn’t do anything for the average person. When it becomes a plaything of the rich and powerful and their interests, rather than having to work to do things for the average taxpayer, of course it’s going to become inefficient.

The Republicans don’t just believe that government doesn’t work, they take active steps to make sure it doesn’t. So, any talk of a bloated ineffective government must be considered in the context of their years of mismanagement of it.

He blames Bush, Fox News, Republicans, and now he blames the rank and file members of his own party for all of his problems. I obviously did not and will not vote for him, but I certainly would have more respect for him if he would man up and accept some responsibility for his failures on jobs and the economy.

He’s not blaming them, he’s telling them that they’d better get involved if they want to keep the majority, which is sound advice indeed.

As for failures on jobs and the economy? Republicans are ones to talk. They actively block stimulative measures, even took endeavors to make stimulus a four-letter-word politically. But in favor of what? Tax cuts, which aren’t any more popular. Obama hasn’t done enough, that’s obvious. But Obama can’t do much if Congress can’t pass anything. And Republcians endeavor again and again to make sure nothing pass. So even if Obama is a disappointment, Republicans have actively failed the American people on that count, and will continue to do so if their proposals are any indication.

Poke fun at O’Donnell if you must,but you Dems put up an admitted Communist while you rant against us for even mentioning the word socialism.

I don’t merely poke fun at her. I accuse her of deliberately deceiving the American People, in an effort to look like a better candidate than she is.

As for an admitted communist? Maybe one person (Who? It’s difficult to argue with a no-name strawman.), but you allege, basically that the whole party is crypto-communist. And of course, when we say that’s not true, you continue to insist. And why? Because you want to highlight legitimate policy differences? No. Because you want people to be afraid of us, rather than afraid of the policies under your people that have badly affected their lives. You folks want people to fear potential harm for no good reason, to distract them from real harm they have reason to fear.

I can’t wait to throw this BS back in your face when the GOP takes over Congress and the Dems become the obstructionists. Face it, Obama ran his campaign like all liberal Democrats do. He lied about what he intended to do and pretended to be a centrist thereby sucking in the independent voters. Once elected, his far left “extreme”(You guys love that word) agenda has lost him the support of the independents. You can’t govern to please the 20% on the far left and expect broad based support.

Oh, this is how you’re going to throw it back in our faces:

“We filibustered everything you guys tried to pass! How dare you try to do the same to us! It’s not fair!”

You can’t talk, anymore, about the minority sitting down and just taking it. You can’t claim any longer that Democracy demands it. You have zero credibility on that count, and all you have to complain about is that Democrats might do to you what they didn’t like being done to themselves. Fair enough. The Democrats would be hypocrites to come back and do the same. But the Republicans would have no moral standing to protest that hypocrisy, having protested the few filibusters of the Democrat as if they were a violation of Democracy.

Hopefully, the filibuster goes away, or gets restricted. But don’t preach at me about how awful the Democrats are going to be about this, because your people have done everything they could to make the environment toxic for our agenda to move forward. You don’t deserve to have your agenda privileged from such interference.

As for Obama? Only a Republican would allege that he’s gone to the far left of what he promised. Go down the list of what he actually promised. He said what he was going to do, and he has done much of what he talked about in the campaign.

God, I hate talk of “far left.” Do Republicans even understand how far to the right they’ve gone, how many former positions of the right they’ve condemned as being socialist? They have no credibility as to where the middle exists in America. They see too much through their own eyes alone, and have ceased to care what they look like from the perspective of other Americans. They are cut off and out of touch, and hence rely on fear and hatred to mask the fact.

But when people ask for your actual policies, it will be fun to watch folks respond to them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2010 9:16 AM
Comment #309479

Stephen,

I know you don’t mean fun as in funny fun. They have no policies to put forward other than those that have already proven failures. Watching what reactions people have to what conservatives put forward will not only not be fun, but watching the country country continue the downward slide that started in 1981, and showed reprieve only in the ‘90’s and now will certainly not be funny fun.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 30, 2010 10:44 AM
Comment #309480

SD
Don’t have time for an extensive writing here, but you used the phrase “Stem Cell Research”. I can’t find anybody opposed to Adult Stem Cell Research. After all they have a list of nearly 80 types of successful cures. On the other hand embryonic stem cell research has not even got to first base. Total failure and your response will be about something in the future. Have fun with that.

Gergle
Do you know the difference between a pun and a joke? Just checking.

Have a glorious day and one that glorifies God your creator.

Posted by: tom humes at September 30, 2010 10:54 AM
Comment #309481

Fifty-five percent in favor, despite the mention of embryos.

As for research, what gives you such confidence in your assertion? What are the facts upon which you base your claim?

Other countries are doing more research as folks here raise big controversies on the matter.

Bolstered by supportive policies and public research dollars, the United Kingdom, Israel, China, Singapore and Australia are producing unusually large shares of human embryonic stem cell research, according to a report from the Georgia Institute of Technology in the June 2008 issue Cell Stem Cell. Aaron Levine, assistant professor of public policy and author of the book Cloning: A Beginner’s Guide, studied how countries output of research papers related to human embryonic stem cell research compared to their output in less contentious fields. He found that even though the United States still puts out far more research in this field than any other single country, when one compares the amount of research in human embryonic stem cells to other forms of research in molecular biology and genetics, the U.S. lags behind.

It’s funny that you put such a convenient restriction on me being able to talk about the future, because the whole point of research is what you don’t know, but would like to know in the future.

If we take your restrictions seriously, then of course we have to take your word on research that has been held back in this country by policies your side already had in place for the last few years.

You’re essentially saying that because so much has been found out about Adult Stem Cells, there’s no need to research the embryonic kind. That’s like saying because so much has been found out about horses, there’s no need to research automobiles. Or because we’ve found out so much about multi-barrel machine guns, there’s no need to research single-barrel ones.

And of course conventional bombs work so well. No need to research the Atom Bomb!

By their nature, Embryonic Stem Cells have an ability to turn into new cells that is far greater than adult stem cells, which have undergone at least some differentiation. You would have researchers look at this issue with one hands tied behind their back, and for what, to save Embryos that, being saved, would be destroyed in an incinerator?

Research needs to be done in this field in an ethical manner, but it still needs to be done. The better we understand how the process of cell differentiation and specialization works at the beginning, the better we understand it at later times in cell life as well.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2010 12:35 PM
Comment #309483

Because conservatives have waged a constant and continuous war on science and scientific research, education and educational systems, unions and other labor movements, health and health care programs, America has slid into positions 6 through 26 in those important categories. If we don’t find some way to curtail their pressures on our abilities to compete in the world, our venture into third world status will accelerate.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 30, 2010 12:46 PM
Comment #309484

ESCR is a dead end road. Death of an embryo must occur for any experimentation. You are correct is saying that other countries have spent more and done more to promote ESCR. They have not made one iota of progress toward a cure of any physical difficulty.

So here is where we stand with ESCR.

Death
Money spent unethically
Enethical research
Press releases that are full of errors
Best possible result is called potential

Osama bin-Laden has the potential to become a Christian

Posted by: tom humes at September 30, 2010 12:51 PM
Comment #309485

Forgot this comment. I am convinced that many on this blog site would rather vote for Bernie Sanders than for Reid-Pelosi. Which is to say you would support socialism before just left-wing politics.

Posted by: tom humes at September 30, 2010 12:55 PM
Comment #309486

tom humes-
As a student of the sciences, I can tell you the value of a pronouncement like “ESCR is a dead end road” is precisely nil. What is the basis of your sentiment? Do you even understand the basic science here, or are you counting on some political source to inform you on this matter?

As for who I would support? Bernie Sanders isn’t a bad guy. And I would say so not because I am as far left as him, but because he seems to be practical about policy and politics. I don’t go running screaming away with my finger pointed at them because they are a Socialist.

But politically speaking, I’m a solid Democrat. All else being equal, my vote would end up in the D column rather than the S or R columns.

I support center-left policies. You can lie and distort and pull your hypotheticals out of God knows where to say otherwise, but the truth is I believe in a hybrid of the best parts of market governance and government oversight.

But the Right is so extreme nowadays that it doesn’t even recognize people like me, people who once they could count upon to support centrist compromise with them. Instead, they demand that everybody go to the extreme right with them, and where they cannot provide people with real world reasons to vote for their candidates, they either mask things in false outrages, or they lie about their records and their qualifications.

If I fight hard for Democrats, and against letting the Republicans set the tone, it’s because I believe Republican have become so extreme that any compromise would come at the nation’s expense, and I no longer trust passive, cyclical forces to do the job of Returning this country to it’s true center, to true moderation.

I fight for the moderation of your policies, which have taken this country to unconscionable extremes. When you folks take a chill pill and become practical again, I will consider working with you folks. Until then, I am working to kick your butts in the name of restoring moderation and normality to this country.

And kicking O’Donnell’s butt is part of that. A decade ago, Republicans would have never been so stupid or desperate to run a candidate like her. Now they’re pushing her, covering up for her foolishness and fraud. I expose her not because she’s conservative, but because electing her kind of unqualified moron to office strikes me as an offense to the kind of standards we should have for holding a government office that determines the fate of every American.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2010 1:18 PM
Comment #309487

Sanders is a good politician.

In general, a mix of socialism and capitalism has been the best recipe for economic and social success in this country, and virtually any statistic one cares to cite on science, scientific research, education, wages, employment, and health care shows the US would benefit by following more ‘socialist’ policies; after all, Germany and the EU and China won’t always be around to bail us out the next time our economy collapses.

Oh my. How impolite. I alluded to the collapse of the US economy in 2007 - 2008, a collapse due to privatization and deregulation. Oh no. Even worse. The socialists saved the capitalists.

Here’s a funny one. In 2004, I distinctly remember the Bush campaign touting virtually the only positive economic statistic they could cite: US homeownership was at an all time high. AFter WWII and through the end of the Clinton administration, it hovered around 67 - 68%. Under the Bush administration, it jumped to 70%! Bush and Limbaugh were very proud of this. It proved the Bush economic program was working, you see, and they referred to this with pride again and again and again. At the time I thought that was odd, because no other economic statistic supported the rise in home ownership- not job creation, not a rise in wages, nothing- and yet, home ownership had magically jumped 2% above its historical range.

We know what happened, of course- bad loans, combined with an artificially low interest rate and real estate bubble- and we know what magnified an ordinary downturn into an asset deflation and catastrophic credit crunch-the existence of unregulated derivatives.

If politicians like Sanders had been in charge, that would not have happened. Period.

The day before yesterday, I heard Limbaugh BLAME a Democratic HUD secretary for the collapse of the real estate market and its asset deflation. When Bush and the GOP were in charge, they couldn’t get enough credit for it.

Oh, and yesterday I heard Limbaugh make a hilarious comment, in which he wished at length that all Democrats would die in a head-on crash with voters- politically speaking, of course, he made sure to add that at the very end of the comment. Yeah, nothing funnier than metaphorically wishing the opposition would die in a horrendously violent way. Good stuff. Really entertaining.

Posted by: phx8 at September 30, 2010 2:52 PM
Comment #309488

Oh yeah. The reason I brought up Limbaugh in the first place- he referred to the various House & Senate races, including O’Donnell, and time after time he said things like the polls showing Boxer up by 9% didn’t matter, and everyone would be “surprised” when the GOP candidate won. Time after time, he defended the whack job Tea Party Republicans, and insisted the polling trends didn’t count, or that large leads for Democrats were actually small leads. Great stuff. I enjoy hearing the GOP defend whack job candidates. Of course, the closer we come to the Midterms, the more of the electorate will pay attention to the elections and the candidates, and the wackier the Tea Baggers will look upon closer inspection.

Posted by: phx8 at September 30, 2010 3:03 PM
Comment #309489

SD

“You can lie and distort and pull your hypotheticals out of God knows where to say otherwise,…”

So where did I lie about ESCR? Absolutely no forward progress toward a cure for anything has been accomplished, except making people rich from their fantasy research. Their purpose is more than a cure for anything, it is to allow all forms of death from whatever source. The researchers know they are on a dead end road to a cure. They have a bright future for death at any price or for any cause. This has been going on for decades. These statements are not froma a right ring blog site or pennings from any right wing individual. It is common knowledge that ESCR will not find a cure without killing the embryo. You cannot hide behind candidates or ideals of your preference.

Facts are facts whether you want to understand the truth in them or not. You and your minions on WB continually label me as a republican. You know that is a lie. Yet you continue to spew it. I am more anti-republican than pro-republican and that is only because the republican party, to a small extent, promotes some of the ideals I believe in. The democratic party has less. Now either show that I have lied or shut up with that kind of language. This is as close as I have come to being angry at someone on this blog.

God bless us all and may his mercy be delivered as he wills.

Posted by: tom humes at September 30, 2010 3:07 PM
Comment #309491

O’Donnell, tax evasion?

Stephen, Obama may be centrist left, but the Democratic Congress is centrist right. Single payer health care was a perfect center-left proposal that the Democrats could have used to prove the Republicans as obstructionists. Unfortunately the Democratic majority is center-right.

The Republican Party is using rhetoric that appeals to the far right. Thus, everything left of far right is considered radical leftist. They now have to adjust the rhetoric to appeal to a larger percentage of the voters than just far right reactionaries. It is the game played by both parties.

For the past two decades +, our country has been governed in the range of centrist right to right. That is the road that the people have been calling the wrong road.

tom humes, back in the 50’s, when our rockets were blowing up on the launch pad, there were a number of skeptics that said putting a rocket into orbit was a dead end road, then came sputnik.

Nearly every endeavor achieved by humans was preceded by failures.

I would place the odds of Bin Laden becoming a Christian as slightly less of a possibility than the odds of tom humes becoming a Muslim.

What Glen Beck said about Christian churches that work towards social justice is the equivalent of what fundamentalist Muslims, the terrorists, are saying about moderate Muslims. Muslims willing to compromise are considered non Muslims by the fundamentalist Muslims.

“Money spent unethically” What, playing God is OK with all of Gods creations except humans? Many moralists are more than willing to compromise with amorality and even immorality when it comes to protecting their worldly goods and increasing them.

Posted by: jlw at September 30, 2010 3:30 PM
Comment #309494

tom humes-
First, the words you quote don’t bear on that part of the argument. I didn’t say you were lying. I just told you your pronouncement wasn’t really valid.

You cannot know where a research project will take you before you embark on it. That’s the point of research: you don’t know everything to begin with, which is why you start things out to begin with.

People talk about String Theory as the next big thing. However, they’ve been talking about that since before I was born. The problem is actually testing the theory, doing the actual research. The energy of the colliders necessary will go up accordingly. Right now they’re looking for the Higgs Boson. (Bosons are a class of particles, of which one of the most well known examples is the photon, the light particle)

Well, somebody could say “The Higgs Boson is Fact! Eat Stuff and Die!” and somebody else could say “The Higgs Boson is a Lie! Go Stuff yourself!”

