Democrats & Liberals Archives

"I’d like you to close down because all of your birds are half dead."

“It’s our job to protect ourselves.”

Easy words to say, eh? Of course people should take responsibility for their own lives, do what they can to avoid being taken by financial schemers, poisoned by bad drugs, sickened by contaminated meat. But imagine, like the questioner of the Republican candidate, going up to a factory farm manager, and saying my title to them.

The title, by the way, is almost a direct quote from the question that a voter asked of candidate Jesse Kelly:

QUESTIONER: Who’s protecting us?

KELLY: That’s the thing, ma’am, it’s our job to protect ourselves. Because no one else is going to look out for your best interests except for you. [...]

QUESTIONER: Am I supposed to go to a chicken farmer and say I’d like you to close down because all of your birds are half dead?

KELLY: I’ve not heard a lot about that recently, obviously there’s a new thing that comes along every day. But I know this, every portion of our economy that is heavily regulated doesn’t have fewer disasters, it has more.

Kelly's living in a dreamworld. This is not the nation it was two hundred years ago. Two hundred years ago, there wasn't a word for most of the familiar diseases we talk about. Two hundred years ago, most people got their meals from their own sustenance farming. Today, most of us get our meat and food from corporate agriculture.

The folks on the Right may think that I'm just being alarmist, but the sad truth is that I'm not. I recommend folks read this book, Spoiled, by Nicols Fox. It will change your perspective on what ends up on your dinner table, I promise you that.

Truth is, we're not trying to manage an 18th or 19th Century system here. We're dealing with a very modern, very corporate system which wouldn't respond to us the way a neighbor might back in the old days.

If some milk made you sick, you might complain to the man who milked the cow, and had him look at old Bessie. But could you ask the same of some feedlot? Could you imagine even getting past security? And do you have your own cow handy, or a nearby dairy that could provide you with an alternative?

No, you have a choice between brands of milk that very likely all come from such sources. And if the bad practices are industry-wide? Could you visit them all, give them all a piece of your mind, if you couldn't do it to one?

We aren't villagers anymore. We live in suburbs and cities mostly. We rely on these companies to give us a safe, uncontaminated product. Jesse Kelly would tell us to protect ourselves. How? Starvation? Sternly worded letters? Economically ruinous boycotts? Seriously, folks.

We get the government involved nowadays on more levels because we no longer are close enough to the source of many of our products, or influential enough all by ourselves to assure ourselves of safety and honest dealing through our own interactions with the market, and the economic effects of such headline-grabbing scandals of contamination have usually been devastating to those industries.

This isn't about controlling everything, folks! This is about reproducing the level of accountability that you used to have in terms of being able to walk up to the farmer that sold you the bad meat or bad milk, and say, "This is unacceptable."

Jesse Kelly tells us we should protect ourselves. What he fails to realize is that we've been doing that all along. Agencies like the FDA are a result of people deciding that it was in their best interest to have the government stand in for them, and represent their interests to an industry that would be all but immune to their pleas as individuals. It's part of an impulse to regularize this enforcement, making the accountability as much of a factor in their daily lives, as your presence in the other farmer's lives might have been years ago, back when that was a feasible model to follow.

The world has moved on, and policy moved with it to suit. We should stop entertaining nostalgic fantasies that we can hold the car companies accountable the way we once held the local blacksmith accountable, that we can stuff the genie back into the bottle on all the various technologies we have, and simply legislate for a world dead and gone that we liked better. We have to adapt to survive, much less to thrive.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2010 6:06 PM
Comments
Comment #311121

I suggest that everybody reading this watch the WHOLE question and answer. Taking that last part is misleading.

Kelly pointed out that we already have 300,000 regulations that carry criminal penalties. He reminded the questioner that auto and financial industries were among the most heavily regulated.

His point was that giving more power to the Nancy Pelsois and Barney Franks makes us LESS safe. We cannot trust these sorts to protect us. We have to also look out for ourselves because an informed consumer, whether of government or business services, is the best guarantee of safety.

So please look at the WHOLE exchange. If after that you still think he is wrong, you might want to assess your confidence in your own capacity to handle freedom.

Posted by: C&J at October 24, 2010 7:34 PM
Comment #311143

C&J-
Watch the whole thing, I agree. I don’t know how that will change anything.

I mean, did I miss something? The FDA can no longer mandate recalls of diseased food. Let me repeat that: if it turns out that there is literally a bunch of crap in your ground round, it is a voluntary act on the food industry’s part to recall that beef.

That’s what the person was talking about, and that sick sort of situation is what Jesse Kelly is asking people to live with.

Passed the house, stalled in the Senate.

You talk about regulations in such a generalized, vague manner, that all I can get from what you write is this sense of dread of regulation, of government control that doesn’t wait for facts to back it up.

Now, I understand more regulations isn’t necessarily better, and I’d take less, if I thought I could get get better, but I don’t agree at all that we’ve been too hard on any of these industries. The car companies would be in much better shape if the Bush or Clinton Administration had pushed greater efficiency earlier. Instead, we went hog-wild for hummers, because we know that the whole conspicuous consumption model of efficiency worked so well for detroit in the 1970’s.

Nostalgia is not a replacement for function. Everything was not better in the old days. That’s why the FDA was born in the first place: too many lousy drugs, too much rancid food, not enough ability for the average American to fend for themselves against the system.

You see Government as the threatening other. I see Government as an extension of the wishes of the American people that can be molded to fit our needs not on the elite timetable, but on our own. Of course, since we’re responsible for it, we might very well follow the pipe dreams of some who are nostalgic for the Wild West and the Guilded age, but we will end up facing the consequences for that.

And if we have sense, our question will be less whether we’re afraid of our own government, and more whether we’re getting what we would want out of it.

I admit, that’s not so simple or easy as “government is bad, deregulate to solve most problems.” but it at least we’re facing the reality that people are otherwise pretty much powerless to face down the folks responsible for delivering the the food they eat.

We live in a nation where we have deliberately proliferated the division of labor. We cannot and should not expect for it to be everybody’s job to be competent in the stock market, bacteriology, pharmaceuticals, automobile engineering, and everything else like that.

We should stop depending on idealizations of “buyer beware,” and admit to ourselves that we have neither the time nor the inclination to understand everything about everything, that to actually do our jobs well, we have to make sure that the folks who do know how to their jobs do it in a manner consistent with the public good. We cannot run a society purely on the power of individual knowledge and understanding.

Jesse Kelly does not appreciate that people have enough business to take care of running their own lives. They don’t need the added burdens that the folks who are nostalgic for a romanticized version of America would put on them, the burdens that those people themselves unshouldered and gave to government. (Along with a number of others.)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2010 9:26 PM
Comment #311150

Stephen, Jesse Kelly and C&J make good points. We as consummers have a responsibility to. If you find a bunch of crap in your ground round it dosen’t mean that a total recall of beef be instituted it probably means that your local super market was lax in the cleaning of their meat grinder. We have a responsibility of keeping the food we buy safe by storing it properly and cooking it properly and keeping the home kitchen areas clean. The government has the responsibility of inspecting the processing plants and making sure they comply. Things are going to happen Stephen even with stringent inspections especially if the inspector takes bribes which is not uncommon. I don’t care how much regulation you put on something crap does happen and we as consumers need to pay attention to things and not rely on government to do things we should be doing ourselves.

