Democrats & Liberals Archives

Having Your Divisive Cake and Eating It, Too

Worried much?

I’m not sure how good of a tactic this request of theirs is. I mean, hell, they might as well have posted a handpainted sign saying “Please, do hold this Medicare vote against me.”

We only did so much as cut subsidies for insurance companies that were running Medicare Advantage plans, subsidies that didn't contribute to any actual benefits, which just basically, I guess, bribed companies to administer these plans.

Nonetheless, Republican raised the spector of Medicare cuts, among other things. They didn't do this because it was right, as it wasn't, nor because they were especially big fans of Medicare, which they weren't.

They did it because Medicare and Social Security are third rails, benefits people pay for, and want something out of. People have a great big stake in the survival of these programs, and their political people correctly identified this as a wedge issue on Healthcare reform, unfair as it was.

Which is what mystifies me about their willingness to turn around and adopt the Ryan Medicare plan, especially in light of poll results like this:

Americans clearly don't want the government to cut Medicare, the government health program for the elderly, or Medicaid, the program for the poor. Republicans in the House of Representatives voted last week to drastically restructure and reduce those programs, while Obama calls for trimming their costs but leaving them essentially intact.

Voters oppose cuts to those programs by 80-18 percent. Even among conservatives, only 29 percent supported cuts, and 68 percent opposed them.

That poll even found a majority of Tea Partiers opposing such cuts.

There's brave, and then there's foolhardy.

And then there's committing your entire party to something four-fifths of the country is opposed to.

I suppose the reason they tried to do this was that they felt the 2010 victory spelled a turning point in the nation's ideology. Or it could just be that when faced with their own Tea Party faction, they were compelled to come up with a way to undo the massive deficit, even though the economy's not going to help things at this point.

But even with the Tea Party, this seems to have gone too far.

The truth of the American political landscape is that like many real landscapes, it's fractal in shape, not with clean curves and straight lines, but jagged edges and multidimensional structure. They imagined that all the voters they got for themselves in 2010 would be loyal exclusively to the politics of the party they elected.

They were wrong. What makes it even more puzzling is that they went through so much effort to make sure people were alienated about certain issues. They should know that people's anxiety about jobs wasn't simply going to go away, that it was a problem they'd have to solve, or else face the voter's anger on that subject. They should know, having put Democrats in a difficult place about Medicare, that this would backfire on them if they threatened that program themselves.

And boy did it ever, and they made it ridiculously easy. In the face of perpetually rising medical costs, they proposed a system of vouchers that would be handed to insurance companies, corporations that are pretty much complicit in those rises, to give seniors their care, vouchers whose level would remain constant over time.

What is it about the Republican approach to governance nowadays that permits such a situation, where a government program is deliberately put in a position to fail more and more with each successive year? How did they think nobody would notice this?

The trouble for Republicans is that they have a media system all to themselves that's basically predicated on repeating back to the Republican leadership what they think are good ideas, what sort of political propaganda they think works best back to their own people, and to themselves. This has two pernicious effects: it puts Republicans and their most eager supporters in a walled garden of naivete about just how well their ideas are going to go over with other people, first of all. Second of all, it makes it difficult for them to back away from mistakes and promises they shouldn't have made in the first place, to exercise good judgment independent of the party platform.

You can't think well with a platform. By their nature, they're highly artificial, aspirational at best. The oversimplified, bumper-stickerized beliefs represented in those political statements can easily become traps that snare both politicians and policy in the teeth of unrealistic expectations and bad governance.

If they had paid more attention, Republicans would have realized that as far as the center was concerned, they didn't want business as usual out of anybody, not merely Democrats, but Republicans as well. They confused a political campaign sufficient to reverse the Democratic majority in the House, and the house alone, with a reversal of the sentiments that got those Democrats in there in the first place.

You know, it would be useful for Republicans to understand the difference between merely deflecting what people want, and reversing it. They should not be assuming that what people want is another Republican revolution here. What they want is repair of a very broken system, and people are not at all patient about it, especially not if people look like they're up to breaking things even worse.