But until somebody went out there and did the things necessary to get this thing to show up, and and see if it did, the Higgs Boson would remain an open question, regardless of what the two said, at least from a scientific point of view.

Some particles don’t get seen until you get the energy of the accelerators up high enough to produce them. A number of Quarks and other particles only showed up when they pumped up the energy they were putting through the machine to necessary levels.

You? You have rendered a verdict, for God knows what reason, and expect me and others to take it seriously.

Absolutely no forward progress toward a cure for anything has been accomplished, except making people rich from their fantasy research.

Funny. Here’s a tip on basic logic: unless you are reasonably certain you are correct Never say never. People have made progress. You’ve just not paid attention.

Their purpose is more than a cure for anything, it is to allow all forms of death from whatever source.

Wow. Really? Stem Cell researchers are the devil? This is a silly argument, unless you want to go after fertility clinics for burning preborn embryos to death.

Do I hear complaints about that from you guys? It’s gone on for years!

The researchers know they are on a dead end road to a cure.

And you know they know this how?

They have a bright future for death at any price or for any cause. This has been going on for decades.

Right, they’re twirling their mustaches now, marvelling at the success of their satanic plan.

These statements are not froma a right ring blog site or pennings from any right wing individual.

I see plenty of Republicans and right-wingers make the same claims as you. Don’t BS me.

It is common knowledge that ESCR will not find a cure without killing the embryo. You cannot hide behind candidates or ideals of your preference.

Embryos are destroyed all the time when the leftover fertilized eggs from fertility treatment are discarded. You might as well, with your logic, accuse fertility researchers of infanticide, or mothers who don’t become pregnant after sex with their husbands- I mean, who knows whether the egg might have fertilized, but never implanted?

An Embryo is not a child yet. If you were to say, “lets not create embryos specifically to be used to do stem-cell research.” I would agree. But what if they are already created, and they’re going to be destroyed anyways?

I’d say, if we’re going to destroy them, if at that point, we find it conscionable to destroy them, then wouldn’t it be better to extend and improve people’s lives, to give more of God’s children a happy, healthy life, than to just destroy them for nothing?

Facts are facts whether you want to understand the truth in them or not

First, you offer more opinions than facts, and claim them as facts. Second, two different people can look at one set of facts and see two different things. Sometimes one person’s view is more valid, more sound than the other person’s. Sometimes, its just an inevitable, insoluable difference of opinion.

But you don’t get to act like your statements are handed down from on high. What you say will be put to the test.

You and your minions on WB continually label me as a republican. You know that is a lie. Yet you continue to spew it.

Well, first, I know you not to be a Republican. But you have to be fairly oblivious to what Republicans are actually saying to not know that you’re talking in Republican talking points. People identify you as Republican from that. Second, I don’t have minions. I am not an evil genius. Nobody works at my direction. People agree with me, that’s all. If you resent that, it’s your problem.

I am more anti-republican than pro-republican and that is only because the republican party, to a small extent, promotes some of the ideals I believe in.

Look at your posts and show me the last time you didn’t follow the Republican line. If most of the statements you put out support that line, and very few of them don’t, it won’t matter what you personally think, what you write, and express, will convey a different message.

I can’t read your mind. Nobody else can. Don’t expect people to.

Now either show that I have lied or shut up with that kind of language. This is as close as I have come to being angry at someone on this blog.

The lies are things you say about us. Maybe you pass them on without realizing it, or maybe you presupposed what we actually think without actually asking or observing what what we believe. But either way, you repeatedly make claims about what we think, about what people’s motives are that are fundamentally untrue.

I don’t like people vilifying me, or falsely ascribing beliefs to me. You go off the deep end when I or others make claims that you are a Republican. What do you expect from us Democrats and Liberals when you claim we’re economy destroying, murdering monsters? You expect happy agreement?

We’re sick of being called names by people who don’t feel they have to be bothered with proving the things they say. We’re sick of being attacked as extremists, as heartless bastards.

If you don’t want to be mistaken for a Republican, re-examine what you say, and make an effort to distinguish yourself. If you don’t want to be called a liar, don’t recklessly defame people as murderers, psychopaths and subversives, especially when those people are right there having the discussion with you, and plainly think your labels and beliefs are unfair to them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2010 4:06 PM
Comment #309496

By the way, Stephen, if you haven’t read it already, check out “WWW.Watch,” by Sawyer, from the local library.

Posted by: phx8 at September 30, 2010 4:21 PM
Comment #309497

Christine O’Donnell’s Evil internet twin strikes again!

Delaware Republican Senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell has responded to accusations that she overstated her education in her resume by insisting that a LinkedIn profile erroneously stating she went to Oxford University wasn’t authored with her knowledge.

But now a new website has surfaced listing the same erroneous biographical information. And a website spokesman claims that O’Donnell entered the data herself.

On Thursday, the Democratic National Committee pointed out a second O’Donnell Internet profile also lists the candidate as having studied at the University of Oxford (O’Donnell took a course with the Phoenix Institute on Oxford’s campus). On a Zoom Info entry, the Delaware Republican is described as having received a “Certificate” in “Post Modernism in the New Millennium” at the University of Oxford. The entry, as noted in the top right corner, was “User Verified.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2010 4:24 PM
Comment #309499

Stephen,
Wow. Christine “the teenage witch” O’Donnell is such a shameless liar.
I’m really starting to think of her as Palin, Part 2.

Phx8, what you said!
I think Bernie Sanders is fantastic. If that makes me a Socialist, so be it. After all, Liberals and Progressives are now always labeled Socialists anyway, so why not simply own it?

Hey, and if the left is made up of nothing but Socialists, that automatically means that people on the right would be the Antisocial-ists…
Ha, ha, ha! Well, if the ferragamo fits…

Posted by: Adrienne at September 30, 2010 5:12 PM
Comment #309500

Adrienne-
Unlike the guy who got turned into a newt, this resume problem hasn’t gotten better.

But TPM just spoke with a Claremont official who reviewed O’Donnell’s 2002 application file. Ryan Williams, who oversees the Lincoln Fellowship program, told us that O’Donnell lists a certificate from Oxford University on her resume. “She did have a line about Oxford,” he said as he looked at her file, which also included an essay and letters of recommendation.

An undergraduate degree is required. She did not have that until Sept. of this year.

They people they talked to about the certificate from that program said it would not be correct to list that certificate as if it were one from Oxford itself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2010 5:26 PM
Comment #309503

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “Second, two different people can look at one set of facts and see two different things.”

I am astonished….astonished I tell you. Just a week or so ago Mr. Daugherty argued with me endlessly over what he now agrees to. Congrats Mr. Daugherty, it proves to me that despite your comments you are capable of logical thought.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 30, 2010 5:57 PM
Comment #309504

Stephen,
Dang. So, it appears that Ms. O’Donnell’s got lies on top of her lies, which in turn, aided her in being able to continue to tell more lies?

I know the term serial liar exists, but I think a new term needs to be coined for this when it comes to politics! I propose that candidates who pull this kind of thing on the national stage should henceforth be called O’Donnelliars.

I’ll use it in a sentence or two:
I can’t help but notice this candidate is trying to O’Donnellie their way into a Senatorial position they quite obviously don’t have the brains (not to mention, ethics) to handle; which naturally endangers this nation. Well, that pathetic O’Donnelliar just lost my vote!
:^)

Posted by: Adrienne at September 30, 2010 6:27 PM
Comment #309506

Uh-oh: Looks like O’Donnelliars can have a little IRS problems with their non-profits, too.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 30, 2010 6:50 PM
Comment #309507

Tom Humes-

This is your Creator! Please stop using my name on the WB site. Please do not make Me remind you about this, as I am very busy, and need to appear in a tortilla in Mexico tomorrow.

Posted by: GOD at September 30, 2010 8:00 PM
Comment #309510

SD

Facts vs. opinions

An embryo is not a child. Says who? What’s the difference between a child and a baby? It’s your opinion.

I don’t follow a line. I follow my conscience. You have read of me being critical of both political parties. Again your opinion.

You ascribed numerous statements and phrases to me in your above statement. They were your opinion not facts. For examble you said I considered researchers as the devil? Did I really say that and where?

The ESCR has been going on for decades and they still have not made an iota of progress to a cure of any illiness. They have killed embryos to do what they are doing. So here we are they murder to save a life; a life that they have not succeeded in saving, not once. Why is it necessary to kill a life to save a life? You do not have a righteous answer for that, because there is none.

Posted by: tom humes at September 30, 2010 8:59 PM
Comment #309511

Adrienne,
The term ‘socialist’ means one thing to a liberal and another to a conservative.

For a liberal, ‘socialist’ means ‘government ownership of the means of production.’ The Veterans Administration is an example of a socialist institution.

For a conservative, ‘socialist’ is a pejorative. It means ‘anti-American communist nazi chile molester.’ By invoking it, conservatives believe they have automatically won an argument. If you every hear Limbaugh or Hannity, they will often finish a train of thought or debating point by declaring an opponent is ‘socialist.’

If a liberal points out to a conservative that the VA is an example of socialism, the conservative will suffer vapor lock. A conservative cannot fathom that concept. Supporting our military is anti-American nazi communistic case of child molestation? But conservatives always support the military! After a period of wide-eyed, deer in the headlights confusion, the conservative will change the subject. The statement ‘the VA is a socialist institution’ is simply impossible for a conservative to assess.

Really, on an emotional and childish level, when a conservative calls someone a ‘socialist,’ it is simply name calling. On some sort of primitive bottom-of-the-Maslow-heirarchy level, that means conservatives believes they have won the debating point.

Remember, these are often the same people who believe Saddam Hussein perpetrated 9/11, and that Obama is a Muslim Kenyan anti-colonialist terrorist sympathizing fist bumper.

Posted by: phx8 at September 30, 2010 9:01 PM
Comment #309512

I’ve done ‘backgrounder’ information on Christine O’Donnell since her first bid in 2006 for one of Delaware’s senate seats. She’s a complete fraud! Sadly, she wandered into Delaware in 2003 from her home state of New Jersey (carpetbagger) and took a Communications Director position at the conservative publishing non-profit Intercollegiate Studies Institute. She was summarily FIRED after only 11 months for ‘doing personal PR work on company time’ and basically being woefully unqualified (they hired her based on a lot of her ‘supposed’ credentials/resume).

She then tried to sue ISI to the tune of $6.9 million for gender discrimination and for ‘other’ unfounded allegations. Ironically, this has been the LONGEST she’s ever worked at one time. I could go on for 100 pages about this unfortunate candidate. The fact is, she’s indeed, a serial liar, exaggerator and truth-bender.

Nearly 90% of her campaign money came from out of state - mainly California, thanks to the Tea Party Express. She only had around $20k in the bank before the primary. She ‘lived off of’ the balance of her campaign funds for personal bill-paying, rent and even entertainment. She still owes numerous people money from her ‘06 and ‘08 campaigns for the same Senate seat race that she ran.

She was a theatre major before switching to English/Communications at Farleigh Dickinson. BTW, she did not receive her diploma until 17 years after she went there; not for insufficient payment to the University (she settled that debt in 2003 only after being sued by FDU); she actually still had another class to finish before completing her degree. She did so this past Spring. Her campaign manager contradicted her, as did the local newspaper, on this matter.

She has now hired infamous Political Ad-Man Fred Davis (he did the ‘Demon Sheep’ ads for Carly Fiorino and ads for Dan Quayle’s son in Arizona)
from California to produce her ‘new’ ads (her old ads came from her then campaign manager, who quit to run a Tea Party Affiliated website Liberty.com). In the TPE ads, they claim a rumor about her primary opponent (Lieutenant Gov., 2-time DE governor and 9-term Congressman) Mike Castle as being ‘gay.’

The TPE ads, along with a majority of political commentators (Hannity, Limbaugh, Malkin and others) lied about his voting record on Obamacare, TARP and other important bills. He voted NO on all of these bills. Another irony is that Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer, Dick Armey and his ‘Freedom Works’ all pulled back on endorsing her during the primary. Their insight turned out to be prescient. And of course Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and others backed her, regardless of her character, background and fiscal irresponsibility. It’s funny how, in a small state like Delaware, (where I’ve lived my entire life) and everyone ‘knows’ Biden, Castle and Carper personally on many levels, did these ‘outsider’ National (Pro Tea Party) conservative pundits get it all wrong.

O’Donnell is now missing in action. She has not been seen or heard from since a Sept. 21st 9-12 Patriots candidate forum. Where is she? She accumulated a whopping $2.8 million (again, 98% from out-of-state sources) since the Sept. 14th primary win. A lot of money for someone who claimed $5,800 for her 2009 Income Tax return. Palin advised her to ‘only speak through Fox News a week and a half ago. But since the ‘witchcraft’ video went public, she’s cancelled all media events - even Fox News!

My personal theory is she’s always sought fame and fortune, and after Palin’s endorsement 2 weeks before the primary, she’s become Palin herself! COD has done her own version of “The Talented Ms Ripley.” Dress like her, act like her, use the same ‘common-sense conservative solutions’ talking points like her and….become her (book deals, TV spots, etc.).

Delawareans don’t like her (we are a Blue State, 2 -1 Dem registered voters to Republican registered voters). Even Murkowski from Alaska warned Castle after Miller narrowly beat her in that state’s primary, that the TPE will stop at anything to bury you. That is why, I’m sure, Murkowski is running as a ‘Write-In’ candidate now. Castle decided no to a ‘write-in’ bid today - deadline 9/30/2010.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at September 30, 2010 10:01 PM
Comment #309513

Where is she Kevin? Probably hanging out with Nikki Haley. The Tea Party is so easily duped.

Posted by: George at September 30, 2010 10:08 PM
Comment #309515

Tom,
Ha! Everything you wrote above are just your opinions, too. And guess what? People on the left are always going to fight like hell to make sure that opinions like yours don’t automatically get to trump ours simply because you believe you own what’s “righteous.”

Phx8,
Indeed! It’s pretty hilarious how often the righties use that term as though it’s the very worst thing they can say. And the funniest part of all is that they’ve just been programmed to repeat it! Using the word socialist to refer to liberals and progressives is just a right wing talking-point style insult that their Fox noise machine has invented for them to use. The truth is, the vast majority of the people on the right who use this term constantly and swear we’re all socialists have never read any Marx or Engles, and therefore don’t have the least clue as to what they’re talking about.

Btw, regarding Bernie Sanders, have you ever listened to The Thom Hartmann Radio Show? Senator Sanders often is on there on Fridays talking about what’s going on up on the Hill, and discussing current news events with Thom. Great stuff!

GOD wrote:

This is your Creator! Please stop using my name on the WB site. Please do not make Me remind you about this, as I am very busy, and need to appear in a tortilla in Mexico tomorrow.

Hello GOD, how’s it hangin’? You know, I think I may have seen you (or maybe it was your brother) in a scoop of mint chocolate chip ice cream I was eating last weekend. Made it even more delicious than usual, I must say…

Oh and listen, can I ask a big favor? Don’t allow this lying, repellant multi-millionaire win the governorship in the state of California, please? I’d be ever so grateful!