Posted by: KAP at October 24, 2010 10:17 PM
Comment #311157

Most of the food contamination problems that have come up in the last twenty years have been traced to the corporate farm where it was raised or to the processor who prepared it for retailers. The local grocery store has never been mentioned, to my knowledge, in any of those occurrences. If a local store is found to be the problem, local authorities handle it and it does not become a national problem. It is the latter problems that require national attention because they have the most lethal potential for the most people.

This is a very weird conversation.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 24, 2010 10:57 PM
Comment #311159

Stephen & KAP

That thing about the eggs in your article, it is recent, i.e. 2010. This is two years after Obama was elected and four years after the Democrats took both houses of Congress.

Smart regulation is a good idea. The Democrats don’t give it to us.

You have this habit of identifying Democratic mistakes and blaming others. If those eggs are not properly inspects, it is Obama’s regulators overseen by the Democratic majority that failed you.

KAP makes a good point. When you demand perfection you get trouble. Democrats use regulations as a club to attack business, instead of a guide to make life better and safer for all.

Posted by: C&J at October 24, 2010 11:08 PM
Comment #311162

Dude, I can agree with you on where the problem is. I don’t think more regulation is needed just stricter enforcement of the regulations already in place. Some of the bacterial contamination comes from the consumer themselves by improper handling. Your right about this being a weird conversation.

Posted by: KAP at October 24, 2010 11:18 PM
Comment #311166

I agree with KAP.

The problem is always failing to enforce existing laws. This week, when asked about those on terroist lists being able to buy firearms, “Big Sis” Napolitano, suggested it is not an HLS problem, it is up to legislators to write new laws. Interesting, since those on terroist lists are not allowed to fly on planes. We have border laws and laws dealing with illegals, but it is legislators who want to write new and better laws, rather than enforce existing laws. Could it be that new laws allow the Feds to reach even farther into our rights?

Posted by: TomT at October 24, 2010 11:47 PM
Comment #311170

Tom T,

Which existing laws allows HLS to stop people on no fly lists from purchasing guns? You offered an example which defeats your own dogma.

Stephen,
I wonder if any of the anti regulators have ever been to a slaughter house or feed lot? I wonder if they’ve ever heard of Upton Sinclair.

You are absolutely correct. A complete disconnect from reality.

Posted by: gergle at October 25, 2010 12:04 AM
Comment #311171

gergle, Are there not regulations concerning slaughter houses or feed lots? Do we need more regulations if the ones in place are not enforced by government agents? No one is anti regulator, most just want the regulations already in place enforced. As Jesse Kelly and C&J pointed out there are over 300,000 regulations that carry criminal penalties. Enforce them.

Posted by: KAP at October 25, 2010 12:29 AM
Comment #311177

All

KAP again makes a good point.

Liberals evidently cannot understand nuance and they see the world in stark terms. They think the issue is heavy regulation v no regulation. What most people want is EFFECTIVE regulation, which may often mean less of it.

Posted by: C&J at October 25, 2010 5:35 AM
Comment #311181

I’m watching tons of campaigning in several states for position of State Governor up to US Senator. The ones for the GOP invariably talk about LESS regulation. NOTE the word LESS. Where is this conversation going? The GOP is making government and regulation an enemy of their constituency, and only for a handful of votes…bah! Isakson of Georgia uses it as a mantra. I think he’s one of the imbeciles who voted for GLB…what a crock-o-crap.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2010 7:04 AM
Comment #311183

I guess the American voters will decide for themselves if they want more government regulation on Nov. 2.

Posted by: TomT at October 25, 2010 8:17 AM
Comment #311184

C&J-
Look, your people have roadblocked the reform bill and others like it, so don’t give me this blame-game crap, because your people are taking active measures to block such legislation. You’ve never allowed robust majority rules in the Senate since the Democrats were elected. You’ve been blocking us since day one, and it’s time you admit it.

As for the mistakes of regulators, let be blunt with you: the regulators are hemmed in by laws. They do not have the legal authority to mandate a recall, and only Congress can give them that mandate.

And it was going to, until your folks got in the way.

As for attacking business? On what planet? This isn’t about attacking business, that’s your BS excuse for attacking regulations. Some folks in the food industry are just too cheap, okay? They don’t want to be bothered with doing things right, because they want to make more money. Some of them are smarter and wiser than that, but they have to compete with those who are not.

This is not about demanding perfection, this is about demanding function, pure and simple. There are economic losses for the average citizen and the companies they work for when they are sickened or even killed by food contamination. It also doesn’t help the industry long term, because every time there’s a major outbreak and it gets reported, that scares people off of their product.

But some people just have to make their money.

Liberals evidently cannot understand nuance and they see the world in stark terms. They think the issue is heavy regulation v no regulation. What most people want is EFFECTIVE regulation, which may often mean less of it.

If you want to speak of people not understanding nuances, did you not get what I was saying earlier? Do you not actually read real liberal’s arguments?

Of course Democrats and Liberals want effective regulation. You think we like it when the bureaucracy screws up? Stop confusing the propaganda of the conservative movement with the actual thoughts and inclinations of real world liberals.

You can get into the weeds on what is effective regulation, but what the questionere was asking about was the mandate I described, which is a perfectly reasonable mandate for an agency tasked with protecting people from bad food to have. But no, this has to be about some vague argument concerning how many regulations can dance on the head of a pin and be effective.

But really is effective regulation what that man’s after, or the effective end to that kind of regulation?

He’s basically saying, you know, you’re on your own. You have to inspect your own meat, whether or not you know how to do it.

It’s libertarianism without an anchor on reality. He’s not merely suggesting streamlining regulation, he’s talking about eliminating Washington’s ability to do it, and the past record of the Republican party indicates better what that means than any of your philosophical arguments about levels or numbers of regulation. It’s basically about giving agribusiness free rein, despite, not because of its food safety record.

I mean, that’s the thing. Nowadays, when you hear Conservatives rise up to defend a lack of regulations somewhere, you rarely have a good record to show people substantively why a company should be left to its own devices on policing itself.

No, instead, you have all too common outbreaks that didn’t use to occur, you have oil blowouts that have never occured at this scale before, and you have historic collapses of Wall Street Banks, forcing a hasty bailout, and yet your argument each time is that despite these problems we should let them do what they want.

It shouldn’t be hard to look at these collapses, these failures, and say there need to be remedies. Optimization of the regulations, at the very least, whether that means added lines of regulation, revised lines, or streamlining. But the effect has to be that whatever the bad behavior is, it’s no longer allowed to continued, and the businesses that failed to police themselves are not given back the job they failed to do the first time.

TomT-
I did’t hear “enforce current regulations”. I heard “deregulate more.”

And besides, it’s not the number, it’s the effects and the authority of enforcement.

KAP-
Not to be crude, but is somebody ****ting in the meat grinder? This is contamination of a kind that come from the meatpacking plant, where the animals are disemboweled and processed.