America doesn't want a radical reorganization of the system in the service of one party's inflated sense of indispensability and righteousness.. Republicans may be willing to put strains on people's pocketbooks, on the elderly and disadvantaged, but most people aren't.

They simply want things to get better. They want the future to be better than today. They will not take the decline of the society they knew in stride. They will not tolerate it if all those education cuts create a generation of children left behind. They will not look kindly on those who gave to the rich as they denied to the poor. They are not looking to have more risk, more trouble, more burdens heaped on thier heads to satisfy the moralizing of a political class that is out of touch with their needs.

The repudiation of the Democrats in the election was not the embrace of the Republicans. It was a frustrated attempt to get something done, and something done right. Republicans were quite able, in the years before the election, to make sure it was difficult and messy for the Democrats to even see a fifth of their legislative agenda done, and even that badly compromised.

But to keep their jobs, Republicans are going to need to convince Americans they are serious about dealing with all the problems that they expected the Democrats to resolve, and pretty importantly, that they're not trying to go about the business of making things worse. So far, the Republicans have not pleased much of anybody, including themselves. How does this party expect to reign supreme in 2012?

My suspicion is that they'll try and turn this election ugly, just like the last few. But I think that strategy has its limits. One of those limitations is, people will notice when you start fulfilling the dark prophecies you made about another party yourself.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at May 11, 2011 12:31 PM
Comments
Comment #323093

The Ryan Medicare/Medicaid proposal resulted from a misplaced belief that the American public held the deficit as a greater problem than affordable health care. Perhaps they thought that their exemption of current seniors from the cuts would be sufficient to buy their support for the plan. In either case, they were wrong. The public isn’t so stupid not to realize that the Ryan proposal only shifted the problem to them individually.

Posted by: Rich at May 11, 2011 8:56 PM
Comment #323098

The problem with the deficit is that there is a real limit to how much money the government can borrow or tax and spend.

Naturally, people WANT more free stuff. It is nothing new in government and politics. But no government has been able to repeal laws of supply and demand.

Posted by: C&J at May 11, 2011 10:01 PM
Comment #323100

C&J-
The limit is a market limit, not anything real or absolute. As long as there are people out there willing to buy the debt, we can sustain it.

But that’s dependent on America remaining an important, prominent market.

It’s interesting that you talk about people wanting free stuff, when your average American pays quite a lot of their salary to fund Medicare. If you’re being taxed constantly through payroll taxes that are actually mainly centered on you, you’re getting nothing for free.

The Republicans have got things backwards. The economic cycle is working against resolving the deficit, surpressing revenues. If we turn around the economy, turning the economic cycle to where it’s encouraging revenues, then the economy will help us resolve the deficit.

Fix the economy, get us growing fast enough to catch up to where we should be, and then put your foot on the brakes. It won’t be pleasant, but we won’t get out of deficit or downturn with a policy that amplifies the bad economic effects.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 11, 2011 10:24 PM
Comment #323108

C&J,

It is not “free stuff” that people want. They want a reasonable return for their investment in senior health insurance (Medicare) and pensions (SS).

Those investment backed expectations are jeopardized by runaway inflation in health care costs.

The runaway health care cost inflation jeopardizes not simply Medicare/Medicaid but the entire federal budget. In the absence of health care cost inflation, there would not be a major concern over the long term fiscal deficit. It is the driver of the projected long term fiscal deficit.

It should be noted that the problem of health care inflation is not limited to the federal budget, but threatens our entire national economy. The private sector is not more immune to the impact of health cost inflation than the public sector. Perhaps even less so since Medicare operates more efficiently than private insurance and has more cost containment options due to its huge market share.

You are correct that the government cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. However, when it comes to health care, it is not clear that the health care market operates on the same principals as markets for other goods and services. We are all captive consumers. We also are naive consumers. Who knows what is the best cost effective option or provider when you have just experienced a major heart attack. It also seems apparent that the normal rules of supply and demand do not apply. Despite increasing demand, the supply of health services has not expanded sufficiently to offset the demand and drive prices down.