Posted by: Adrienne at September 30, 2010 10:22 PM
Comment #309516

Adrienne, from one left-coaster to another…..a big Amen and Hallelujah to your last paragraph!!!

Posted by: jane doe at September 30, 2010 11:29 PM
Comment #309522

O’Donnel’s resume’ reminds me of GW Bush’s. Looked impressive until you dig into it for verification, then, you realized the resume’ gives a whole new meaning to ‘padded’.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2010 4:55 AM
Comment #309523

David,
Once upon a time just the rumors of such things would be enough to disqualify a person running from office. And though in my lifetime I have seen that it normally takes someone going to Washington before they break Ethic and Moral Standards of the Establishment. Since Governor Palin was chosen to run as the Republican VP and now O’Donnel, could not one make the case about the Standards of the Republican and Tea Party Ladies?

Yes, a low blow; however, I wonder what Rush and Company would be saying if the Democrats and Liberals would be running the same qualified candidates for Congress. For I am surprised now the shoe is on the other foot about their silence.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 1, 2010 6:23 AM
Comment #309525

Henry, David,

One could make the case that this was the far right’s plan to celebrate the “average” American come home to roost. For decades, we have heard nothing but disparaging remarks about the “educated” elite in this country.

Palin and O’Donnell may, unfortunately, be just the tip of the iceberg.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 1, 2010 7:25 AM
Comment #309526

Henry-
Yeah, that’s what bugs me. They’re pushing standards down so they can win with people who are absolute atrocious. I think all those years of defending Bush and other such fools and incompetents has gotten them in the habit of not cutting lose the morons and the crooks, but instead turbocharging their campaigns to win anyways.

That’s one of the big reasons I so strongly oppose this Republican Party. Democrats at least have the sense to cut their losses

The question, really, is should a party be triumphing in politics merely because it, as an organization, has such a sociopathic perspective on accountability and standards of governance that nobody minds if somebody like O’Donnell or this guy Palladino in New York wins? My biggest worry, politically speaking, is that these people place political success so high as a priority, and working policy so low, that anytime you let them into power, or they wield considerable influence in the process, it’s a disaster for the country.

Eight years of Bush Politics, of politics that apologizes for incompetence, apologizes for rampant corruption, which allows every big problem to get fundamentally out of hand and hurt this country, is enough for me.

Evidently, the Republican Party hasn’t had enough, and my since they won’t have enough of it until the party takes its tragic fall. I intend to help engineer that as quickly as possible.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 1, 2010 7:25 AM
Comment #309527

“The fact is, she’s indeed, a serial liar, exagerrater and truth-bender.”

Of course she is, that is exactly why she is so popular with the extremist right in this Country. They thrive on misinformation, half truths and outright lies. Look at Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich and the rest of the Faux news presidential candidates that O’Donnell emulates.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 1, 2010 11:51 AM
Comment #309528

Adrienne
You are quick to state what I said was an opinion. No, they are facts. Where is any progress being made on a medical cure for anybody. It does not exist. They cannot get their plane away from the gate.

A baby, child, embryo, and so on describes a living being. That is to say it has life and is not yet dead. Of course, the researchers will guarante death, so that they can make “progress” on ESCR which is also non-existent.

These are facts, baby. Live with them!! Don’t put your head in the sand. Don’t live in denial.

Posted by: tom humes at October 1, 2010 11:53 AM
Comment #309529

>These are facts, baby. Live with them!! Don’t put your head in the sand. Don’t live in denial.
Posted by: tom humes at October 1, 2010 11:53 AM

Not only does it get more and more stupid in here, it also gets childishly silly.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2010 11:57 AM
Comment #309530

“I can’t help but notice this candidate is trying to O’Donnellie their way into a Senatorial position they quite obviously don’t have the brains (not to mention, ethics) to handle; which naturally endangers this nation. Well, that pathetic O’Donnelliar just lost my vote!”

Adrienne, should this serial liar not have to stand in line for this honor? When you think about it there is a long line of radical right wingers who have shown her the way. Roveliar, Palinliar, Gingrichliar, Limbaughliar, Hannityliar,Beckliar,Breitbartliar and the best of all Luntzliar. O’Donnell is an upstart compared to this group, a rookie, very skilled but still a rookie.
ANyway I thought your post was clever and O’Donnelliar does have a certain ring to it. Perhaps some of our friendly conservative bloggers can help us decide which radical right winger deserves this honor.



Posted by: j2t2 at October 1, 2010 12:07 PM
Comment #309531

“Where is any progress being made on a medical cure for anybody. It does not exist. They cannot get their plane away from the gate.”

Really Tom?
Then what is this?

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/22/news/la-heb-stem-cell-clinical-trial-20100922

It must of slipped in while your vigilance was down. Apparently not every “fact” is in your vast paper library.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 1, 2010 12:37 PM
Comment #309532

Rocky
I had not read that.

It is too new to evaluate a trial which is to begin when.

It still goes without saying they have to kill to live.

As with all the other pronouncements in the past about ESCR, I won’t hold my breath.

Posted by: tom humes at October 1, 2010 1:26 PM
Comment #309533

tom,

>It still goes without saying they have to kill to live.

We also have to live to die. I thank you for your deep insightful thoughts, but they have little meaning in the scheme of life. Those embryos are either on their way to create, or on their way to the dump. They have meaning if they help create, but have no meaning otherwise. At least with research, they again have meaning. If your argument is that they should never have been taken in the first place…you’re too late.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2010 1:35 PM
Comment #309534

tom,

>It is too new to evaluate a trial which is to begin when.

Every piece of research, no mater the type, had to begin when. Did you honestly believe research sprung full blown and had positive results to begin with? There is a theory that research with embryonic stem cells will produce a desired effect. The theory is backed up by all the preparatory discussion, and administrative findings. All that has concurred that such research is more than likely to provide us with disease and aging remedies. It is long past time for the actual research to begin in America as it has for a long while in other nations. America should not really stay in the Dark Ages forever.


Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2010 1:43 PM
Comment #309535

tom humes,

“It is too new to evaluate a trial which is to begin when.”

Seems to me that vast progress has been made if it has been OKed by the FDA, and is ready for human trial.

If people can walk again as a result of this therapy all the better.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 1, 2010 1:47 PM
Comment #309536

tom,

>As with all the other pronouncements in the past about ESCR, I won’t hold my breath.

As with everything in life, if you hold your breath too long, you will have lived to die.

What goes around comes around.

The void you would create should you hold your breath too long would be much greater than the void created by the loss of one of those embryo, but if a dread disease can be cured by one of those embryo, it would more than fill any void you would leave. if you held your breath too long.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2010 1:50 PM
Comment #309537

Tom,

In my view your opinions truly have no merits. What Rocky posted (thank you Rocky!) is clear proof of the advances that are being made, and will continue to be made through ongoing research. But clinical trials such as the one that Rocky linked to aren’t the only proof of the advances have been made through scientific stem cell research. Doctors are already using chemotherapy in conjunction with stem cell therapy to treat bone marrow cancer. And in England they’ve been doing trials where they have already restored eyesight to people who were going blind with stem cell therapy. This science has come a very long way in a very short amount of time.
And, as Marysdude pointed out with his comments, just the research itself is vitally important — because scientists are learning so many different things about the nature and causes of a huge variety of diseases by conducting stem cell research. I fully expect that many diseases will be treated and cured as this research continues — and in this country thankfully it finally can move forward because we have a president who is not hostile towards science due to his religious views.

A baby, child, embryo, and so on describes a living being. That is to say it has life and is not yet dead

Actually, I consider there to be an enormous difference between babies and embryos. After all, one cannot freeze a baby without killing it, while an embryo can be frozen and then thawed out and still remain viable (although not in all instances). No one is out protesting against the freezing of embryos are they? No, they aren’t. Everyone would protest the freezing and killing of babies, yes? Of course! That’s because babies are living beings, while embryos only contain the potential to become a living beings.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 1, 2010 2:33 PM
Comment #309538

Adrienne

Please differentiate between Adult Stem Cell Research which has made great strides and Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The chemo and bone marrow research is Adult Stem Cell Research and I am in favor of Adult Stem Cell Research.

Just for the sake of safety why would it not be advisable to consider an embryo a life until everybody can agree on the point where life begins. That way it could apply the old adage that it is better to be safe than sorry.

Posted by: tom humes at October 1, 2010 2:58 PM
Comment #309539

j2t2, glad you liked my comment.

I absolutely agree that those Republicans you listed are all worthy of a ton of ridicule and that they have without a doubt paved the path well for the likes of Ms. O’Donnell.

However, what has come out about this woman I consider truly gobsmacking in the extreme. It seems her entire resume has been built upon nothing but lies! She’s also been stealing, and indulging in other highly questionable behaviors — and yet all while she has held herself up as a perfect model of extremist Christianity!

Is this not Simply Amazing and Uniquely Appalling?!

For these reasons I feel she most definitely has earned the rare honor I wish to bestow upon her!

Posted by: Adrienne at October 1, 2010 3:01 PM
Comment #309540

Tom:

Please differentiate between Adult Stem Cell Research which has made great strides and Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

I don’t differentiate between the two. Whatever type of stem cells work best I think should be used for research and for cures.

The chemo and bone marrow research is Adult Stem Cell Research

All of the research that has been done has been built upon all the previous research. I think it’s ridiculous to try to separate the two.

and I am in favor of Adult Stem Cell Research.

I’m in favor of either or both.

Just for the sake of safety why would it not be advisable to consider an embryo a life until everybody can agree on the point where life begins. That way it could apply the old adage that it is better to be safe than sorry.

I think that perhaps you should try discussing this issue with someone who is paralyzed, or who suffers with Parkinson’s disease or severe diabetes. Maybe it might transform how you feel about frozen embryos and the slogan “better safe than sorry.”

Posted by: Adrienne at October 1, 2010 3:23 PM
Comment #309541

tom,

Again, all research begins as theory. The theory is that although adult stem cell research can make an impact on certain diseases having to do with the area the stem cells are taken from, that embryonic stem cells may be able to impact every cell it is aimed at. THAT is what research is for. Again…the embryonic cells needed for research have been frozen. They will either be used to help create life or be tossed in the waste can. Does it not make more sense to use some for research that will likely lead to cures and treatments for problems that cannot be touched by adult stem cell research?

Think this way…in your left hand you have some embryos that have been frozen and are going to be injected into human ova. In your right hand you have some embryos that are slated for destruction…someone comes along and tells you that if you will give him the cells from your right hand, they may be able to convert those cells into a cure for spinal cord injuries…what are you going to do with that right hand? You could always act like a fundamentalist and just close your right fist.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2010 3:34 PM
Comment #309542

The problem of understanding stem cell research is that adult stem cell research is activly curing nearly 80 afflictions and the list is growing. Embryonic stem cell research, despite the trial mentioned above is not near a cure for any affliction. Ethically you cannot kill to live. That is a moral black hole.

If you want to support embryonic stem cell research, it does not change how the big picture looks. That is a personal choice that I personally disagree with, but it is your choice not mine. It makes no different how or what I think of you as an individual, because I don’t know you well enough to make a call on that. I may disagree with you on nearly everything you post on this blog, but you don’t hear me call you names because you believe differently than I do. And I frankly really don’t care what people think of me, but when they put untruths about me in writing, I will respond.

Posted by: tom humes at October 1, 2010 4:58 PM
Comment #309543

>you don’t hear me call you names because you believe differently than I do. And I frankly really don’t care what people think of me, but when they put untruths about me in writing, I will respond.

tom,

Did someone call you a name? Did someone lie about you? Please provide the posting number of the offending entry(s).

Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2010 5:25 PM
Comment #309544

>Just for the sake of safety why would it not be advisable to consider an embryo a life until everybody can agree on the point where life begins
. That way it could apply the old adage that it is better to be safe than sorry.
Posted by: tom humes at October 1, 2010 02:58 PM

Tom,

When in this life can any subject be agreed upon by everybody? I have the answer…the twelvth of NEVER!


Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2010 5:33 PM
Comment #309545

TH,

I suggest you brush up your knowledge with this faq.

You might want to pay special attention to this:

* What is an adult stem cell?
A. Adult stem cells, also known as tissue-specific stem cells, are present in adults, children, newborn infants and developing fetuses. Adult stem cells are more limited and specialized than embryonic stem cells. They have the ability to make just one or two kinds of tissue, such as blood and immune system cells, brain or muscle cells. Adult stem cells also have a more limited capacity to replace themselves than do embryonic stem cells.
* What is an iPS (induced pluripotent stem) cell?
iPS cells are adult cells reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells. While iPS cells are an exciting discovery, these cells could never be used in patients because the use of viruses to reprogram these adult cells predisposes the cells to cancer. As a result, these cells cannot replace the use of embryonic stem cells. There is widespread agreement among leading stem cell researchers, including the scientists that developed iPS cells, that research must continue on all types of stem cells including those derived from embryos.
Some of the work announced in November 2007 was done at the University of Wisconsin by James Thomson. Early stages of this work used embryonic stem cells derived from leftover in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos. This work would have been illegal in Michigan, illustrating how restrictions under Michigan state law stifle discovery and impair Michigan scientists’ ability to participate in critical research.
* What has stem cell research accomplished?
Bone marrow transplants have been performed for decades and involve the infusion of adult stem cells. Research based on embryonic and adult stem cells has yielded promising results for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease and diabetes Stem cell research also has generated new knowledge about basic cell mechanisms that is critical to understanding the causes of disease, such as cancer.
Some have criticized embryonic stem cell research by arguing that adult stem cells have delivered more treatments, but that observation is misleading. While adult stem cells have been studied for decades, human embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998. There has not yet been time to develop new therapies using embryonic stem cells.
The overwhelming majority of stem cell scientists believe that to make the most rapid progress against disease, researchers must use all the weapons in their arsenal. That means using both embryonic and adult stem cells.

Stem Cells: Myth vs. Fact

Myth
Adult stem cells are as useful as embryonic stem cells.

Fact
Embryonic stem cells have the ability to create any cell type in the human body. Adult stem cells are more specialized; they generally make cells only from their tissue of origin. Thus, embryonic stem cells can do things that adult stem cells cannot do. To maximize the chances of discovering new cures, it is essential to pursue research on both embryonic and adult stem cells.

Myth
We don’t need embryonic stem cell research because of the recent breakthrough enabling scientists to “reprogram” human skin cells into cells that behave like embryonic stem cells.

Fact
Scientists agree it is too early to assess the technique’s full potential and determine whether the reprogrammed cells are functionally equivalent to embryonic stem cells. In addition, the technique can cause mutations that predispose cells to cancer. As a result, some scientists are concerned that the reprogrammed cells will never be suitable for use in patients. For the foreseeable future, stem cell researchers agree that research should continue along all avenues, using embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, and reprogrammed cells.

Myth
Adult stem cells have been proven effective in treating more than 70 diseases.