But as it is, if contamination does get into the beef or the chicken, or whatever, the Federal Government does not currently have the power to force a recall, a removal of that stuff from the shelves.

As for looking for contamination ourselves, are you qualified to test the meat for E. Coli? Are you willing to go gristle by gristle through your ground beef to make sure there’s not fecal matter there? And can you enforce that scrutiny on your local fast food restaurant?

You folks need to take ten seconds to rationally consider what it is you’re actually asking people to do. We hand the burden over to government so we can get people who actually know what they’re doing, and who can stop this crap, sometimes literally, before it gets to our shelves.

As for where the contamination comes from, the kind of E. Coli we’re talking about doesn’t typically come from consumers. And if the contamination does come from a consumer, very often it’s cross contamination, and you’re still left with a source that was from a meatpacking plant of some sort.

I’m not saying people shouldn’t wash their hands and handle food with safe techniques, sanitizing their cooking and cutting board surfaces and all that. But I think we should reasonable about what we ask people to guard against.

As for the number of regulations that carry criminal penalties, do you happen to know how many of them happen to be associated with the FDA, and how many of them are actually relevant to this? Have you actually gone through and determined the reasonability or the power granted by those regulations?

Have you actually considered that in many cases, your Republicans legislated to make it difficult to impossible to enforce those regulations?

Talking on such a vague level is mostly going to be fruitless. It’s the land of obfuscating rhetoric, where discussion of quantity is substituted for discussion of quality.

Besides, his point is not reforming it. I don’t hear discussion about doing the FDA’s job better, I hear discussion of cutting the FDA out of its role. There’s a difference.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2010 8:48 AM
Comment #311186

TomT,

You STILL have not figured this thing out…if there is a conservative wave of victories, those conservatives will have to do something to improve our current situation…other than sit on their collective thumbs and whine, what will they contribute? Are you in it for the ‘win’, or are you for better governance? Is it the good feeling of the victory lap, or are you in it for the long, hard haul? ‘Winning’ is just the beginning…have you lost sight of that?

I’m pretty sure Democrats will do better in November than some here predict, but assuming you are right…what then?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2010 8:52 AM
Comment #311187

Marysdude, the question is, will the democrats be willing to work with republicans when they re-take control.

Everyone likes a winner and of course, those on the right will be happy to win, but isn’t it the left who believes, “it’s not if you win or loose, but how you play the game”?

Since the advent of the TP, and the growing support of it, I don’t think conservatives will allow republicans to set back and do nothing. Conservatives have ideas as to the directon of our country, and we will voice our opinions, and they will listen, or they will be out.

Stephen, you and the rest on the left continually blame the republicans for obstructing the democrats. They are and have been doing what we wanted them to do, i.e. put a shutdon to Obama, Reid, and Pelosi’s socialist program. You control 20% of the American voters, and the other 80% did not agree with socialism, so, let me emphasize this, “WE TOLD THEM TO SHUT THE DEMOCRATS DOWN”, and there were democrat politicians who heard this message also. Because democrats also voted against these socialist plans. Proof is in the number of democrats who are now distancing themselves from Obama and his changes. We now have democrats calling for the repeal of obamacare.

Posted by: TomT at October 25, 2010 9:22 AM
Comment #311190

Lets put this into some perspective. It was de-regulation of the financial markets (repeal of Glass-Steagell) and the absence of any regulation for the derivatives market that led to the financial collapse. Even Alan Greenspan admits that he was wrong about de-regulation. He now recognizes that laissez faire financial markets are not self-regulating and require governmental oversight and regulation.

The vast majority of the anti-regulation rhetoric and lobbying money eminates from Wall Street which has resisted the Financial Reform legislation and any effort to curtail their highly profitiable speculative markets. I doubt very seriously that they are concerned about pure food and drug issues.


Posted by: Rich at October 25, 2010 9:32 AM
Comment #311192

Stephen, If I was to find crap in my ground round 99.9% for sure it would have come from my local supermarket. Where I come from, most just buy sides of beef and cut the various cuts of meat and fresh grind the chuck, round and left over meat. The ones I worry about and DO NOT buy are the tubes of ground beef. Like I said before no one is for anti regulation most are for enforcing the regulations we have in place. What good is it if more regulations are made and not enforced. We can regulate till we’re blue in the face if they aren’t enforced then it’s meaningless. Stephen did not the egg recall happen on the Democrats watch? IMO I think your party dropped the ball on that one or is that another thing your going to blame Bush for. Example, Stephen, we have laws that prohibit murder, if those laws ARE NOT enforced does it make sence to enact more laws or would it make more sence to enforce the laws we already have.

Posted by: KAP at October 25, 2010 10:25 AM
Comment #311196

Here’s a Washington Post look at the Tea Party…speaking of 20%…

But a new Washington Post canvass of hundreds of local tea party groups reveals a different sort of organization, one that is not so much a movement as a disparate band of vaguely connected gatherings that do surprisingly little to engage in the political process.

The results come from a months-long effort by The Post to contact every tea party group in the nation, an unprecedented attempt to understand the network of individuals and organizations at the heart of the nascent movement.

Seventy percent of the grass-roots groups said they have not participated in any political campaigning this year. As a whole, they have no official candidate slates, have not rallied behind any particular national leader, have little money on hand, and remain ambivalent about their goals and the political process in general.

The column goes to to explain that the nationally known groups that say they define Tea Party, are not grass roots at all, but rather political insiders and monied big-wigs who use the label to further their own agenda.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2010 12:34 PM
Comment #311198

KAP,

You have probably linked to a site that verifies your 20% figure for the left leaners, but search as I might, I cannot find that link or that data, can you help me?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2010 12:38 PM
Comment #311199

Dude, Try Tom T. I didn’t say anything about 20% left leaners.

Posted by: KAP at October 25, 2010 12:52 PM
Comment #311201

TomT-
I can blame them because they are doing it. 420 measures have passed the house just to die in the Senate, a large majority of the Democrat’s policies. The polls are nowhere near as unambiguous as an 80/20 split. Hell, Obama’s above fifty in the latest Newsweek poll!

Kind of odd for a man who has basically pushed these unpopular policies that Americans want the Republicans to shut down.

And really, if you look at the Republican’s behavior, you have only to see that they started their current filibustering frenzy immediately following the ascension of the Democrats to the majority to understand that line about a majority of Americans calling for that resistance is complete bullhockey. The Republicans started obstructing in 2006, lost the next election even worse, and continued filibustering!

Or put another way, the Republican were given a clear, unambiguous signal that Americans wanted a change in policy, and on a fundamental level, they have ignored it.

Now, if you want to talk about being in the lower spectrum space of the polls, realize that the Republicans have consistently polled worse than the Democrats in Congress. Or, to put it another way, it’s not as if the average voter likes Republicans more. They’re just the convenient alternative.

And will they take over? Unlikely. The best they will do is get the House. The Senate is out of their reach, thanks to the multiple self-destructions of the competing tea-party candidates.

And if the House goes to Republicans, what then? The Democrats keep the Senate, and the Republicans certainly won’t have Obama out of office.