Ultimately, it is clear that neither the private or public sector will be able to afford health care in the foreseeable future under the current system. That is not an acceptable option. It is time to return to the drawing board on health care reform. Conservatives made some hay with their opposition to Obamacare. Now, they are learning that it is a two way street with the Ryan proposal. Perhaps, now, both parties will begin a process of seriously addressing the structural issues of health care financing and cost containment in a constructive manner.


Posted by: Rich at May 12, 2011 8:09 AM
Comment #323115


The Republicans have seen the polls. Is it true that the freshmen Republicans want the Democrats to sign a pact saying that neither side will use Medicare in campaign adds in 2012.
Good luck with that one. These Republican freshmen, especially the tea party Republicans made the cake and they will have to eat it because the country doesn’t want any of it.

Posted by: jlw at May 12, 2011 2:18 PM
Comment #323118

jlw-
That’s the thing that gets me. The Healthcare Reform scare was one of the major things they pounded the Democrats on, and mercilessly so. And worse, they basically lied out their tuchuses (or tuchi perhaps? ;-) ) about it.

So now the truth about their votes becomes politically inconvenient, and now they want a truce?

They’ve got no place to hide on this, and Democrats aren’t the idiots it would take to let this go to waste. This is easy, even for the more conservative Democrats.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 12, 2011 4:04 PM
Comment #323129

Rich

If people wanted a “return on investment” they could invest. The whole basis of the welfare government is to give people MORE than their investments would return – i.e. free stuff.

We agree on health care inflation. Obama promised to curb that, but did NOTHING but change who pays for it. One reason health care is so expensive is because people rarely pay directly and try to get free stuff. In places where people pay, such as LASIK, prices have come DOWN significantly.

Stephen

Yes, as long as somebody is willing to lend money, you can keep on borrowing. That is truly the road to serfdom. Over the long run, if you spend more than you produce, you lose the freedom to choose your own destiny.

People want more. They don’t want to pay for it. Don’t give me this crap about people wanting what they paid in. Social Security recipients today receive much more than they paid in. Of course we (you & I) want the same gravy train. But if some get more now, somebody pays later. Our kids will get less. Actually, you as a young man, will get less.

You are making a political argument – and you are right. If you promise people more stuff, they may well vote for you and if you tell them the truth – that they cannot have all they want – they will dislike you. There is no political counterargument. The only argument against it is reality.

Posted by: C&J at May 12, 2011 9:34 PM
Comment #323133

C&J-
Your party’s problem is that it’s just terrible at handling fiscal situations.

It’s too interested in either proving the Starve the Beast or the Laffer Supply Side theory, not interested enough in setting tax and fiscal policy according to what works in the real world.

In the case of Social Security and Medicare, these benefits will continue as long as there’s money to fund them. Social Security’s fix is simple: expand the tax base to cover people sufficiently. It’s not too big a change from what I hear. Medicare’s more complicated because it has to pay for Healthcare which is getting more expensive on its own.

Republicans don’t want to raise taxes, having long ago painted themselves into a fiscal corner on that. They took the wrong lesson from Bush 41: They decided that Bush should have kept his promise, rather than figuring out that his real problem was that he was running a deficit, yet letting people, especially the rich, pay too little in taxes. Clinton solved that problem, though at political cost, and ended up balancing the budget because he wasn’t too picky about the means for doing it.

Republicans don’t want government intervention, theoretically, but in reality, they intervened, have intervened, and will intervene on behalf of capitalist (meaning big business) interests to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. They just won’t do it for the average person, since that resembles the Communist system on a superficial level. They’ve decided that rather figure out what works case by case, they’re simply going to form their policy by doing the opposite of whatever their political rivals did.

Thus does Mitt Romney end up both excellently explaining why he created the Mandate in Massachussets, and becoming less popular for it, even though he said he wouldn’t advocate that system for the rest of the country.

Thus does the Debt Limit become a political football, when htat’s the last thing that needs to be tossed around, used as a marker in a negotiation.