Fact
While adult stem cell research holds much promise, blood stem cells offer the only proven adult stem cells therapies. The claim that adult stem cells have been used to cure more than 70 diseases has been widely discredited.

Myth
Stem cells from amniotic fluid and umbilical cord blood can be used instead of embryonic stem cells.

Fact
Amniotic fluid and umbilical cord blood contain adult stem cells. They hold promise for therapy but do not have the properties or potential of embryonic stem cells.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 1, 2010 6:41 PM
Comment #309547

Great presentation. Thank you WR.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2010 7:14 PM
Comment #309548

Warped Reality

What is the source? I’m sure there was more than what you penned.

Posted by: tom humes at October 1, 2010 7:39 PM
Comment #309549

I linked the source in my original comment. In hindsight I realize it was a bad formatting idea for the link to be only three letters long, but it’s there in the word faq. The faq is from the University of Michigan.

And you are right, I only included an excerpt of what I thought were the most important parts.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 1, 2010 7:48 PM
Comment #309550

maybe a conservative can explain to me the seeming hypocrisy in that you all oppose embryonic stem cell research, and abortion, yet your typically pro war and pro death penalty…

Posted by: john in napa at October 1, 2010 8:04 PM
Comment #309552

tom humes-
An embryo cannot grow on its own. It must be implanted, typically in the mother’s uterine lining, in order to begin growth into a human being. Even after that, the mother’s biological influences are great on development. This is part of why growing babies in tanks or artificial wombs is problematic, what makes cloning problematic for humans and animals. It’s not as simple as sperm+egg equals life. A fertilized egg or embryo is not yet a self-sustaining life.

Opinions may vary, and will vary, and that’s the problem. When we ask you, why this point, and not another, what is your answer? Not what’s your rationalization. The literature from the Religious Right is replete with ad hoc scientific-style explanations and “facts” But there are some who, for religious reasons, believe in the discredited theories of flood geology and the recent existence of Dinosaurs too.

Look at your argument? Which came first here, the supposed scientific evidence backing your claim, or your claim? Creationism, or Creation Science/Intelligent Design?

You can talk about truths and untruths, but let me be frank with you: science is used in common because it doesn’t presuppose an unrejectable truth, and then force everything to adhere to that, or simply cherry-pick evidenced to support it.

Science is universal because the means of proving and disproving a given conclusion are democratized. Democratized, but not arbitrary. You can claim Jesus road a dinosaur, but first you have to find dinosaur bones in a strata that people have sound reason to believe represents that time. Carbon-14 Dating would probably get employed. So far, nobody’s found Jesus’ saurian steed.

You could prove it, but you’d have to find appropriate ways to synchronize all the evidence together. With science, the different principles of different disciplines work to confirm each other. You can’t rewrite the laws of radioactive decay in order to fit the T-Rex of Christ into the picture. You don’t get to plead that kind of a special case.

And you really don’t get to claim absolute truths. Shouldn’t either. If you can’t bear to have a theory put under scrutiny, held to question, you shouldn’t really reach for the imprimatur of science as your backing, because Scientific theories are respected because they are put to the test and not found wanting.

Any untestable claim doesn’t belong. Folks can cite Einstein’s theory when they say that paradigms can shift, but people can verify scientific theories. Only the other day, folks used some accurate clocks to verify predictions that Einstein made about altitude and speed affecting the speed at which time moves for an object. Einstein didn’t merely make the claim that it was impossible to move at or faster than light-speed. He actually made predictiosn about what that would mean, predictions you could measure and replicate in experiments.

You? You’re using scientific language as a proxy for religious beliefs. You may not realize it, but that’s what’s going on. There’s a difference between doing that and actually making scientific conclusions. If you understood that, you would be far less absolute in your conclusions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 1, 2010 8:15 PM
Comment #309553

You’re using scientific language as a proxy for religious beliefs. You may not realize it, but that’s what’s going on. There’s a difference between doing that and actually making scientific conclusions. If you understood that, you would be far less absolute in your conclusions.


thank you Stephen bout time someone said it.
and if its not to factitious i must say … AMEN

Posted by: john in napa at October 1, 2010 8:21 PM
Comment #309554

Stephen,

“You can talk about truths and untruths”

I don’t mean this to necessarily reflect on Tom, however, it seems to me that anytime a conservative is confronted with the truth they either change the subject, or get glassy eyed and go all Nigel Tufnel on us.

I wonder sometimes if they live in a different reality than the rest of us.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 1, 2010 8:35 PM
Comment #309556

Rocky,

I could not open your link in 309554.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2010 10:43 PM
Comment #309557

PS:

I did not see, “This is Spinal Tap”.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2010 10:46 PM
Comment #309558

Rocky, that link you posted is no good…. :(

Posted by: jane doe at October 1, 2010 10:48 PM
Comment #309559

I’d like to take the thread in a little different direction for a minute or two and ask what tom and others feel about organ donation?
And before everyone goes berzerk, I understand the difference!! Just curious as to whether there is a religious issue there for some.

Posted by: jane doe at October 1, 2010 11:02 PM
Comment #309560

There are very few religious issues depending on the denomination such as Jehova Witness’ and some other radical groups.

Posted by: MAG at October 1, 2010 11:08 PM
Comment #309561

Let’s try it again,

Nigel Tufnel

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 1, 2010 11:19 PM
Comment #309562

This one’s even better,

These go to 11

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 1, 2010 11:35 PM
Comment #309566

well as november quickly approaches, and democrats stand to suffer one of thier biggest losses since 1994, they once again resort to politics of personal destruction. when you can’t run on your record just muddy the waters. nice job stephen! i doubt it will help much though. LOL!!!!

Posted by: dbs at October 2, 2010 8:51 AM
Comment #309567

Every time I say, “This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read here on WB”, I have to cringe because I know in my souless soul that someone will come along with a topper. It’s happened again!

Posted by: Marysdude at October 2, 2010 9:22 AM
Comment #309570

Everybody-
Cut down on the rhetoric. It’s been my observation that one of the most useless arguments to try and convince people of is a character argument aimed at them. Few if any people ever agree with such strawmen.

dbs-
We may suffer a big defeat, but what lasting victory will there be in electing folks like Ms. O’Connell? (which is looking more unlikely by the day?)

Seriously, the woman’s the gift that keeps on giving.

This is not 1994. This is 2010, where Republicans are not the fresh alternative, but the recently ousted political establishment looking to get in. This is 2010, where Democrats have a memory of how things have turned out over the last 16 years. This is 2010, where the experiment in doing away with New Deal protections to advance the economy has been carried out, and has failed.

This is 2010, where majorities favor letting gays and lesbians serve, where the young voters aren’t trending towards the Republicans, where racial issues have far less traction.

This is 2010, where an active left has the internet to amplify it’s political power and reach, where Republicans essentially rely on the oldest Americans to maintain their dominance.

I don’t know how any of this is going to turn out. But I know that even if they win, the Republicans can’t keep a lid on change forever. At best, this is not a new beginning, it’s the last rallying of a movement that is tired, desperate, and scared of losing power. Republicans and conservatives aren’t getting this nuts to confront a movement they don’t think can win!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 2, 2010 11:37 AM
Comment #309571

dbs,

“well as november quickly approaches, and democrats stand to suffer one of thier biggest losses since 1994, they once again resort to politics of personal destruction. when you can’t run on your record just muddy the waters.”

Are you so sure in your beliefs that you would bet the farm on the outcome?

It seems to me that the fringe right has spent an awful lot of energy purging the Republican Party of any moderate voices in it’s attempt to drag the entire country out to the fringes with it. I see that as a grave mistake.
IMHO the last two Democratic Presidents have governed from more toward the middle. Much more so than the Bush Administration.

Though the right may well gain some seats in Congress, I think it is quite possible that the vast number of the American people are a lot less parochial than the far right would have us believe they are.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 2, 2010 12:03 PM
Comment #309572

rocky

when it comes to politics anything can happen. would i bet the farm on the outcome? hell no. however the current trend would seem to favor the party in control losing ground. possibly a lot of ground. i don’t see the current leaders in washington as governing from the middle of the road, or anywhere close to middle for that matter, but that’s my opinion. what matters is the opinion of the majority of voters. we will see what they think next month.

what always disgusts me is the personal attacks. i believe we’ll see plenty more from the democrats. if the majority of voters are behind your agenda there is no need for personal attacks. simply running on your accomplishments, and sticking to the issues should persuade the voters. attacks like that from the congressman in florida are pretty scummy. wouldn’t you say? a couple of sound bytes taken completely out of context, that when heard in thier entirety are anythig but sinister. i think use of these tactics is a sign of extreme desparation.

Posted by: dbs at October 2, 2010 12:38 PM
Comment #309573

stephen

i don’t expect that the misguided followers of karl marx will give up, only that the american people will wake up, and show them the door.

you may have the internet, but IMO your message will not be any more popular there then it has been anywhere else. i think i once told you in one of our exchanges your people would overestimate the amount of political capital gained in the last election, and push to hard left. that was not the change most americans were voting for IMO. i also said they would destroy the national economy the way they have done in california, and other places where they hold a strong majority. that is turning out to be the case. you cannot spend your way to prosperity. what obama, and the democrats have done is the equivelant of dumping gas in the carb to help start the car, but failed to put anything in the tank to keep it running. they also borrowed the money for that gas.

Posted by: dbs at October 2, 2010 1:24 PM
Comment #309574

dbs,
Personal attacks? Are you referring to the Grayson ad calling his opponent ‘Taliban Dan’? The candidate under attack, a fellow named Webster, should make it clear that he does not believe a woman should be denied the right to divorce a husband who batters her, and that he believes a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape should be forced carry the pregnancy to term. Denying the accusations would make Grayson’s name calling ineffective. That line that Webster is shown saying again and again from the Bible, that a woman should “submit” to a man, why, he does not believe that, does he?

Oh wait. That is what Webster believes.

So Webster is a religious fanatic, much like a member of the Taliban, and Webster seems to believe in the literal, Old Testament version of the Ten Commandments, which views women as property (you know Americans clean up the translation of the Ten Commandments to make it acceptable to our sensibilities- none of that literal stuff for us!), and Grayson connects this kind of old-timey fanaticism with the Taliban, who hold similar views towards women.

Of course, the Taliban more or less live in old-timey times, and for reasons that are unclear, the Taliban are the enemy of the US, so Grayson probably shouldn’t do that.

Did you know 14% of Americans think Obama is the Antichrist? About a quarter think he’s Muslim? Gee. I wonder where those ideas came from!

Any comments on the politics of personal destruction?

Posted by: phx8 at October 2, 2010 1:31 PM
Comment #309575

Correction: just to be clear, Webster believes a woman who is in an abusive marriage and is being battered should NOT be allowed to divorce her husband.

Posted by: phx8 at October 2, 2010 1:34 PM
Comment #309576

Singling out one scummy campaign ad out of the thousands of scummy campaign ads being presented would appear to be an act of frustrating complexity. How in the world was that one picked? Are all the things about Boxer true? Reid? The fact is our political campaigns have all turned out to be less than each of us would like, but that all of us tolerate, and many vote on the strength of.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 2, 2010 1:35 PM
Comment #309577

>i don’t expect that the misguided followers of karl marx will give up, only that the american people will wake up, and show them the door.

Stephen,

When did you become a Marxist?Was it before or after you became a Democratic Socialist?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 2, 2010 1:40 PM
Comment #309578

PS:

I don’t think we should resort to name calling do you, Stephen, you commie?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 2, 2010 1:58 PM
Comment #309579

dbs,

“what always disgusts me is the personal attacks. i believe we’ll see plenty more from the democrats.”

“i don’t expect that the misguided followers of karl marx will give up…”

The right seems a living, breathing dichotomy.

On one hand we have them disgusted by any personal attacks, on the other hand we have them deploying the same attacks with the gusto of many years experience.

Where exactly do you stand dbs?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 2, 2010 2:15 PM
Comment #309580

Marysdude,
You make a good point, you pinko, about the incredibly large numbers of misleading ads out there. It’s even worse now, because due to the Citizens United decision, it is very easy for the wealthy and their corporations to anonymously pour huge amounts of money into political campaigns through shell organizations. At least Grayson makes it clear that in this case, it is his ad, and he is responsible for its content. The problem for religious fanatics is that they hate it when their beliefs and political stands are there for all to see, and Grayson lays it out there, along with the name calling catch phrase, ‘Taliban Dan.’

Campaign finance reform is desperately needed. The conservatives in the Senate just blocked a campaign finance reform bill, in case anyone is wondering who is on who’s side.

Posted by: phx8 at October 2, 2010 2:24 PM
Comment #309581

phx8
So a campaign finance bill was blocked. What did the bill say? What was its focus? Just because a democratic bill was blocked does not mean that is bad.

Where in the Ten Commandments does it say anything about a woman being property? That is a fairy tail’s tale.

Do you actually support Grayson? Wow? Talk about a fringe element. He is an element with a new number and its not on the atomic chart.

jane doe
If you are trying to bait me by stem cell therapy being transplants, you are in error. You forgot to put cheese in the trap. I am personally opposed to transplanted organs from one person to another. It has nothing to do with religion. Yes it has saved lives. It is not what I think is correct.

Adult stem cell therapy comes from the afflicted person and re-inserted into that person. That is not transplant. The church I go to has never expressed an opinion on transplants.

Posted by: tom humes at October 2, 2010 3:55 PM
Comment #309582

th, I’m not trying to bait you on anything. It’s just kind of funny to see where your opinion of saving a human life reaches an impasse, and shows somewhat of an inconsistency.
Organ transplants are not something you condone. One life has already been lost, another stands a good chance of being saved. To me, that has a lot to do with belief.

Posted by: jane doe at October 2, 2010 4:12 PM
Comment #309583

Tom,
This is not a religious board, so I’ll just suggest you read a direct translation of the original 10th Commandment, and not the sanitized version people like Judge Moore post in the courthouse. The original 10th lists a man’s property in order of importance: house, wife, slave, oxen. Sorry to break that to you. Most Christians are unfamiliar with the whole concept that they are reading a translation.

You dislike Grayson? Fine. Other than name calling the opponent ‘Taliban Dan,’ is there anything in the ad that is untrue, or even misleading? Anything?

Posted by: phx8 at October 2, 2010 4:13 PM
Comment #309584

phx8

“Campaign finance reform is desperately needed. The conservatives in the Senate just blocked a campaign finance reform bill, in case anyone is wondering who is on who’s side.”

speaking of who’s on whos side. democrats just left without extending the current tax rates set to expire. ie saying “if we can’t screw the rich, we’ll just screw everyone.” what a concept. now there’s change we can believe in. LOL!!

Posted by: dbs at October 2, 2010 5:17 PM
Comment #309585

dbs,
Did I miss something? I thought there was a lame duck session after the election.

Posted by: phx8 at October 2, 2010 5:54 PM
Comment #309586

dbs states:

“democrats just left without extending the current tax rates set to expire. ie saying “if we can’t screw the rich, we’ll just screw everyone.”.