In short, the Republicans will not be able to make policy without compromising with Democrats. Unwilling to do that, they will resort to the same behavior that they got up to in the Clinton Administration, only against a much more popular president, and against a public that didn’t enjoy the political stunts the first time around.

The Republicans will become the face and embodiment of what is wrong with government. That will be the price they pay for entering a majority in Congress with nothing but an agenda of denial.

And will Democrats be content to leave the status quo alone if we lose? No, and every outrage that the GOP commits will only strengthen the resolve of the Liberals and Democrats to take things back once and for all.

Republicans can never rest easy in a majority again, not this generation, and certainly not holding just half of Congress. Without any positive policy plans, they have nothing useful to offer Americans, at a time when they need help the most. If Democrats are punished for failing to bring real change, what do you think will happen to Republicans when they actively work to stop and destroy it?

Give us two years. We’ll make the Republicans wish they had lost this campaign, just as they wished they had lost 2004.

KAP-
If the side of beef is already contaminated when you get it, it won’t matter that it wasn’t ground at the plant.

But let me address something else here:

Like I said before no one is for anti regulation most are for enforcing the regulations we have in place. What good is it if more regulations are made and not enforced. We can regulate till we’re blue in the face if they aren’t enforced then it’s meaningless.

What’s meaningless is this argument. It’s fact free. Sure it might make some sense, but absent the facts, how is it applicable here? The rhetoric just gets repeated on the right, but does anybody stop to try and test the claims by the reality?

What most people like me are focused on, is fixing the problem. If that means simplifying the regulations, making them more elegant, fine. But folks in the GOP are alway arguing overregulation. But do they so much as provide an example of how this has been a problem? No, it’s a theory in search of validating fact, one that’s backed by a basic faith in a political dogma. Everybody knows, one might say, that regulation is the problem. But don’t ask them how they know this.

Stephen did not the egg recall happen on the Democrats watch? IMO I think your party dropped the ball on that one or is that another thing your going to blame Bush for. Example, Stephen, we have laws that prohibit murder, if those laws ARE NOT enforced does it make sence to enact more laws or would it make more sence to enforce the laws we already have.

Don’t use such a tiresome argument. Eggs get contaminated regardless of who is in charge, and will continue to get contaminated. Thanks to government regulation the incidence of exterior Salmonella contamination has been eliminated, thanks to a mandated cleaning and pasteurizing process. That’s cut salmonella incidence quite greatly.

And it’s not something you can actually detect yourself, in case you’re thinking that. It doesn’t affect the taste, smell or appearance of the egg. The reality is, the response is usually after people get infected, and the eggs are traced back to a manufacturer. Then they put forward a voluntary recall.

So where did the Obama Administration drop the ball? I mean, first, it’s the manufacturer’s responsible to deliver safe food, so why not blame them first? the CDC and FDA traced these eggs back to the source, so they did their jobs. They’ve pushed them to do the voluntary recall.

What went wrong on the Obama Administration’s side? Did they get reports and not act on them?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2010 1:14 PM
Comment #311202

MD,
Try this.

For decades, the ideology breakdown has been roughly this:
20% of Americans self-identify as liberals.
40% of Americans self-identify as moderates.
40% of Americans self-identify as conservatives.

However, when moderates are probed on specific policies, the lion’s share of them adopt the liberal policy position, which is why we can regard this as a center-left country even though some people shy away from the label of “liberal” due to the defamation it has received from the Right over the years.

SD, good job; this is certainly one of your better pieces. It really exposes the paradox of conservatism. If you take their ideology to its hyperbolic conclusion, then they would say that Alexander Litvinenko’s death in 2006 was his own fault. He obviously should’ve tested his tea for Po-210 before drinking it; the people who put the Po-210 in his tea bear no responsibility. This is an interesting conclusion to reach from the ideology that claims to be about “personal responsibility”.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 25, 2010 1:32 PM
Comment #311205

Warped,

Thanks. I could find several polls, including Pew, that had Democrats in the lead by from 1 to 7 percent, but could not find the breakdown of conservative v. liberal. I understand the difference, as many Democrats don’t really identify themselves as ‘liberal’.

Here’s something that just came out of the Social Security office that may shed some light on how our economy is stacking up:

One out of every 34 Americans who earned wages in 2008 earned absolutely nothing — not one cent — in 2009.

The stunning figure was released earlier this month by the Social Security Administration, but apparently went unreported until it appeared today on Tax.com in a column by Pulitzer Prize-winning tax reporter David Cay Johnston.

It’s not just every 34th earner whose financial situation has been upended by the financial crisis. Average wages, median wages, and total wages have all declined — except at the very top, where they leaped dramatically, increasing five-fold.

Johnston writes that while the number of Americans earning more than $50 million fell from 131 in 2008 to 74 in 2009, those that remained at the top increased their income from an average of $91.2 million in 2008 to almost $519 million.

The wealth is astounding, says Johnston. “That’s nearly $10 million in weekly pay!… These 74 people made as much as the 19 million lowest-paid people in America, who constitute one in every eight workers.”

I’m afraid it may be too late to save us from third world status. That should please the conservatives as they will have ‘won’.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2010 1:55 PM
Comment #311207

Stephen, will you ever stop these liberal BS lies?

“TomT-
I can blame them because they are doing it. 420 measures have passed the house just to die in the Senate, a large majority of the Democrat’s policies. The polls are nowhere near as unambiguous as an 80/20 split. Hell, Obama’s above fifty in the latest Newsweek poll!”

Well Mister “facts”, how many of these 420 measures made it to the floor of the Senate? The subject is Republicans blocking Democrap bills; who gives a crap about Obama’s polls. What are the approval polls of the Congress?

Why do you guys on the left continue to blow this cheap smoke about Republican filibusters? How many seats did the Democrats hold in the Senate when Obama was sworn in? Oh yes, I remember, it was 60, and guess what, 60 beats a filibuster.

“And will they take over? Unlikely. The best they will do is get the House. The Senate is out of their reach, thanks to the multiple self-destructions of the competing tea-party candidates.”

Well let’s get our story straight. We have another liberal socialist by the name of marysdude, saying the TP is of no concequence:

“Here’s a Washington Post look at the Tea Party…speaking of 20%…
But a new Washington Post canvass of hundreds of local tea party groups reveals a different sort of organization, one that is not so much a movement as a disparate band of vaguely connected gatherings that do surprisingly little to engage in the political process.
The results come from a months-long effort by The Post to contact every tea party group in the nation, an unprecedented attempt to understand the network of individuals and organizations at the heart of the nascent movement.
Seventy percent of the grass-roots groups said they have not participated in any political campaigning this year. As a whole, they have no official candidate slates, have not rallied behind any particular national leader, have little money on hand, and remain ambivalent about their goals and the political process in general.
The column goes to to explain that the nationally known groups that say they define Tea Party, are not grass roots at all, but rather political insiders and monied big-wigs who use the label to further their own agenda.
Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2010 12:34 PM”

So what is it, does the TP have influence, or don’t they. It appears your argument is with marysdude.