Thus do your Medicare voucherizations get pushed as high priority, even though, unprompted by months of public relations negativity, most people, even most Tea Partiers oppose cutting benefits by ridiculously large margins.

Why? Because your party’s thinking in reaction to liberalism, worse towards percieved socialism that isn’t actually real, rather than adaptings its thoughts and views to the situation at hand.

People feel they own and are owed their promised social security benefits, Medicare when they need it. You treat it as if it’s going to go out of control, but the truth is, unless we have another spike in population as with your generation, future generations aren’t going to have so much of a mismatch of people paying in and taking out. The surge in population on medicare and social security will level off.

We simply have to work the numbers right. It’s not about giving people something for nothing, it’s about matching payment to cost in the long run.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 12, 2011 10:52 PM
Comment #323147

SD writes; “Fix the economy, get us growing fast enough to catch up to where we should be, and then put your foot on the brakes.”

If we drove our cars this way we would cause countless accidents. If I understand this, SD would like to spend additional huge sums of money creating an artificial economy and then hit the brakes without skidding off the road.

Well, that’s the liberal way for sure…cause a deliberate wreck and then find someone to blame.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 13, 2011 5:06 PM
Comment #323148

Stephen

I know you like to complain about the other party.

My criticism is more existential. We CANNOT continue to tax/borrow and spend. We will run out of money to grab.

We Americans have been good with limited government. We really cannot afford to expand it to European levels. The Europeans can no longer afford to extend government at Europeans levels.

What you are telling me is that people want it. I agree. I always wanted to be able to fly like Superman. Politicians can promise that it is possible and complain about the greedy people who are stopping me, but they really cannot grant my wish. They can only bankrupt me with the bogus promise.

Posted by: C&J at May 13, 2011 6:55 PM
Comment #323152

Royal Flush-
Joseph didn’t starve people in the bad times so the upper class of Egypt could feast in the good times before, and the bad times after.

Your people were spendthrifts when you were in charge, passed the responsibilities that imposed those difficult to lay down costs on to us, and then scapegoat us for your party’s stupidity and fecklessness.

Why? So you can go back and continue your same policies, free of the nasty reckoning for your failure to balance the books?

I got news for you: slow down on the wrong road at the wrong time, and you’ll get another car driving right up your tailpipe. Why of all times have you chosen to impose the economic burdens of austerity on this country? You substitute policy that is irresponsibly stingy for policy that was irresponsibly generous.

Republicans are too impatient, too eager to shed a well deserved, well-earned reputation for fiscal incompetence, so they’re going to prove their meddle by making families starve so they can pretend like they’re tightening the nation’s belt enough to redeem their failure.

C&J-
Your criticism is confused and vague. I’ve said time and again that my intention is to get the economy growing again, and then apply austerity. I’m recognizing the need to get the debt and deficit under control, but I’m also recognizing that you’ve got to be prosperous enough to bear the burden. Otherwise you get neither the debt reduction (because you’re punishing the growth that yields revenues) nor the growth you need to get out of your economic funk (because you’re punishing growth, period.)

Republcians ****ed up the policy, and the average American and the average poor person are paying the cost for it. So what do Republicans do as a sequel? They come back and decide to take even more from them, while the folks who actually did the screwing up of the economy sit fat dumb and happy, having recovered ahead of everybody else.

The truth is, the Republicans are the party closer to bankrupting this country, because they’re possessed of this idea that they can compound the damage of an economic downturn that was historic to begin with, and then restore fiscal balance on the back of the American people at the same time.

You’re too theory oriented here, not results oriented enough. Despite your criticisms of our policies, we’ve restarted growth from a crushing economic failure. You dismiss that as something else, declaring the stimulus a non-factor, a burden even. But what did your vaunted policies do? Just look at the course of things over the Bush Administration. The housing sector and financial sectors were carrying all the rest.

Screw existential. Screw philosophical, how about answering complaints of a practical nature?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 13, 2011 10:15 PM
Comment #323153


C&J, we got into this mess by tax cutting/borrowing and spending. That was the policy of your party. Tax cuts amounting to several trillion and trillions in borrowing. What for? So the Republicans could introduce the Ryan budget?