Your kidding right? Screw the rich by raising their tax rates up a bit. Man I’d hate to be one of those rich people! It must be really tough paying a top rate that is still one of the lowest in American history. What will they do? I’m really worried about them!

Posted by: Jill at October 2, 2010 5:57 PM
Comment #309588

jane doe
Sorry for the bait thing. I’ll take you at face value.

The transplant issue is only personal with me and has nothing to do with anything else. It is only a sense that I have. I prefer to keep it that way. I also do sincerely acknowledge the succusses of the practice.

phx8
Graysons’ ad is a cut and paste with out of context remarks and is inappropriate. He is a scum bag. He is on record with other comments that are offensive to most people no matter what their persuasion.

Your 10th commandment reference is not the accepted version of what most people refer to as the 10th commandment. There are charlatans galore with their own interpretations of the Bible and they all come off the wall with some less than honest convulsions and convolutions. The normally accepted version is the KJV and that is what I always reference when speaking of the scriptures.

Posted by: tom humes at October 2, 2010 6:57 PM
Comment #309589

Tom,
The KJV? That’s fine. But since it plays such an important role in your life, perhaps the KJV deserves a little reflection. Perhaps the “accepted version” is not what it seems. Who translated the KJV? From what
language(s)? The KJV translators did not rely on word for word translation. They were not literal. Was that right or wrong? For example, why does the 10th Commandment of the KJV refer to servants instead of slaves? Think about it. There’s no point in my telling you the answers to those questions I posed, because you will not believe anything I say about the Bible and the KJV unless you first research it yourself. You don’t have to speak Aramaic or Greek or Latin to find a lot of interesting answers… Remember, the “accepted version” may be what a lot of people believe, but that does not make the version true and accurate; it only represents a consensus and a lack of curiousity. You would not want to see people practice their politics that way. Why accept it when it comes to something even more personal and important?

Posted by: phx8 at October 2, 2010 7:32 PM
Comment #309591

dbs-
Red-baiting. How original. You know, you should explain to me something, then. Your average Liberal believes something slightly to the right of the old New Deal/Great Society economy. This is the economy that won the Cold War.

So, was it a Free Market economy that defeated communism, or was the biggest political conflict of the 20th Century just a fraternal fight between two Commie Governments?

You talk about what we’re doing as being wrong. Well, let’s review the facts of the last decade, and see what we’re talking about.

First, If the tax cuts do sunset, they do so because the Republicans were trying to put a bill designed to remove revenue through a procedure designed to help close up deficits, not do something that would create them.

As such, the Republicans relied on a technicality of the rules to pass their legislation. That meant a ten year sunset. The Republicans wrote a tax hike into their bill, by your logic.

The main beneficiaries of this bill are not the middle and lower economic classes. The percentage drops (and bracket elimination) were mainly focused on the rich.

The idea is that the rich would benevolently spread the newfound wealth, that they’d spend, on new jobs, or at least just spend. They did not, if that ever was the real point of the tax cuts. They saved.

But regardless, the stimulus from these tax cuts (often actually sold to the public for their stimulative value) turned out to be fairly weak. The Bush Administration, with its record tax cuts, posted the worst job creation rate since they started recording things.

The stimulative value is figured at roughly .32 cents on every dollar. You spend ten dollars, you stimulate 3.20 of economic activity.

Meanwhile, the Stimulus package created significant increases in both employment, and economic growth. You talk of feeding gas into a carburetor, but it seems our methods have done better than yours.

Yet you want us to repeat your experiment, and hope for a different outcome. Democrats, meanwhile, can say, enact another stimulus plan, because it already did us some good. We can assert measureable good, not just claim some mysterious effect without evidence.

If the tax cuts do lapse, it will be a short term problem, but long term we will not be adding a few trillion dollars to the debt. But let say, Obama’s bill passes. The Rich still get every penny they would if they were making right at 250,000. That, due to the nature of the progressive tax, is essentially how it works. So, if you were making $250,000 as a couple, your first dollar to be taxed at higher rate would be #250,001, and the increase would be a few cents on the dollar more for each additional dollar.

The question is, will this mean that the Rich would spend any less? Well, they were already saving most of what they got, anyway. By definition, too, they aren’t the people having to live paycheck to paycheck.

But to keep giving this money to the Rich to not spend, the Republicans are willing to deny everybody else, including the rich, a tax cut.

You can claim that you’re going to magically pull the economy out of its hole by doing this, but magic will be your only explanation as to how the plan can really work, because the facts don’t indicate that your tax cuts create jobs. And if we weren’t in a near-deflationary state of economy, we probably would just be letting the cuts lapse, and getting the deficit under control.

tom humes-
The bill essentially says that the corporations who donate to and fund campaign commmercials have to put themselves front and center on the advertisements, rather than being able to remain beyond public scrutiny.

Oh, jeez, how terrible, being unable to dissociate your message from yourself!

What do Republicans have against people having to indentify their political speech with themselves? Why go to such lengths to protect the opacity of such political speech?

As far as transplants go? I got one simple question: when a person says something is right and wrong, does that make the thing right and wrong in and of itself, or is right and wrong more than just a reflection of personal opinion?

If you were killing somebody for its sake, that would be one thing, and obviously wrong. But if a person dies, and wills that other people be given their organs, and the other person consents to be given them, I don’t see the harm, not unless one believes in some kind of ancient-world style prohibition against shared blood or shared flesh.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 2, 2010 8:27 PM
Comment #309593

The majority of Americans actually support almost all aspects of the healthcare plan, when asked about them individually. They say they oppose “Obama’s Healthcare Plan” itself only because they don’t know what’s in it. That is because most people get their information form friends or Fox “news”. Few people read good newspapers or go to neutral web sites.
Obama couldn’t deliver on all his promises because he didn’t have the 60 votes needed to pass legislation in the Senate. Yet his 1st two years have passed more major legislation than most Presidents. Also, the mess Bush left him was much worse than he thought. Respected economists are now saying unemployment would have his 13+% without the stimulus plans & other programs he got passed.
Stephen Daugherty: O’Donnell’s cached website doesn’t say she graduated from any of the schools she listed, so I guess listing FDU wasn’t a lie. So only 2 schools were a lie.

Posted by: DrTom at October 2, 2010 8:39 PM
Comment #309595

phx8

An interesting opinion you expressed. Now just for the record in your opinion who do you believe did the literal word for word translation from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? It is difficult to translate a word for word when one end has not word for the one being translated. Therefore the best word available is used as in the KJV.

SD
I asked a simple question and got an answer that goes around the barn. Of course the bill says more than what your talking point sources say. I have not read on the bill because I have been busy with other projects and found it not the most important thing to me at this time. Sorry if that breaks your heart, Mr Liberal.

As far as the republicans are concerned don’t ask me, ask the republicans

I explained myself enough on transplants. I don’t parade any argument for or against. I said my simple belief. You can say it is right or wrong for yourself and will not get an argument from me either way. That is my business and not yours. You had your say and I had mine and we hopefully will leave it there and move on.

Posted by: tom humes at October 2, 2010 9:50 PM
Comment #309596

>It is difficult to translate a word for word when one end has not word for the one being translated. Therefore the best word available is used as in the KJV.

tom,

Yet today we know the true interpretation…strange they could not have come closer for the KJV.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 2, 2010 10:29 PM
Comment #309597

PS:

I know you don’t like to be referred to as Republican (and who could blame you?), but I’ll ask this one more time…if it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but speaks in Republican talking points…what is it?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 2, 2010 10:35 PM
Comment #309599

Marysdude
Your hearing going bad is the only answer I have for you. Wack and quack do rhyme, so I have a good ear, nose and throat doc for ya if ya want to get checked out. And he doesn’t believe in God either. Your kind of doc.

Posted by: tom humes at October 2, 2010 10:49 PM
Comment #309602

TomH,
This comment will start out touching on the religious side of things, but I will bring it back around to politics by the end.

I am not a theoglian. Theologians, both Jewish and Christian, have spend lifetimes on the translation and meaning of the Bible. If you do a search on the Bible, translation, commandments, and so on, there is a wealth of information availbable from sources both friendly and hostile to Christianity.

You are right about the difficulty of translation. A long time ago, I used to translate Medieval German poetry into English. It is hard because it is not simply a matter of translating each word or phrase on a one to one basis. For starters, poetry has a lyrical quality, whether it is Biblical or Medieval German, and hammering out a literal word for word translation completely loses the poetic quality. As you mentioned, it is even more difficult because words change their meaning, and things exist then which do not exist now, and vice versa, and it is even more difficult than that, because morality itself has changed. The love songs of a German minstrel are different from the love songs of the Beatles. In the parabler of Lot, he was a paragon of virtue because he valued hospitality to strangers over the safety of his own daughters; the story is nearly incomprehensible today, but made perfect sense to the people of that time, for whom the hospitality of the host could mean the difference between life and death.

For these reasons, a literal translation of the Bible simply does not work in any way that would be spiritually useful to us. Women are no longer property. Slavery is prohibited and reprehensible. Most of us do not own oxen, but computers make privacy rights more and more important. So, when a congressional candidate like Webster promotes a literal interpretation in regard to women, or when Supreme Court Justice Scalia proposes to use ‘original intent’ to interpret the Constitution, they will inevitably fail, and fail badly. Contrary what proponents of literal interpretation and original intent declare, the Bible does not have all the answers, and neither does the Consititution. They never did. The answers reside in our interpretations, and that can only be done through the heart… or spirit, or mind, or a “still small voice” if you prefer. No one else can propose a dogmatic set of sacred texts or a document immune to the changes of language itself. Answers cannot be set in stone, because, if you will pardon my waxing poetical, stone itself erodes. Hence, those who would advocate literal interpretations, whether they be the Taliban, or ‘holy rollers,’ or Justice Scalia with his Original Intent, often do more harm than good. Texts can point the way. That is all. Each of us has to make our own way. We have to work within our present context and bring our own experience to bear. That colors everything, and influences and changes meanings, and forces us to listen and consider, and I think we end up doing best when relying upon the virtues of kindness and compassion.

Posted by: phx8 at October 3, 2010 12:36 AM
Comment #309604

tom,

Webster merely joins a long list of conservatives who simply believe they are better than anyone else who serves. They think that mostly by virture of their virtue.

Here’s someone who is virtuous:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) attempted to convince pastors that economic issues are moral issues at the Greater Freedom Rally at a church in Spartanburg, South Carolina yesterday, imploring them to help conservatives retake Congress in November. In addition to reiterating anti-choice talking points on abortion and backing “traditional marriage,” according to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, the senator went further and “said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn’t be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who’s sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn’t be in the classroom.”

So what if those individuals might be the best of the best teachers in the school…I wonder what could possibly be next…let’s see, maybe if someone is a Mormon or a Jew? How about an atheist or Gnostic? Perhaps a Muslim or someone who visits nightclubs or masturbates? I’ll bet with the monies he’s taken from tobacco companies, he’d never say a teacher shouldn’t smoke or chew.


Posted by: Marysdude at October 2, 2010 11:39 PM

Posted by: Marysdude at October 3, 2010 6:15 AM
Comment #309605

stephen

“But to keep giving this money to the Rich to not spend, the Republicans are willing to deny everybody else, including the rich, a tax cut.”

who’s giving them anything? we are currently just taking less from them. they are still paying the majority of the income tax burden, but don’t let that get in the way of playing your class warfare card. remember stephen what some has or earns is thier property. saying that taking less is the same as giving is nonsense. you can’t give what is not yours.

Posted by: dbs at October 3, 2010 7:59 AM
Comment #309606

dbs,

Tax cuts unaccompanied by spending cuts when running a deficit are indeed “giving”. The government will continue to provide services if taxes are cut without spending cuts. If the services aren’t paid for then they are basically a gift. It’s analogous to a contract. If Harry agrees to pay Tim $5 a month for milk delivery service and signs a contract saying such; then Harry is on the hook for paying $5 each month. If Tim gives Harry milk and Harry doesn’t pay Tim the $5 and Tim lets it slide, then Tim certainly is giving Harry a gift. Harry doesn’t deserve to have Tim milk without paying for it.

There was an extensive discussion of this issue about a month ago. You should probably read the dialogue I had with Royal Flush so we won’t rehash the same old arguments again. (I’ve already borrowed from my earlier comments in this post)

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 3, 2010 8:46 AM
Comment #309607

tom humes-
I think I was rather succinct about what it was: an act that would require corporate donors running third-party ads in elections to tell people who they were in those ads.

It doesn’t break my heart to hear you say what you say, it merely annoys the part of me that insists on fact-based argument. Your strategy seems to always be not to deal with the facts I offer themselves, but to shove them into a box called “liberal talking points” and dismiss them.

There’s a reason the ad hominem argument is a fallacy: even the worst liar can say something true, even the worst villain can come to a fact-based conclusion with valid logic. Just because the person telling you something doesn’t share your political beliefs, doesn’t make them wrong on every count.

If you just take an adversarial tack, and disagree with my facts simply because they’re coming from me, you’re going to end up wrong any time I’m right. I’ve never found that to be a worthy way to run an argument.

If you want to argue I’m full of talking points, fine, demonstrate your reliance on logical fallacy. But if you want a solid grasp of the facts, a few minutes with a search engine will get you up to speed.

As for being called a Republican? Well, wherever you get your news or opinion, the Liberals and the Democrats on this site see a lot of Republicans saying the same exact things. In a world where not everybody simply announces their affiliation, we do the best we can with the evidence we got.

dbs-
When people talk class warfare, I get the same annoyed feeling I get when some tabloid talks about a war between two stars they’re claiming are in a feud. Simply asking those whose income and wealth constitute the vast majority of income and wealth in this country is not an execution of Marx’s call to drag down the rich and take all their money.

I don’t play the class warfare card. I play the marginal utility card. Raise taxes on the poor and middle class, and you take for the government money they might actually need. Raise it on the rich, and you relieve the tax burden on the other classes, which enables them to buy more goods and services from, and pay more utilities to, the rich man’s company. And the rich, being rich, will still live comfortably. So everybody is okay, more of what we spend in government is paid for, which benefits everybody, and nobody has to get into a silly bloody fight over it.

I mean, let me tell you how bloody silly the fight has gotten: a full third of the stimulus package was tax cuts for the Middle Class. Many of those Tea Partiers out there actually were getting the lowest effect tax rates of their entire lifetimes. Yet there were out there protesting how high taxes are. They paid higher taxes under Reagan, who was definitely not a commie or socialists, yet they act like they’re under some onerous system. Well, it’s no worse than what you paid in the 90’s, and it’s much better than what you paid in the 80’s, and if you’re not making $200,000 or $250,000 a year (individual vs. Joint couple), you won’t pay a dime more than you’ve paid for a decade.

The real class warfare has been the rich continually squeezing everybody else to make more money, shipping jobs and manufacturing overseas, laying people off left and right to make their companies seem more efficient, getting the laws changed to put more of the burden of costs and liabilities on the shoulders of the consumers…

So on and so forth. The wealthy in this country have fought to push more of the burdens of keeping this country wealthy and prosperous onto the backs of the average person, with the result that people face crushing debts, rising costs on the healthcare front, are treated less fairly as customers, among other things.