“Republicans can never rest easy in a majority again, not this generation, and certainly not holding just half of Congress. Without any positive policy plans, they have nothing useful to offer Americans, at a time when they need help the most. If Democrats are punished for failing to bring real change, what do you think will happen to Republicans when they actively work to stop and destroy it?
Give us two years. We’ll make the Republicans wish they had lost this campaign, just as they wished they had lost 2004.”

Let me go out on a limb here:

1.Republicans will never rest easy again, because conservatives will never allow them to rest easy.
2.Whatever they have to offer Americans is better than the crap the socialist democrat party has been shoving up our rectums.
3.Republicans are going to smash democrat incumbents next week, and the left is in complete denial.
4.Give “US” 2 years and we will send Obama back to what he does best, working as a “Community Organizer”. Where he can freely pursue his socialist agenda and nobody cares.
The democrats are going to get down and real dirty before this next week is over.

Posted by: TomT at October 25, 2010 2:26 PM
Comment #311208

Warped Reality, you seem to be a smart kid, even though you don’t really know much about history and human nature. If the 40% of moderates in America lean left, can you explain how this same 40% are the independents who are now voting against Obama’s agenda?

Posted by: Bill at October 25, 2010 2:32 PM
Comment #311209

marysdude, was there a breakdown of the 74 richest people into political persuasion? Or in other words, how many of them were democrats. I’m sure George Sorrows was one. I thought Obama took care of evil Wall Street, how come they are still getting their big bonuses?

Posted by: Bill at October 25, 2010 2:38 PM
Comment #311210

Liberal Math Bill.

Posted by: KAP at October 25, 2010 2:41 PM
Comment #311211

Stephen, I am trying to make a simple point to you. ENFORCE THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE. The more I read and listen to you Liberal/Progressives the more I realize that you can’t think in simple solutions to problems you have to complicate them. The simple solution to the problem is to get the agencys responsible off their ——ing butts and do the job their are paid to do or find someone who will.

Posted by: KAP at October 25, 2010 2:57 PM
Comment #311214

TomT,

Why do you guys on the left continue to blow this cheap smoke about Republican filibusters? How many seats did the Democrats hold in the Senate when Obama was sworn in? Oh yes, I remember, it was 60, and guess what, 60 beats a filibuster.

When Obama was sworn in, there were only 56 Democrats in the Senate. (Actually, that number should be 53 because there were a few senators (Biden, Clinton, Salazar) who resigned so they could join Obama’s cabinet; none of their successors were sworn until later that month.

Although 60 people would ultimately join the Democratic Caucus by July, Ted Kennedy’s death in August reduced that number by one. Paul Kirk served as Ted Kennedy’s replacement for 4 months until Scott Brown replaced him; so there were only 5 months in which the Democrats had 60 people in their caucus. But this discussion misses the real point, which is that a few conservative Democrats in the Senate allied themselves with the GOP in order to promote the GOP’s efforts to obstruct. I’ve never said that these 41 Senators shouldn’t have the right filibuster, but it would be untrue to say liberals had a filibuster-proof majority. At most, there were only 57 ideologically liberal senators at any one time over the past two years.

Bill,
It’ll probably take years for historians to sort things and for political scientists to figure out what’s happening. Whatever I say is only my best guess and it will likely turnout to have a few errors, but I’ll try to answer your question.

Obama compromised liberal principles too much over the last two years, which in part has lead to our tepid economic recovery; a great deal of left-leaning voters are probably punishing him for that by sitting this election out. Why have a Democrat implement conservative policies when you could have an actual conservative? Other people are probably temporarily upset with the current administration; these voters had higher expectations as to what Obama and Congress could do, especially with regards to the economy. The last factor is probably the level of misinformation that’s been rampant in the media; especially when it comes to the health care reform law.

Actually, you can count me as one of those 40%; I just mailed my absentee ballot today and I voted against my incumbent Democratic Congresswoman (Nikki Tsognas, Massachusetts’ 5th district). I don’t like the way Congress has been over the past two years; I think the GOP would be far worse than the Democrats, but there are still a number of gripes I have against the Democrats in Congress. For example, I really hated it when Harry Reid tabled the Cap & Trade Bill in order to appease Hispanic voters with in immigration reform bill that wasn’t going to go anywhere.

even though you don’t really know much about history and human nature.
That makes sense, considering that I’m only 20 years old. As I grow older, I’ll probably learn more and more about those things through personal experience (hopefully). Right now, I have to rely on other people’s experiences; either through what I read or what the adults in my life decide to tell me. Posted by: Warped Reality at October 25, 2010 3:21 PM
Comment #311219

MD, thank you for that story.

I’m going to see Arianna Huffington tonight. Wish me well.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 25, 2010 4:25 PM
Comment #311220

It makes no difference if the top dogs are Democrat or Republican, it is enough that they now control portions of American wealth NEVER before seen in this country. That makes us more like a typical dictatorship or Kingdom in where the wealth lies. Where is it that you disagree? I included that Social Security issue into this thread, because it was new information, and although not of this thread, important enough to bring up.

Now, for those who cannot read…the report was the years 2008/2009, so it is hard for me to see how current reform measures could have an impact on that. Besides, that certain individuals get obscenely wealthy has little to do with Wall Street Reform, and everything to do with a free market system that has gone astray, and no reversal in sight. Y’all worry so much about holding back free enterprise, while free enterprise is dissolving our nation.

Third world, here we come. Poverty and squalor is our future, and the future is now.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2010 4:26 PM
Comment #311221

Warped Reality,

I envy you your ability to attend Arianna’s visit tonight. I wish I could be there as well.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2010 4:30 PM
Comment #311232

TomT-
I can’t stop what I never started.

And what’s with this “democrap” thing? The only people who will think that’s clever aren’t the people you need to convince of anything.

Why do you guys on the left continue to blow this cheap smoke about Republican filibusters? How many seats did the Democrats hold in the Senate when Obama was sworn in? Oh yes, I remember, it was 60, and guess what, 60 beats a filibuster.

And only sixty. Anything less, and a bill with majority support, what has historically been necessary to win, dies. With sixty members, that makes every vote a test of Democratic Party Unity against Republican Party Unity, instead of a test of a majority vote, whatever the composition, against a minority.

And this, on every vote of significance. On many other bills, it was only one or two Republcians senators issuing a hold. The Republicans have abused the system to second guess the voters who kicked them out from power.

So you keep blowing cheap smoke. The people you’re supporting haven’t won, they’ve just kneecapped the people who outperformed them two elections in a row.

As far as what Marysdude said, I would be interested to see how it plays out. Democrats have a considerable, largely intact GOTV network working across the country. The RNC is actually pulling back on GOTV operations. If the Tea Party doesn’t work like the Democrats did in ensuring GOTV efforts, that may blunt some of their strength on that count.

Or people may get themselves to the polls! But what will they get for that effort? I’m afraid not much. They’re still thinking that they’ll get their utopian conservative government on the second shot. What they’ll get is either so compromised it disgusts them, or so rigid that it clashes with what the people of this country want.

1.Republicans will never rest easy again, because conservatives will never allow them to rest easy.

Oh, I don’t think you’ll let them rest easy. The problem is, your party no longer has realistic notions of what the people want in this country. You’ll push them towards the cliff, and they’ll flap their arms rationalizing what they’re doing trying to fly.

2.Whatever they have to offer Americans is better than the crap the socialist democrat party has been shoving up our rectums.

Take a look at what we actually got done. It’s nothing we didn’t advertise in the first place. History will be a calmer judge of what your people obscured with patently false claims and shameless lies.

And you know something else? What happened to the time when being conservative meant you conducted yourself with some dignity?

3.Republicans are going to smash democrat incumbents next week, and the left is in complete denial.

No, I would say we’re seeing plenty of what’s coming, and we’re pushing back hard. This is going to be a fight. And you know what? There will be plenty of motivated Democrats on Nov. 3rd.

4.Give “US” 2 years and we will send Obama back to what he does best, working as a “Community Organizer”. Where he can freely pursue his socialist agenda and nobody cares. The democrats are going to get down and real dirty before this next week is over.

**** this socialist agenda bull****. Can’t you confront his policies on their own merits?

I have yet to hear any serious policy analysis from your side. That just wasn’t in the program. You’re too interested in doing all the things you have to do to get elected and re-elected. Well, you know what? There are consequences to being all talk and no action in the government. Perhaps you can convince the American people to come back to you for a short time, but you already lost Congress much faster than the Democrats did, because you proved within a generation that your model of government didn’t work.

Your people fail at basic tasks of government because you’re so toxically against it, you can’t think straight. It’s never about the public good, it’s about confirming and reconfirming your political theories.

But when the people get sick, get poor, get screwed in inumerable ways, sooner or later the blame comes back to where it belongs! You can’t avoid it. You can’t simply play out your political fantasies and avoid it.

Democrats have the advantage of saying that we got things done. The Republicans will get nothing of value done, because it is no longer in their political interests to govern, much less govern wisely or well.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2010 5:46 PM
Comment #311233

Warped Reality, thank you for your interest in government, and you will learn as you get older. It depends on what you choose as a career. If you decide to make a career out of politics, or go into the educational field, chances are, you will remain a liberal. If on the other hand, you create a business or work for a corporation that actually creates wealth; you will change your political views. Federal, state, and city employees are non-productive jobs and I would call them “slugs” on society. In a bee hive, you have worker bees, drones, and you have the queen bee. The drone bee doesn’t work; he screws the queen and eats the honey, while everyone else works. Federal and state employees are the drones of society.

The democratic party of today is not the democratic party of yesterday. JFK was a democrat, but he would not fit today’s definition of a democrat. You believe more government spending and higher taxes will save the economy. JFK believed lower taxes would increase revenue and create jobs.

You believe left leaning democrats are punishing Obama for not going far enough to the left. Do you understand that conservative republicans punished republican politicians for not being conservative enough?

You said, “The last factor is probably the level of misinformation that’s been rampant in the media; especially when it comes to the health care reform law.”

As I said before, you are a smart kid; do you really believe there has been misinformation from a mostly left leaning MSM? I realize Fox News is the most popular cable news channel, but every other news outlet is liberal. The proof is in the attacks; have any other news outlets been attacked by the left.

Secondly, if the American people are against obamacare because of misinformation, why are there democrats who are running against obamacare? Manchin, the democratic Senate candidate in WV, is openly running against obamacare, after he was for it, because there are things in the bill that he did not know was there. In fact, how many democrats are running on the achievements of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid?

Harry Reid tabled Cap and Trade because he had no chance of getting it passed, even by his own party. Why do you think a republican will most likely take Byrd’s Senate seat in WV, even after he held it for decades? Manchin is a very popular governor, but WV is a coal mining state and the voters know Manchin will vote with Obama on Cap and Trade, which will kill jobs.

This election is not about political donations, it’s not about republicans or democrats, it’s not about conservative or liberal news outlets, and it’s not about the ignorance of the voters. It’s about what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have done to America. It’s a referendum on Obama. The voters know exactly what they are doing. Liberals have always been able to make the elections about abortion or Social Security, but it’s not working this time.

Posted by: TomT at October 25, 2010 5:52 PM
Comment #311236

Warped,

I think TomT is saying Eisenhower would fit right into today’s Republican party…er…or words to that effect. Wow! Democrats aren’t the same…whew!

As far as being in business and it causing you to go over to the dark side…psss…there are plenty in business who see that liberalism is an asset rather than a deterrent to business. They are the ones who understand that to remain in business and grow, you need customers with a little money in their jeans.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2010 6:11 PM
Comment #311235

Stephen,

You had 60 votes plus 2 republicans who are more than willing to vote liberal. So the belly aching is getting old.

“Take a look at what we actually got done. It’s nothing we didn’t advertise in the first place.”

So again I ask, as so many others have, why aren’t democrats running on their achievements? Why are they running away from Obama?

“And you know something else? What happened to the time when being conservative meant you conducted yourself with some dignity?”

Do you find it surprising that conservatives are giving back to liberals some of their own medicine? I’m sure the things said about Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Palin, O’Donnel, Faux News, and on and on, by liberals was done with dignity. I find your statement an absolute joke. Its okay for the left to treat people like the scum of the earth, but it’s not okay for conservatives to act the same way.

I say Socialist agenda, because that is exactly what it is; a socialist agenda.

“Democrats have the advantage of saying that we got things done.”

And that is exactly what is going to get you beat next week. Democrats got things done, but the American voter doesn’t like what they did.

Posted by: TomT at October 25, 2010 6:11 PM
Comment #311240

Bill,

Americans may chose to label themselves as conservative or independents. However, that doesn’t mean that they are conservative in actual belief or practice. In fact, the data shows that the majority of Americans are quite liberal in their views of government, unions, social issues, etc. Media Matters recently compiled the results of current polls conducted by independent and reputable polling organizations on the actual views of the Amercian public on a wide variety of issues. http://mediamatters.org/reports/progmaj/

Posted by: Rich at October 25, 2010 6:30 PM
Comment #311242

Marysdude,

I am reminded of Harry Truman’s concerns about wealth and income inequality more than sixty years ago: “…vigilance and action are needed not only to protect the people from concentrations of wealth and power, but to keep concentrated wealth and power from destroying itself, and the Nation with it.”

Posted by: Rich at October 25, 2010 6:46 PM
Comment #311243

Rich,

As one of the last great Presidents, ol’ Harry was right about a lot of things, first and foremost of which was taking responsibility for the actions of his administration. He was right to be concerned about the top heavy accumulation of wealth as we can witness now. It is just a shame we, as a nation, did not listen closely enough. We needed vigilance and action and we got conservatives and apathy.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2010 7:12 PM
Comment #311261

Stephen

I don’t think liberals like it when bureaucracies screw up. But I think they fail to understand the nature of bureaucratic operations and so they continue to pile responsibility on systems that cannot handle that sort of management. Bureaucracies are always and everywhere rules-based.It is part of the definition. In a dynamic world, the rules will often be obsolete or inappropriate to current reality. Bureaucracy cannot change quickly because in the case of government it is ILLEGAL for them to take certain sorts of initiatives. This allows and encourages clever people to do things within the rules that are counter to the intent. Or the we have such a thicket of contradictory rules and practices that people can hide in them.