And while this is great for the individual rich person, the economy feels the pinch as the average person struggles more and more, and has less to spend to drive the consumer economy. Worse than wanting to squeeze blood from a stone, they want to start a blood bank from that process.

You can parse the semantics of giving and taking however you want to. Really, what this comes down to is a matter of both economic justice and economic efficiency. If you don’t want to put unfair burdens on people, or have those burdens create bad effects for the economy, a tax code weighted towards charging the rich more is the better idea. It’s not a matter of class warfare, it’s a matter of common sense.

What’s not common sense is the notion that we can run government for free. Societies require some government to run well, and that government must be paid for. It’s not enjoyable to part with your money for that purpose, but then if society only did the things that were enjoyable, if people only carried out the things that gave them benefit as an individual, and never sacrificed anything for the good of others, well society would cease to exist, and so would the family.

A responsible tax rate is what we should be after, a policy that reconciles what we spend with the revenues we draw in. The Right Wing, though, is too invested in trying to use tax cuts and the like to force spending cuts, which hasn’t really worked, and in the meantime has only forced America to run higher deficits and take out more debt. But try telling them that. They’ll repeat the political dogma, and continue to push a policy despite its crappy results.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 3, 2010 9:37 AM
Comment #309608

Warped

“Tax cuts unaccompanied by spending cuts when running a deficit are indeed “giving”.”

then i guess we should be arguing where the cutting should begin. like individuals, gov’t needs to live within its means. a drop in revenue, should mean corresponding cuts to reflect the drop in revenue. i think we can agree that gov’t needs to be funded. where we seem to part ways is what constitutes necessary funding. defense, infrastructure, and what could be considered basic functions of gov’t, ok.

when times are tough, and you have less income what do you do? as for myself, i start cutting back until my expenses reflect my income. gov’t can not be excluded from this rule. yet gov’t budgets increase every year it seem regardless of the stream of revenue. it seems they never are expected to share the pain.

“If the services aren’t paid for then they are basically a gift.”

it would appear that the gov’t is very good at providing gifts with the money of others. social services is a prime example. money givien to other nations under the guise of charity would be another.

RF writes

“Mike, Tim’s competitor sells milk for $3/gal. And, Joe, Harry’s neighbor doesn’t drink milk. Is Joe required to pay part of Harry’s milk bill?”

RF makes an exellent point, and this country it would appear so. i don’t believe this was what our founders meant when they used the phrase to “promote the general welfare”.
redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation is wrong.

Posted by: dbs at October 3, 2010 9:37 AM
Comment #309609

stephen

“You can parse the semantics of giving and taking however you want to. Really, what this comes down to is a matter of both economic justice and economic efficiency.”

those on the left in this country seem to get annoyed when being compared to marx. you then go on to use the term “economic justice”, and claim those accusations are unfounded. to borrow from our friend DUDE, “if it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but speaks in Republican talking points…what is it?” substitute the word marxist for republican. thanks DUDE.

Posted by: dbs at October 3, 2010 9:53 AM
Comment #309611
gov’t can not be excluded from this rule.

There is a difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. No matter how many times you say it, government finances are not the same as personal finances. Personal finances have the goal of benefiting that particular person. The government is not interested in benefiting itself, but rather it is interested in benefiting the people it serves through stewardship of the economy. Keynesian economics recommends increased deficit spending during some recessions in order to prevent a deflationary spiral and to bolster consumer spending. Keynesian economics also recommends cutting spending during times of economic expansion in order rein in excess demand. This means the government runs surpluses in order to pay off debt incurred in an earlier recession or to prepare for an upcoming one. Counter-cyclical policies have worked in the past to make our economy the largest in the world and I see no reason to abandon them.

it seems they never are expected to share the pain.
This is just an emotional appeal based on envy no different than when some complain that the rich maintain their high standards of living during an economic downturn such as this one. In fact, I could stretch this and say that you are asking for “economic justice”.
it would appear that the gov’t is very good at providing gifts with the money of others. social services is a prime example. money givien to other nations under the guise of charity would be another.
If we the people don’t feel certain spending programs are worthwhile then by all means we should eliminate them. Personally, I’m not a huge defender of most of our welfare programs; however, I am aware that welfare makes up a small part of the budget. Things like military and entitlement spending are the two biggest pieces of the pie.

Also, I already addressed RF’s point before in our dialogue.
Tim and Harry have a contract, so it doesn’t matter what Mike’s price is. Harry is stuck paying Tim $5/month for milk. If Tim let’s Harry get milk for less than that, then it’s a gift (unless the contract expires). There are no Joe’s in the real world because everyone benefits from the services the government provides. In fact, the wealthy likely utilize government services far more than the rest of us do.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 3, 2010 10:39 AM
Comment #309612

dbs-
The problem is that the Right is knowingly selling an irresponsible course of action, in hopes that people will agree to do the responsible thing, and call for cuts in spending.

Which people don’t. Why, because people are irresponsible? No, because those same people you say are responsible belt tighteners would often face further belt-tightening on that account. It’s easy for a family to cut their own finances, since they’re only responsible for themselves, and only have to arrange an agreement between a few people who actually know each other.

We can cut the Satellite bill without the whole rest of the neighborhood missing their shows. When the government cuts benefits under social security, a whole nation has to deal with the cuts. What’s more, the agreement isn’t between the handful of people in the average family. It’s between millions of people and hundreds of Representatives and Senators, all of whom the system deliberately allows to see to their own interests.

But even as you say, Government should cut back just like a family should, you advise us that we should just cut taxes across the board.

If we’re still using the family as a metaphor, that’s basically like the bread-winner of the family deliberately taking a lower paying job in order to teach the family budget discipline, without any plans made for how the lower income is going to be accommodated. We hear specific plans on tax cuts, but none on spending.

There’s a reason. In a family, the kids don’t get to fire the parents if they starve. In a Democracy, if your decisions cause people to run short on money, they’ll run you out of town. The Republicans, even the Tea Partiers, know this. So, the Republicans will run deficits rather than suffer the consequences.

As for the milk bill?

Let me ask you a question: should we forgo police and fire services because we’re not getting robbed every day, or seeing our house catch on fire every night?

The state of affairs in any society or any economy is not merely the sum of the individual actions, but the interaction of those interests. Randian Libertarianism in this way is no less naive than Marxist Socialism. They just approach the error from different sides of the relationship between individual and collective action. Marx presupposed we could just take things over and make every decision well from the top. Rand presupposed that you could make every decision from the bottom, at the individual level, and things would turn out for the best.

It works neither way. There are some reducible elements to the economy, to society, where government’s management is a good idea. There are other elements where interfering in an individual’s decision serves no public interest, or stifles their emergent response to a complex environment.

Of course, that makes running a government a matter of complex judgment calls, rather than an application of infallible political doctrine. You might actually have to ask yourself, “Does it serve the public’s interest to not have government intervene here?” Instead of just batting back that question as if the answer were always obvious.

As for the duck question?

Look, you claim Democrats are Marxist, but on what basis? We didn’t nationalize the big banks. We didn’t nationalize the car companies. We pursued a centrist policy, taking Republican’s suggestions in many of our policies, even using Republican policies as the backbone of some of ours.

What do your base your comparison on, or is this some supersecret criteria that is not meant for the eyes of mortals?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 3, 2010 11:06 AM
Comment #309613

warped

“This is just an emotional appeal based on envy no different than when some complain that the rich maintain their high standards of living during an economic downturn such as this one.”

nope, completely different. one is class envy based on emotion, ie someone is living better than you are, and that pisses you off. the other is having a larger portion of your income taken at gun point so that gov’t can continue to spend as usual even though the revenue isn’t there. when incomes drop the revenue to the gov’t also drops. for gov’t/politicians to expect that those who have lost a percentage of thier income to now pay at a higher rate on that remaining income so that they can go on spending at the current rate, or even increase thier spending, is irresponsible. gov’t overspending is the the main reason we’re in this situation . to quote ronald reagan “gov’t is the problem, not the solution”. BTW who is it that has created the majority of entitlements that now make up a large chunk of our annual budget. the new deal, the great society?

Posted by: dbs at October 3, 2010 11:25 AM
Comment #309614

stephen

“Let me ask you a question: should we forgo police and fire services because we’re not getting robbed every day, or seeing our house catch on fire every night?”

the usual strawman, as if there aren’t plenty of other areas that can be cut. always play the fear card ” we’ll have to cut police, and fire services” YAWN…….


“Look, you claim Democrats are Marxist, but on what basis? We didn’t nationalize the big banks. We didn’t nationalize the car companies. We pursued a centrist policy, taking Republican’s suggestions in many of our policies, even using Republican policies as the backbone of some of ours.”

i don’t like crappy republican ideas any better than crappy democrat ideas. i have no use for progressives period.

Posted by: dbs at October 3, 2010 11:35 AM
Comment #309615
for gov’t/politicians to expect that those who have lost a percentage of thier income to now pay at a higher rate on that remaining income so that they can go on spending at the current rate, or even increase thier spending, is irresponsible.

I’ve already stated the reasons for counter-cyclical spending. I still think there is a sentiment that “it isn’t fair that I have to cut spending and government doesn’t”. That sentiment is an emotional one based purely on envy. This is entirely different than others who argue against counter-cyclical spending using Austrian economics or another discredited economic policy.

The true irresponsibility going on in the Democratic Party is that they are unwilling to heed Keynesian economics and cut spending when the economy is doing well in order to generate surpluses to pay down debt and/or prepare for the next downturn.

Much of the current mess our entitlement programs are in is also an example of irresponsibility of the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, no matter how irresponsible the Dems have been, the GOP has demonstrated that they will make things many times worse.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 3, 2010 11:55 AM
Comment #309616

dbs-
First, let me respond to you on the matter of fire and police services. I wasn’t defending against cuts, I was merely saying that there is absurdity sometimes in complaining about government services you don’t receive yourself, on the basis that you don’t receive personal benefit for it.

Second, this whole class warfare thing is perjorative politics, an attempt to identify any wish to level the playing field for the average American as some kind of evil socialist subversion. If you want to complain about being misjudged, don’t use strawmen that cast Democrats, Liberals, and progressives as folks who want to destroy the economy and whatnot.

Third, let me respond to your claim that you don’t like crappy Republican ideas any better than crappy Democratic Party ideas.

Okay, be my guest. Tell me what you don’t like about Republican ideas. Tell me what your non-Republican ideas are. If you’re so eager to distinguish yourself, then do so, make yourself unmistakeable for a Republican.

People cannot read your mind, only your text. Tell us what makes you different.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 3, 2010 12:22 PM
Comment #309619

Why there is no third party, just an illusion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/opinion/03rich.html?hpw

Posted by: gergle at October 3, 2010 1:47 PM
Comment #309621

warped

you claimed that there was no difference between class envy, ie things are tough, and i’m pissed because the guy down the street still has a bigger house, and drives a expensive new car. compare that to things are tough, and i’m pissed because the gov’t wants to take even more from me so it can continue to spend as usual. i merely pointed out that the two are completely different. one is based on the fact that my gov’t is making my tough times tougher. the other is based purely on class envy. ie why should he be better off than me? let’s punish him so i can feel better. apples and oranges, plain and simple.

“The true irresponsibility going on in the Democratic Party is that they are unwilling to heed Keynesian economics and cut spending when the economy is doing well in order to generate surpluses to pay down debt and/or prepare for the next downturn.”

won’t argue with this. living the majority of my 49 years in CA. i know this all to well. the problem is we now have these same people in charge of the country. that should scare the hell out of anyone.

“Much of the current mess our entitlement programs are in is also an example of irresponsibility of the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, no matter how irresponsible the Dems have been, the GOP has demonstrated that they will make things many times worse.”

i would agree that republicans have helped to create the current crisis. so which is the lessor of two evils? IMO we cannot continue down this same course of tax and spend and ever clean up this mess.

Posted by: dbs at October 3, 2010 2:00 PM
Comment #309622

dbs-
Class Envy. Has it occured to you that reducing it down to an emotional issue doesn’t do justice to real world consequences of extreme inequality, and the reinforcment of the same in people’s income?

It isn’t merely as if people just sit up in bed one morning and say, “You know what? I’m going to envy a rich person!” Most of us look at what that person earns and get and with a faint smile on our face say, “I’d like to have that.”

Folks don’t really get too put out about what other folks get, until the economic problem they face become severe, and they’re faced with the prospect that their problems might have a lot to do with other people’s ruthlessly greedy behavior.

The Bailout isn’t unpopular because folks just hate the rich. It’s unpopular because it seems like somebody’s spending their money to prop up folks with plenty of it who made serious mistakes.

There really has to be an element of injustice or preferential treatment from the government for people to get really alarmed or indignant about it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 3, 2010 2:11 PM
Comment #309623

dbs,

“…i’m pissed because the guy down the street still has a bigger house, and drives a expensive new car. compare that to things are tough, and i’m pissed because the gov’t wants to take even more from me so it can continue to spend as usual.”

You make vast assumptions that don’t make any sense unless you’re 12yo.
Things are tough, but there are people out there that have things tougher than me.

Now if the government was giving money to that guy down the street…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 3, 2010 2:29 PM
Comment #309626

stephen

“Second, this whole class warfare thing is perjorative politics, an attempt to identify any wish to level the playing field for the average American as some kind of evil socialist subversion. If you want to complain about being misjudged, don’t use strawmen that cast Democrats, Liberals, and progressives as folks who want to destroy the economy and whatnot.”

there is no such thing as a level playing field. all are born different, with different abilities, talent levels, and personal ambitions. you cannot level the playing field by trying to hold someone else back, or give them a handi-cap. or punish ones achievements in order to boost someone else. where did i use strawmen? i stated my opinion based on my observations. you used police and fire as an example. it happens to be that anytime someone utters budget cuts, that always seems to be the first response, a response designed to scare people into thinking thier personal saftey will be compromised. sorry if that struck a nerve.
where did i say the left wanted to destroy the economy?


“I was merely saying that there is absurdity sometimes in complaining about government services you don’t receive yourself, on the basis that you don’t receive personal benefit for it.”

what benefits would those be? welfare, food stamps, free healthcare? how about gov’t subsidized housing. i happen to believe in the generosity of individuals when it comes to helping the less fortunate. they tend to be more careful about where the aid is given, and to whom it’s given. i also believe that large portion of gov’t aid recipients are there because of thier own poor choices. these gov’t services are all a redistribution of wealth from one the producer, to the other a recipient. IMO not what the founders had in mind when they coined the phrase “promote the general welfare”.

Posted by: dbs at October 3, 2010 2:35 PM
Comment #309627

Mostly I think welfare is in place to hold down squaller which promotes the spread of diseasesand fires. That, in my opinion, is promoting the general welfare.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 3, 2010 3:08 PM
Comment #309630

“Mostly I think welfare is in place to hold down squaller which promotes the spread of diseasesand fires.”

ya…….. it’s been a blazing success.

Posted by: dbs at October 3, 2010 4:00 PM
Comment #309635

dbs “Ya ..it’s [welfare] been a blazing success. Actually, it has been fairly successful. Though laissez faire policies of Bush, Clinton (to some extent), and Bush have increased the percent of poor people in the U.S. at least Welfare keeps most from starving (though malnourished). Most economists agree that a recession is not the time for the government to worry about the deficit. Roosevelt’s big government programs got us out of the Great Depression (it took some time). When the government backed off too soon we almost went back in, probably only saved from that by the huge spending of WWII. The govenment should be INCREASING spending now - big public works projects and education, especially. Our infrastructure is falling apart and our best teachers are getting pink slipped. What a much better country this would be if the Republicans weren’t allowed the 41/100 Senate veto, by the Democratic Wimp - Harry Reid. Now it is likely that everything is frozen or will be sliding backwards until the Democrats can get full power.

Posted by: DrTom at October 3, 2010 5:32 PM
Comment #309640

I don’t think the success has to be ‘blazing’ to be of help. Perhaps a selection of the lesser of two evils is enough. If the poor merely starve or die of horrible diseases, it takes liquid assets out of the economy, and/or creates pandemics and/or conflagrations, the bad effects of which cannot be totally escaped by the rich. Let’s just pretend those taxes are providing a safer environment for those who pay it. That’s cheap at any price. Merely another overhead cost of doing business, like widgets.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 3, 2010 6:22 PM
Comment #309643

The percentage of poor people has not increased under Bush.

The number of poor people increased with population. There has been a slight uptick since the recession.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif

Posted by: gergle at October 3, 2010 7:15 PM
Comment #309644

another, more up to date chart:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/shirakawa/Poverty%202009.jpg

Posted by: gergle at October 3, 2010 7:18 PM
Comment #309654

dbs-
Where did you use strawmen?

Where you called us Marxists, students of Marxists, where you argue with us as if we’re just a bunch of greedy loafers. Where you put words in our mouths saying we’re for endless spending.

Maybe you see it as so uncontroversial of a fact to you that you neglect to notice that it’s really just perjorative language to Folks like me.

That is, those of us who are actually capitalists who simply believe that stronger rules and greater fairness make it run better than unchecked greed and abuse by the rich and powerful of the interests of the poor and middle class.

And really, what do you think you’re saying when you say that we want to spend wildly, or drive businesses into the ground? Do you even consider the import of the words you chuck our way?

I think I explained the fire and police example well enough. It wasn’t saying, oh, this is why you need government. It was saying that you might not like the idea of paying for things for other people to find useful, but sometimes you have to do useful things for other people to maintain the health of your own interests.

It may not, for example, be in the direct best interests of a plant owner to pay his workers better, but if he pays them enough, they’ll feel motivated to come to work and do their best jobs. They’ll be less stressed and distracted by matters at home. They’ll be more loyal, meaning lower costs from turnover.

If you only imagine the economy by way of direct benefits to you, you miss much of the big picture.

We can’t neglect individual interests, but we can’t ignore the Public’s interests, the interests of others, if we want to prosper in any sustainable way.

As for the benefits you describe?

The real question is, can charity replace it, especially given the way charities get thwacked in harsh economic times? You can extol the virtues of something all you want, but when the results don’t show up, beliefs don’t count for much.

Right now, millions of people are out of work because of poor choices. But their own? No! No, they’re at the mercy of their poverty because some morons on Wall Street overleveraged and overentangled their companies, turning one small financial firm’s financial failure into a whole economy’s nose dive.

Using economic policy to teach these kinds of lessons is typically a poor idea, because most of the time, when you see massive job losses like this, it isn’t their mistake that gets them laid off.

Sometimes, it isn’t even a mistake that gets people laid off. Sometimes folks lay people off simply to raise the value of their stock options.

It’s time for you to consider that you’ve already tried to promote the general welfare by letting the captains of industry arbitrarily do business without anybody really doing oversight or regulation with any seriousness.

The result? A debasement of people’s faith in the fairness of the economy, a destruction of people’s faith in capitalism. We’ve already redistributed wealth massively to the richest companies in this country, and Americans want to know why, and what we’re going to do to end this kind of corruption of the system. They’re also at the end of their patience with an upper economic class that seems to think it’s entitled to run things any way it wants, despite the results they’ve brought.

Look at that phrase: General Welfare, not “survival of the fittest, or most virtuous”. That means the public good, the good of most people, not just some economic aristocracy.

You fail to register just how corrupt, how immoral the system you support has gotten. But others are noticing this, and they’re not happy with the world as you want it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 3, 2010 9:27 PM
Comment #309712

Speaking of poor choices.

The Obama Administration pushed the General Motors bailout even though two-thirds of the GM jobs were abroad, proposed cash-for-clunkers even though almost half the cars were foreign, and supported TARP bailouts for banks much of whose money went overseas. Obama, the job creator, restoring faith in the fairness of the economy. Bashing Wall Street while the Democrats received 50% more campaign cash from Wall street than Republicans.

A quote:

A senior executive at Goldman told Gasparino: “Obama couldn’t give a shit about all this anti-Wall Street stuff. He needs to bash us to get his bullshit financial reform through Congress.”

Yes, we can trust Democrats to oversee all these evil captains of industry.

Posted by: Skeptical Boomer at October 5, 2010 2:32 AM
Comment #309713

Progressives’ most potent weapon against capitalism is class envy and jealousy. Early on, they perfected the technique of demonizing “big business”. In the late eighteen hundreds progressives discovered that if they stereotyped “big businesses” as the enemy of the very people they served, the people, in return would grant progressives political power, not only over businesses but in other areas as well. Politicians found that by blaming the “robber barons of industry” for the ills of society— and there were many— they could win votes and support for their policies by posing as champions of the oppressed.

In the early stages of the progressive era, the targets were the railroads, oil companies, steel companies, tobacco companies, and others who were instrumental in raising the standard of living for the American People. Progressive demonization of “big business” reached a high point under President William McKinley in1898 with the formation of the “U.S. Industrial Commission on Trusts”. Theodore Roosevelt won the Presidency in 1900 on the basis of his attacks on “big business”, and “trust busting” became the theme for his time in office. However, William Howard Taft who succeeded Roosevelt as President was even more successful, breaking up 90 large firms during his four years in office compared with Roosevelt’s 44 during his eight-year term.

The vilification of “big business” proved so politically successful for the progressives in the beginning that they have continued to use the tactic ever since to gain public support for their policies. The “villain du jour” currently is the insurance industry. A year ago, it was the banks. It all depends on what progressive policy is being pushed at the time. By successfully blaming the banking industry for our current economic woes rather than destructive government economic policies, Congress was able to gain support for its “bailout” packages. It is now attempting the same thing with health care, blaming insurance company “greed” for its high cost in order to gain support for their “reform” proposals.

Unfortunately, it seems to be working. The entity most often blamed by the media, and ultimately the public, for the exorbitant cost of health care is insurance company greed. The fact is that insurance companies are in general no more profitable than other companies of similar size, and a large percentage of their profits come from investments, not premiums. The real greed comes not from capitalism but from progressivism. The number one attraction of progressivism is its promise to provide the public with economic benefits they have not earned by forcefully taking from the earnings of others. This attitude is the epitome of greed.

Posted by: Skeptical Boomer at October 5, 2010 2:46 AM
Comment #309719

Skeptical Boomer-
The Businessman apparently doesn’t understand that Obama didn’t need to vilify him in order to get Wall Street Reform passed. People were clamoring for reforms since the beginning, across the board.

Unless and until people are satisfied that Business folk, especially on Wall Street, are held accountable, instead of being allowed to become rich off their misdeeds while the rest of the country suffers, there will be people after Wall Street.

I don’t you understand properly what went on. I don’t you you are familiar enough with the reasons that the collapse of Lehman Brothers turned banks with concerns about their solvency into institutions on the brink of ruin.

With your argument here, it’s like “business didn’t do this, big government did.”

But it did not, and I’ll tell you why: the financial instruments that made all this possible could not be legally regulated. That is, all the toxic assets were not traded openly, the banks did not have to disclose the underlying assets, and they could even take out insurance on somebody else’s investments. This complexity of obligations and lack of opacity is what made toxic assets toxic.

The housing market was just feedstock for what they were doing, but that wouldn’t have gone out of control itself, if the ordinary market signals were allowed to function. But it wasn’t government regulation that allowed that to get out of control. It was the fact that there was little mechanism in that market to indicate the true riskiness of the assets in question. Again, the opacity of the financial instruments makes it difficult for somebody to say, you know what, the loans underlying this are bad.

Government could require such transparency, so that people could make judgments for themselves, take the gamble if they were inclined, or not if they weren’t. But the fact is, there was no such regulation, and because of that, trillions of dollars of assets are even now unknown in their true value.

As for GM? the collapse of GM and the other companies would have meant millions of people out of work. Cash for Clunkers helped keep domestic dealerships open, and raised demand to help revitalize the industry. Yes, much of the money went overseas, but only because people identified foreign vehicles more strongly with fuel efficiency, a fact Obama had nothing to do with (he’s pushed for better efficiency, as a matter of fact, in our domestic car companies.)

As for TARP? TARP will be paid back, even turn a profit for the average American. It’s unfortunate that Republicans like Bush insisted it be structured to essentially hand the money to the banks, instead of requiring them to resolve the root of their financial troubles, but then, every time I’ve seen Republicans try their hands at bailouts, corporate welfare seems to be the basic approach.

It would have been much cheaper to intervene earlier, but too many Republicans and too many populists didn’t see the big picture about where things were going, and let the crash get worse.

Insurance companies can talk about profits being low, but they pay their execs multimillion dollar salaries, and those come out of the profits, too. And really, what have they done to contain costs? Well, they’ve tried to make healthcare more inaccessible, really, cut people off, do all kinds of wonderful things. They seem to want to ensure the healthy, right up until the healthy stop being healthy.

Which kind of defeats the purpose, now doesn’t it?

I have no problem with businesses making money, but if you’re going to make it, make it by doing the job you promised to do, and doing it well.

It’s naive to think that capitalism can’t be greedy, it can. At its very heart is self-interest, which is the beginning of greed. Now, a properly running system focuses that self-interest, that greed, on leading them do productive things efficiently for other people at a reasonable price. Now, for the most part, I agree with letting the businesses and customers figure out what they can live with. But where the system goes out of control, where fraud, deception, and maltreatment of the customers becomes chronic, I believe the law must intervene. Same thing with labor relations. It’s not merely for the moral good of that, but also because our economy depends on people having a decent chunk of change left over at the end of the day, an ability to spend, and if you unfairly squeeze people from one end or the other, and screw them over, you will see the economy suffer, as you do now.

By letting people screw folks over with predatory loans, screw their investors over with overleveraging, and Wall Street screwing over everybody with an inhumanly complex system, the free market philosophy you adhered to allowed the market to become badly distorted. It made a few richer, but most people poorer. That kind of parasitic system can’t be allowed. We need a system that is productive and beneficial to most people concerned, and the government has a legitimate role in promoting the general welfare. It says nothing about privileging the interests of the few, the wealthy, over everbody else’s.

I don’t mind people becoming rich, but I want those people to do good things for the rest of us, at least in part, before they get to that level.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 5, 2010 8:59 AM
Comment #309724

Skeptical Boomer,

“In the early stages of the progressive era, the targets were the railroads, oil companies, steel companies, tobacco companies, and others who were instrumental in raising the standard of living for the American People.”

You have a rather skewed view of American history, and apparently ethics in business practices doesn’t concern you.

Surely, the “robber barons” of the 19th century did raise the American standard of living, but at what cost.They made vast fortunes while paying pennies to the uneducated and children. Working conditions were abominable, and they fought any union, where they existed at all, tooth and nail to keep the status quo.
Why pay to make a workplace safer if there are plenty of poor suckers out there to fill the jobs of those that died?
Who gives a rat’s ass if the dam you built and didn’t maintain for your gun club fails and results in the deaths of a few thousand ordinary people?

You seem to celebrate a return to that era, to the time of “black lung”, child labor, and monopolies.

This “screw everybody”, every man for himself attitude is what got us into this mess.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 5, 2010 11:43 AM
Comment #309729

Skeptical Boomer-
Alright, let’s see here:

A senior executive at Goldman told Gasparino: “Obama couldn’t give a $#!% about all this anti-Wall Street stuff. He needs to bash us to get his bull$#!% financial reform through Congress.”

You mean the Goldman Sachs who took clients to the cleaners knowingly selling them a $#!%%& deal? Who helped create the current crisis through their inhumanly intricate operations, their gaming of the system through software designed to front-run everybody else’s transactions?

It’s funny that you say that Wall Street contributed millions to Obama, only to see their investment end up not turning out as planned. Only fair, I guess, given how many other people got $#!%%& deals from Goldman and the other Wall Street giants.

You talk about the time before the liberals got into power as a golden age, and of people’s standards of living being raised. Well, that’s the story. The reality is, before the reforms of the New Deal, Depressions were depressingly common. After? Well, after it, it took until 2008 for anything to seriously approach that level of economically bad. And even so, we’re not suffering near as bad for it or near as long because a lot of the policies that were made from those lessons learned helped mitigate the impact.

The truth is, there are many different ways to run a capitalist market. Some run it strictly for the benefit of the upper-eschelon capitalists, with the benefits of that sprinkling from above onto people who are accused of being socialists and green-eyed with envy if they dare to complain about the arrangement.

Others, though, can run it with the understanding that compromises can and should be negotiated between the top and the bottom, and that government should help keep the top in check when it tries to profit too much from the pain and misery of those below.

I don’t believe in destroying capitalism, I believe in keeping it nice and safe by keeping it from producing the kind of class tensions in the real world that ultimately lead to greater government control. If you want to keep government in check, part of what you do is make sure that the policy is sufficient to keep the problems from cropping up.

If you let folks lie cheat and steal from the average person, you will only encourage the kind of rebellion against capitalism that you despise. Capitalism must be a viable option for the average person looking to serve their own interests. If all people can see in the current system is ruin, is wage slavery and a loss of freedom, they will fight to take that back.

You can either give them the ability to fight back and assert their interests, or you can watch them reach the breaking point, the boiling point, and then take over with much harsher measures in mind.

If you don’t solve people’s problems, which they can’t solve for themselves, you will force them to join together to take matters into their own hands.

You don’t win against socialism by bashing it down into the ground, because at its heart, socialism is about opposing the capitalist beating down the worker- they’ll just come back that much stronger. No, you win against it by making its kind of heavy-handed style of intervention unnecessary.

So far, Republicans have done a poor job of making the socialists unnecessary.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 5, 2010 12:33 PM
Comment #309731

Railroad tycoons (some of the Robber Barons), were so much more interested in profit, and land acquisition, that they let their lines deteriorate. Railroad history is rife with deadly train accidents until Congress got involved (too late for the early casualties), and since then it has boiled down to the current accident rate, which is almost acceptable, except for those who are killed or hurt of course.