It is a kind of Gordian knot problem. The solution is not another layer of rules; it is rules that are effective and appropriate. But politicians respond to news paper stories and to outrage. They solve yesterday’s problem w/o understanding the consequences of their actions.

Posted by: C&J at October 25, 2010 9:01 PM
Comment #311264

C&J-
I think you and your party aren’t on the same wavelength. I think one day you’ll have a rude awakening on just how antagonistic your party has become to basic function of modern government.

We were given an adaptive system here, by design, a system intended to allow a stable government in response to a dynamic world

In principle, I agree with some things you say. But as with all logic, the question is all in the premises we start off with, not merely the correctness of the conclusion if all the premises are true.

It would be easier if we weren’t having this debate at a generalized ideological level, but were instead looking at this system from a level of what we would actually do, and the practical results thereof.

I don’t believe a final solution is ever possible. Reality isn’t that reducible. Real World government is always going to be a patchwork of principle and pragmatism.

What I’d say is that while the world is dynamic, there are some regularities. My studies have taught me that even within chaotic systems, there are semi-regular patterns. There’s structure, even if there isn’t always predictability in that structure.

So what do we do? We identify the problems that tend to repeat and recur, and anticipate them. We leave most decisions to the average American, and only step in when we see that something’s overwhelming their ability as individual to adapt and triumph over.

We quit trying to take human judgment out of the system, lastly. The recent “Flash-Crash” is an example of where an overly automated system took the markets to a place where human beings would not rationally take it. These computer systems, you should be aware, are part and parcel of the OTC derivatives operations we’ve had such trouble with, by the way.

Human systems require human judgment to keep from flying apart. We should always keep this in mind, whether that judgment is exercised from the top in an executive manner to cut short emergent disasters in bottom-up behavior, or from below to respond to the regular problems of the market. We must, some times, trust to the wisdom of the individuals, rather than simply trust to the wisdom of crowds, even when their behavior is not in their rational interests.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2010 9:22 PM
Comment #311272

TomT-
So, we will eventually agree with you? Why bother talking with us? Just sit back and wait for it!

Seriously, though. Don’t bring up JFK. He had tax rates still almost twice what Obama would bring, and a regulatory system that would have you in an epileptic fit of hatred on the floor. He proposed lowering taxes from I think 90% at the top rate to 70%.

Got that? 90% to 70%.

And that was from a Republican’s tax rates! See, back then, a Republic actually thought it was best to pay for the war, instead of have future generations pay for it.

JFK’s easier to target. He’s a Democrat from long enough ago that you can be nostalgic about him. So’s Clinton to some, even though the Republicans I remember from that time thought he was the anti-Christ.

Such are the fortunes of a party devoted to its oppositions, it’s rivalries. Today’s Conservatives can blissfully forget that the conservative movement was a response to his kind of Liberalism. Sure he wasn’t as socially liberal as some Democrats today, but neither are many Republicans as conservative in that sense as their predecessors.

As for Mainstream Media? They love them their controversy and conflict, and Republicans are always ready to provide plenty of both, so the MSM doesn’t have to focus on boring things like the way laws and regulations affect people in real life.

As for Manchin? I think the polls have him favored to win. Raese has succeeded in doing what many Republicans have done this election season: squandered good chances by becoming the political equivalent of Florence Foster Jenkins.

(Just listen to this.)

I mean, seriously. You wonder why I’m not despondent, it’s because I know damn well that Republicans don’t get more cautious when they win. They think everything confirms the popularity of their politics. Even when they consciously go out and skew things by pushing myths and blocking progress on stuff that actually polled well to begin with, they’ll take any negative blowback for the Democrats as a sign of their rising popularity.

But take warning: if your people get in, you get in with 30% approval verses 67% percent disapproval. And that’s worse than it has been. Your party hasn’t broken 40% since 2005.

Republicans can sink our popularity in Congress from the forties we had them at last year, but can they raise their own popularity?

I think not. I think they will have to do a very good job of helping to govern the nation. I think they will have to refuse to give in to the temptation to create gridlock. I think they will have to compromise, to build policy.

But you tell me, what are the chances they actually pull that off, if they just win the House, and they win it with this attitude? Your people have painted themselves into a pretty small corner, and that induced inflexibility is what you’re depending upon to maintain your political base. The Republicans have created the political equivalent of Nitroglycerin: an explosive political success that is dependent on a political material that takes very delicate handling not to blow up in its face.

As for the 60 seats? The Maine Republicans have been much less forthcoming since you folks kicked Specter out of the party. Why did you think they did that in the first place? Hmmm? You don’t maintain a 40-41 seat perpetual filibuster by asking nicely.

As for Socialist agenda? We had the choice of nationalizing the car companies. We didn’t. We had the choice of nationalizing the banks. We didn’t. Funny that you bash us over the bailouts, which were effectively the government interceding to save the capitalist system. We could have let things go to hell and then pick up the pieces.

I think your perceptions on what’s a socialist agenda are based on what ardent Republicans who see socialists in every pot and a communist in every garage think is socialist. I don’t you’ve bothered to ask actual socialists what they actually believe in. I don’t think you know the difference. Not that I dislike socialists that much. I just don’t agree with them. But to paraphrase Cary Grant from North by Northwest, you folks use the word Socialist the way some people use a fly-swatter. Or the way some folks use the word inconceivable. It’s a verbal habit that your people have grown to take way too seriously.

Democrats do have the advantage of actually having done things. They’ve made a difference with what they are for, not merely what they are against, and they are actually trying to do something for the American people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2010 10:28 PM
Comment #311279

MD,
Sorry to make you envious, but I’ve got to tell you. Not only did I see Ariana Huffington tonight, but I got a chance to ask her a question!

I asked if she thought the Tea Party crowd would hold Boehner and Co to the same standard or would they just wash their hands and go home after the election.

Ariana Huffington said that she certainly hopes the Tea Party movement is serious about holding politicians accountable to middle class voters, but she won’t hold her breath for it to happen. It is the responsibility for Leftists like us to hold Speaker Boehner accountable.

I also have to say I like your point about politics a generation or two ago. If I had been alive 50+ years ago, I probably would’ve been a Republican. Unfortunately, the Party of Lincoln has scared away its Northern Base and embraced Southern Conservationism instead.

Also there are plenty of counterexamples to TomT’s point about your career choice impacting your ideology. The economics professor I had last semester is the grandson of Charles Dawes, Calvin Coolidge’s vice president. You wouldn’t believe how much of that class was spent justifying his grandfather’s right-wing policies.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 25, 2010 10:59 PM
Comment #311281

Warped,

Don’t lean too heavy on the mossback Republicans…I was one. I did not stray until Ronnie R. I knew right away we were going down the wrong road, so I switched…and, never looked back. When I look at what my old party has become, I thank my lucky stars I’m not still one of them. This is a truly hateful bunch that cannot see or accept what has happened to them.

Man, would I have enjoyed being there. Now those are movers and shakers, and can help guide us back into the light if that is still possible. Arianna is good, but better still, she runs with a good crowd, and has good people around her. By the way, she was also one of the mossback Republicans. It took her a little longer to come out of the tunnel, but when she came out she came on strong.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2010 11:24 PM
Comment #311328

MD, thank you for your comment.

Looks like this is my lucky week because Bill Clinton is visiting my school tomorrow!

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 26, 2010 7:06 PM
Comment #311329

Warped,

I lived in Arkansas all the years of Clinton’s governorship. He started kinda clutzy, and lost the office the first time, but, wow, did he ever learn his lesson well. When he came back, the next several years saw the state make leaps in education, infrastructure and about every category you can think of. He was the first governor to approach ‘welfare to work’, and adults who had never worked in their lives went to school, got jobs, and state welfare costs were cut in half. Arkansas is a ‘balanced budget’ state, so he did all this without breaking the bank. The conservatives on here who continually say his presidency needed Republicans to level our economy, did not see the work he did without them in Arkansas.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 26, 2010 7:17 PM
Comment #311335

The country is a much better place because of the regulations we have. For example, the air is cleaner because of CAA. But that doesn’t mean that enforcement doesn’t need to improve. That costs money and getting more money for better enforcement of law (AKA bigger government) is nearly impossible today. And the Democrats have been barely in control. It takes 60 Senate votes to pass a law and the Dem’s haven’t had that except for a very short period of time.
The problem isn’t big government, it’s small government. If you don’t believe that spend some time somewhere with very little government - how about Somalia.

Posted by: DrTom at October 26, 2010 8:00 PM
Comment #311344

Stepen said:

“Comment #311272
TomT-
So, we will eventually agree with you? Why bother talking with us? Just sit back and wait for it!”

Stephen, I don’t know if anyone has ever told you this, but your replies are long, boring, and sound as if you took them out of the liberal play book.

There are some liberal writers on WB, who write ignorant little snippets of nothingness. It just takes you a lot more words to say the same thing.

I can only sum it up this way, I grow weary when I read your material.

I guess we will just have to set back and wait.

Posted by: TomT at October 26, 2010 10:25 PM
Comment #311346

>I grow weary when I read your material.
Posted by: TomT at October 26, 2010 10:25 PM

I’m afraid I don’t believe this statement to be totally true. Someone who is weary, will seldom remain in the position of weariness if it can be changed. There is a myriad of ways to change the weary feeling of slogging through material that causes the weariness.

I think somebody forgot to think…that’s what I think.

Just a little snippet.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 26, 2010 10:35 PM
Comment #311358

TomT

Brevity is the soul of wit, as one great American said. Stephen didn’t get the memo.

Posted by: tom humes at October 27, 2010 12:47 AM
Comment #311373

TomT-
You shouldn’t talk about my unoriginality. What makes you think your insults are any different than those delivered by a thousand folks just like you on the internet? Think your little jabs about marxists, elitists, stupid Democrats are original?

What’s more revealing is your brevity. I’ve yet to see you address anythign I wrote in detail. Maybe I’m not FOXNews enough to inspire you, but I at least give comprehensive shape to my thoughts instead of repeating bumperstickers.

tom humes-
Brevity is the soul of wit, but not its necessary source.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 27, 2010 8:29 AM
Comment #311374

The TomT attitude is typical of all the conservative posts with the possible exception of C&J. It’s too much effort to deal with facts, logic, or realities. Take the mentally lazy path that feels good with posts completely based on the learned buzzwords: Reid - Socialist Agenda - Pelosi - Marxism - Obamacare - with a few connecting words added in.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 27, 2010 9:40 AM
Comment #311376

Schwamp-
Seriously, that’s what annoys me. Some folks need to figure out that you don’t need to write full length essays to be tedious.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 27, 2010 10:46 AM
Comment #311381

SD just chooses the longer route. It is all about choice.

Posted by: tom humes at October 27, 2010 12:04 PM
Comment #311387

SD’s essays have always been nothing more than quotes from moveon.org, dailykos, Obama and all the president’s men. If anyone wants to go to the original source, just go to moveon or dailykos. He likes to think he is posting something original, but it’s the same old talking points, and of course, all the little WB parrot heads defend him.

Posted by: Beretta9 at October 27, 2010 2:29 PM
Comment #311388

Some of Stephen’s stuff is just parroted from DailyKos…of course it was original when he wrote it there…hmmm. Frankly no one has presented more original material, or backed more up with data and proofs than Stephen. That anyone would put down in writing otherwise merely shows their own lack of perception or honesty.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 27, 2010 2:55 PM
Comment #311391

“Polly want a Cracker”

If Stephen’s stuff is original, then I will have to change my mind about him. He is no longer the repeater of socialist doctrine; he is the originator of socialist doctrine. It’s a shame, “a mind is a terrible thing to waste”.

Posted by: Beretta9 at October 27, 2010 3:06 PM
Comment #311397

Schwamp:

The TomT attitude is typical of all the conservative posts with the possible exception of C&J. It’s too much effort to deal with facts, logic, or realities.

So true, Schwamp. However I think C&J can also be guilty of this too, at times.

Btw, it appears that conservative candidates are also susceptible when it comes to not wanting to deal in facts, logic or reality:
Records: Miller admits to computer use, lying

Posted by: Adrienne at October 27, 2010 3:43 PM
Comment #311401

Adrienne,

C&J have a more mundane problem. They write so many threads that when they go through one to respond, they scan or speed read. Then when they write the response they sometimes answer the wrong post or only one issue in that post. Many times they don’t get to the more difficult posers…perhaps by design, but just as likely because they are in a hurry and haven’t completely read it. Then when challenged, they get a little snippy. They may not be getting snippy with the challenger as much as with themselves for missing the point…you’ll notice I’m being generous.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 27, 2010 6:02 PM
Comment #311506

tom humes:

Brevity is the soul of wit, as one great American said. Stephen didn’t get the memo.

Apparently, I missed a memo too. When did William Shakespeare gain American citizenship, tom?

Brevity can be a mark of wit, but it is not the sole qualification.

Posted by: Jarandhel at October 28, 2010 1:30 PM
Comment #311508

>Apparently, I missed a memo too. When did William Shakespeare gain American citizenship, tom?
Posted by: Jarandhel at October 28, 2010 01:30 PM

Brevity at its wittiest…:)

Posted by: Marysdude at October 28, 2010 1:36 PM
Comment #311528

Jarandel
I did not say the great American originated the saying, I just said he spoke it.

I am fully aware of the occurence in Hamlet.

I should have clarified that.

Posted by: tom humes at October 28, 2010 4:51 PM
Comment #311540

tom humes:

I’m sorry, but it really doesn’t matter who spoke it subsequent to its origination. When you say “as someone once said”, the implication is that the someone is the person who first said it. That’s what the phrase means, in English. It’s a reference to the person who coined the saying, not to someone quoting an older saying.

And, frankly, what does it matter if fully ten “great Americans” said it, if they were only quoting the words of a great Englishman who’d said it long before they were ever born?

Posted by: Jarandhel at October 28, 2010 7:15 PM
Comment #311613

I’m kinda curious about which great American repeated it, and he is ‘great’ by what measure…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 29, 2010 10:03 AM
Post a comment