Other Barons (oil, coal, etc.) always placed safety last in priority, if they considered it at all. Even now coal companies bribe inspectors just so they can get away with safety violations, and look at what oils companies have done to Alaska, the California and the Gulf of Mexico. Please don’t defend ‘business’, as though it were somehow sacrosanct.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 5, 2010 12:37 PM
Comment #309732

People who complain about how heavy handed social programs can get, have no concept of capitalist history.

If those who believe in and strive for ‘trickle down’ economies, would look back for a moment, they would find that ‘trickle up’ works more efficiently and accomplishes more, faster.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 5, 2010 12:44 PM
Comment #309737

I believe Marysdude is referring to “trickle-up” poverty.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 5, 2010 2:41 PM
Comment #309738

This is what I’m mostly referring to.

Historically, republican contempt for the working-class is well documented. Eisenhower was the last republican president to balance the budget, and since 1945, republican administrations have created 31.2 million jobs, while democrats have created 57.6 million. Under Bush 43, payroll expansion for the middle class increased a measly 2.3%, while under Clinton it increased 21.2%. Conversely, economic policies under Reagan and Bush 41 resulted in 718,000 small business failures, and from 1980-to-1988, Reagan’s non-stimulative trickle-down policies gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy, accounted for the loss of 10 million manufacturing jobs, and expanded the job market by a paltry 2%.

Collectively, from 1960-to-2000, republicans expanded the job market by 5.3%, while democrats managed 11.6% during the same time period.

Just as long as small government Republicans are in power, they actually provide big government, as evidenced by Bush 43 expanding the federal government 47% and Reagan a whopping 56%.

From 2001 to 2008, an era of record debt, conservatives led the charge to give $1.4 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy via borrowed money from China, and now he wants to erase the deficit by taxing working-class Americans. Conservatives want to again borrow money and grow the deficit so tax cuts can be extended for the wealthy. Since that did not work in the oughts, why would it now.

All the above is the difference between ‘trickle down’ and ‘trickle up’. It should be obvious to even RF that ‘trickle up’ is the preferred way to go.

And, it also explains why and how the middle class shrinks in size and income. In just the years 2001 to 2008 we lost 2.74 trillion in spendable income.

What is it that causes so many to be so blind?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 5, 2010 3:21 PM
Comment #309743

You all completely miss my point. My point is that the Democrats are juat as In bed with Wall Street and the moneyed interests as you accuse Republicans of being. Why is it that Democrats received 50% more campaign cash from Wall Street firms than Republicans over the past 3 years? They use the poor and disadvantaged as a means to an end which is simply power and money and they use class envy and jealousy very skillfully to achieve their ends. That is my point. I am not saying unbridled capitalism with no regulation is the goal. I am saying that advocating regulation and avoidance of regulation leads to a lot of corruption on both sides and incessantly demonizing the sucessful and productive while holding up Big Labor and “the poor” as paragons of virtue is neither fair nor honest. Most businesses are run morally and honestly and those that are not eventually fail and rightly so. Greed, my friends can be bottom up as well as top down especially when encouraged by self serving politicians.

“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.”

Attributed often to Abraham Lincoln but actually written by Reverend William J. H. Boetcker, a Presbyterian Minister, in the early 2oth century.

RF
I believe you are right about the trickle up poverty.

Posted by: Skeptical Boomer at October 5, 2010 4:13 PM
Comment #309747

Skeptical Boomer,

No one here denies that the body politic is corrupt. We may disagree as to the degree of corruption in each party, but that is merely a play in semantics. There are movements afoot that may eventually convince Americans to vote out incumbents of either party (I’m not personally sure this will help, but the effort is there).

Neither can you help the rich by destroying the middle class, as that is where the market of the market economy lies. You can only weaken the weak by strengthening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by encouraging too much thrift, as that stagnates an economy. You cannot lift the wage earner by lifting the wage payer to a pedestal level. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by being blind to what is actually going on in elite-ville USA. You cannot build character by creating a large pool of destitute citizenry. You cannot leave the poor to their own devices without temporary help unless you are willing to live in the resultant squalor.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 5, 2010 4:47 PM
Comment #309748

PS:

I believe you are incorrect about the trickle up theory. A short study of twentieth century economic history should allay any doubts on your part. And, if that soesn’t work, take a look at the oughts.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 5, 2010 4:50 PM
Comment #309767

Marysdude,

Sorry to say but there is more involved than simply Democrat or Republican here. Reagan followed Jimmy Carter and I lived through Jimmy Carter. We had to climb out of that hole and face two recessions before growth could occur. Bush 41 actually went along with the Democrats and allowed tax increases after which the economy soured. Clinton came in to office just as the Baby Boomers were between the ages of 32 and 47 creating huge demand for goods and services as well as a large labor force entering their peak earning years. Bush 43 came in to office in the midst of the Dotcom crash, the 2001 recession, and the corporate accounting scandals which actually were going on during the Clinton years. He then had 9/11 to deal with. The principal reason for slow job growth was that the labor force grew much more slowly during Bush 43 than it had during Reagan or Clinton. He also had Boomers facing retirement, fewer young people to replace them, and fewer women streaming in to the work force. The labor force grew by 50% more during Clinton’s two terms than during Bush 43.Tax cuts do not work? How do you explain that under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

In each case, the personal income taxes paid by “the rich” increased when their tax rates were cut. The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988.
Similar results when John F. Kennedy lowered taxes in the 60s.
Democrats hold the high moral ground on expansion of government and out of control borrowing and spending?

Posted by: Skeptical Boomer at October 5, 2010 6:06 PM
Comment #309769

Royal Flush-
All economies trickle up wealth towards the Rich. That’s the nature of the concentration of wealth, and it happens no matter what kind of system you put in place.

The question is, are people given the money to pay for all those things, or are they expected to debt-finance it all.

You guys get so self-righteous about what good capitalists the folks on the right are, but what Republicans and conservatives really are is incompetent capitalists. They expect a consumer class to endure continual “law of the jungle” testing, and yet still have the money left over to finance an economy based on disposable income. They expect consumers to be wary and incredibly deliberate in their financial decisions, yet they encourage and expect them to be overly exuberant enough to finance a consumer economy that needs that for its own growth.

They expect investors to flock to a market where the sharks are obviously circling. They expect a market rife with secrecy, opacity, and with few penalties for bad faith dealings or conflicts of interest to act as efficiently in discouraging bad behavior as a textbook theoretical model, where everybody knows what they need to know to make decisions for for themselves that are in their own interests.

They expect prices to go down when they put a middleman operation between the customer and the resource in question. They expect customer service and prices to improve as companies eat up or compete against fewer and fewer rivals.

They expect the economy to be able to stand the collapse of its investment sector…

Well, damn. They expect human nature, as it’s been for thousands and thousands of years to change. Even Adam Smith could tell you that the rich don’t go into business primarily to pay people wages. Given the chance, the billions and trillions that were supposed to support new jobs went instead to padding the pockets of the rich.

Literally. Analysts looked to see what they did with the tax cuts. Spend it and stimulate the economy? No, they saved it and let the economy fend for itself.

It’s not that the rich are evil. They’re just like everybody else. If they can accumulate goods and money, they will. If they can save money, they will. But some impulses that a person at our level might have don’t translate well when they’re carried out by a person who actually has the money and power to get what they want, and what might be harmless for a person like us to want, might have much different, and much more harmful effects when that wealth and power allows them to carry it out.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 5, 2010 6:16 PM
Comment #309771

Skeptical, and Carter followed Nixon/Ford. The 70’s were the results of not only the Vietnam war and LBJ’s War on Poverty, which would have been bad enough, but also the rise of OPEC (and the tripling of oil prices) as well as the inflation that resulted from Nixon signing off on the end of the Bretton Wood accord (and wage and price controls in an attempt to counter the resultant problems). You may have lived the Carter years,as did I,but those of us that blamed Carter were wrong. To think that Reagan came in and saved the day is wrong, remember the savings and loans crisis and the amnesty for illegals, to name just two of the many “see where that got us” policies.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 5, 2010 6:35 PM
Comment #309780

Skeptical Boomer,

Oh, I understand now. Wow, thanks for the warped data and bad history. Conservatives GOOD, Liberals BAD. I wish you’d have come out with this a long time ago, I could have taken a nap.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 5, 2010 8:10 PM
Comment #309788

Marysdude,

Warped data? Its directly from the OMB. You may contnue your nap now.

Posted by: Skeptical Boomer at October 5, 2010 9:45 PM
Comment #309801

“The principal reason for slow job growth was that the labor force grew much more slowly during Bush 43 than it had during Reagan or Clinton.”

What? Where did you come up with that? The population grew by 22 million people during the Bush administration Skeptical. Yet only 3 million jobs were added during the 8 years of the Bush administration. By contrast during the Carter administration the population grew ny 9.8 million yet 10.5 million jobs were created. During the Clinton years the population grew by 25.2 Million whilst 23.1 million jobs were added. The slow growth excuse you espouse for Bush doesn’t hold up to the facts.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-worst-track-record-on-record/tab/article

Posted by: j2t2 at October 6, 2010 2:42 AM
Comment #309805

>Democrats hold the high mora
l ground on expansion of government and out of control borrowing and spending?
Posted by: Skeptical Boomer at October 5, 2010 06:06 PM

Skeptical,

Look closely at what you said, and believe me when I say it’s the first time you,ve made sense.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 6, 2010 6:14 AM
Comment #309806

I’m getting too old to cut and paste…but, I haven’t had my coffee yet, soooo…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 6, 2010 6:16 AM
Comment #309811

skeptical boomer-

Reagan followed Jimmy Carter and I lived through Jimmy Carter. We had to climb out of that hole and face two recessions before growth could occur.

You might do well to study what LBJ did wrong if you really want to understand this, because for all intents and purposes. Reagan continued Carter’s austerity program, the high interests rates. We had to calm the inflation induced by the debt amassed because LBJ wouldn’t raise taxes to cover the cost of his war and his social programs.

Ironically, you defend Bush, who- wait for it - wouldn’t raise taxes to cover either his wars or his new entitlement program.

In both cases, we could have taken the increases, but the President and others in both cases were concerned that people might object to one or the other spending item, if they had to pay out of pocket. Bush, in fact, cut taxes, and that made the hole from what he did deeper.

Clinton came in to office just as the Baby Boomers were between the ages of 32 and 47 creating huge demand for goods and services as well as a large labor force entering their peak earning years.

Reagan benefited from the Baby boomers, too. He also, when faced with a terrible fiscal situation caused by his first tax cuts, raised taxes when he saw the ugly truth: that the Laffer Curve wasn’t going to work out.

It didn’t in fact. You claim that revenues doubled. Okay, granted. But that’s not the whole budget picture. How much did the cost of government increase? How much higher did deficits go for the sake of his program? Well, we know one thing: Reagan tripled the national debt. Bush 43 did something quite similar, after the years during which Clinton ran progressively smaller budget deficits. He, too, might I remind you, started out during tough economic times.

And he raised taxes, all the same, raised them to the level they would now return to, if the Democrats failed to pass a tax cut package to replace it.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. If Barack Obama can find an economy in its worst economic shape since the Depression, and lift that sucker up towards growth, what could Bush have done?

Bush 43 came in to office in the midst of the Dotcom crash, the 2001 recession, and the corporate accounting scandals which actually were going on during the Clinton years. He then had 9/11 to deal with.

Policies that Clinton may have signed into law, but which Republicans wrote and passed. The fact is, Bush’s main strategy for dealing with these situations was to do little if anything to deal with the underlying problems. Many of those policies came back to haunt us in the latter part of the Decade.

As for Tax cuts not working? Well, Clinton raised taxes, and that didn’t kill our nation’s greatest and longest period of economic expansion. Reagan tried to tax cut our way out of a recession. Did it work? Well, unemployment would rise to 10.8% (.7% worse than Obama ever got to). It would take two or three years for employment to recover to the point where it was when he signed the tax cut into law, during which time, unemployment would remain above 10% for almost a year.

And Bush’s Tax Cuts? A third of a dollar stimulus on every dollar we had to deficit spend to cover it, most of the money being saved, and each recovery a jobless recovery, with increasing numbers of people employed less than part time. And overall? The economy fell into recession.

The laissez fair rules that Republicans allowed for business didn’t help. They made it easier for businesses to make money parasitically, rather than productively, to cook the books, to make margin calls and overleverage on barely regulated over-the-counter derivatives. It may have looked like we were doing better, but in reality, the economic growth was a strained product of a massive bubble from the start.

If you want to reinflate the bubble and rely on that, you’re only resigning yourself to additional future crashes and bailouts.

In each case, the personal income taxes paid by “the rich” increased when their tax rates were cut. The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988.

It might help that they expanded their income by more than ten times in the thirty years that followed Reagan’s election. If you hog more of a share of the nation’s total income, it’s a given you’ll pay more of the taxes. At least if we’re being fair.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 6, 2010 12:12 PM
Comment #309814

I’m still trying to figure it out…if the wealthy don’t pay the bulk of the taxes, who is expected to pay them? The poor? The middle class? Obviously the poor can’t because…well, just because. And the middle class is shrinking, and as income and demographics decrease, are barely holding their own. Who’s left?

Just as a practical matter, and without knee-jerk reactions, who is best able to keep the country afloat until things begin to return to normal? If they never return to normal, the wealthy will still have to pay them if they get paid. Cuts be damned, someone has to pay or we continue the downward spiral into massive debt.

If you cut every so-called entitlement program to the bone, disbanded the Education department, quit work on infrastructure, cut government in half, and brought all our troops home, there would still be taxes, and there would be more poor and more destitute, and less fluid economy. Is that actually what conservatives want?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 6, 2010 1:02 PM
Comment #309815

I have a dream…I dream that one day conservatives will all wake up one morning, realizing that their golden age is gone, and that they have never contributed much to it’s inception or growth, and have been the cause of it’s demise.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 6, 2010 1:07 PM
Comment #309835

“We had to calm the inflation induced by the debt amassed because LBJ wouldn’t raise taxes to cover the cost of his war and his social programs.”

Not true. The last balanced budget before the Clinton administration was the LBJ budget of 1968-69. LBJ raised taxes and cut spending to produce the balanced budget.

Posted by: Rich at October 6, 2010 5:28 PM
Comment #310384

Christine O’Donnell is a nutcase plain and simple. The tells on TelOnU (a site where people can post reviews on companies, people and politians) confirm the same:

“This crazy lady is a life long politician, trying to find a way to live off the election cycle like a blood sucking vampire. She will say anything to get elected, and will hook on any extremist movement to gain attention to herself.”

http://www.telonu.com/reviews/christine-odonnell?nt=33553&type=Tells

This crazy witch a is two faced liar, and will say anything to get elected.

Posted by: Bob Bobington at October 15, 2010 1:05 AM
Post a comment