Well, part two of your revolution has fallen flat on it’s face. The American people aren’t buying part two. They want these programs fixed, the Bush tax breaks eliminated, and they want both political parties to quite piddle pucking around with the future of their country and start working together to get us back on an even keel.

The problem that the European Union has is wealthy nations and poorer nations. The wealthier countries have a much higher standard of living. The wealthier countries want to implement austerity measures which the poorer countries say is unfair because of the disparity in standards of living of each countries people.

The Germans are doing quite well. Their government, business, and unions have formed a coalition of austerity. Unions are forgoing wage increases, business is hiring more people and the government is working to hold down inflation. And, unlike Americans, the Germans don’t have a “Kay Sara Sara” attitude about the future. They are planning their future while we are paralyzed by ideological differences.

Germany is one of the, if not the most unionized country on the planet, their people have a standard of living that exceeds our own in many ways. They are healthier and they spend quite a bit less than we do on health care. While here, we have a group of right wingers that say you can’t do that, it is socialism.

Well, I kind of feel sorry for the right wingers who have found out that by their definition of socialism, 80% of Americans are socialists.

Something that would never happen in Germany, German business shutting down a thousand factories and sending several million German jobs to China or some other slave wage market. The German economy went into recession and right back out because most of their jobs kept on producing. The Germans are investing quite a lot in China, not by sending jobs there but by helping to produce new jobs.

The predominance of jobs that our businesses, with the cooperation of our government, sent to China produced things that Americans buy and use every single day. If those jobs were still here, we would be getting out or have gotten out of this recession already. Quality control, in many instances, deteriorated and all of those products are more expensive than they were when they were manufactured in this country.

Stephen, it wasn’t right for the Republicans to misrepresent the health care bill, but Democrats did that to. It will not produce the kinds of savings that Democrats predicted it would. Depending on the number of loop holes in the bill, there may not be any savings at all.

Posted by: jlw at May 13, 2011 11:22 PM
Comment #323157

Stephen

The idea of “getting the economy going” based on vast deficit spending is based on Keynian economics, which doesn’t work out very well. The massive spending Obama did has produced mediocre results up to now.

Government has NEVER spent so much as it did over the last Obama year. Government spending even an a % of GDP has never been so big in peace time and is approaching the WWII levels.

There will NEVER come a time when liberal will want to spend less.

AND if you are talking stimulus, you cannot raise taxes. Even by your own argument, the Obama ideas don’t work.

So we all want to get the economy growing. Obama doesn’t know how. This is the problem. Or maybe he cannot because government cannot do what he wants it to do. In any case, there is little good in continued massive spending.

Let’s not talk theory - Obama plans have failed to help the economy recover in the real world. Recessions end. This one is NOT ending faster because of the massive Obama spending and may be dragging on longer because of what Obama and Dems did in 2009.

jwl

The Germans did NOT increase spending when the recession hit and took heat for it. They have an austerity plan and in recent years have begun to cut their welfare state and allow more market forces. In general, we (the U.S.) are the ones going the wrong way. Google “Canada and conservative” and see that our neighbors are also doing some things differently.

YOu are the one who likes that word “socialist”. I think socialism is just an old fashioned idea, like communism or fascism, that really doesn’t fit anymore. I look at government interference and spending.

Government grew under Bush. It was bad. Government grew bigger and even more intrusive under Obama. It got worse. The remedy may be to NOT do what Bush and Obama did, which was to let government grow bigger and more intrusive.

Instead just cut government down to what it was in 1999 as % of GDP. We all think 1999 was a decent year, right? Go back to that level.

Posted by: C&J at May 14, 2011 9:03 AM
Comment #323161

C&J-
We worked on Keynesian Economics for the better part of four decades, and our economy became predominant in the world.

We worked on your party’s economics, and bit by bit we’ve lost many of the old advantages.

Obama’s plans have done much to help the economy recover. Republican’s plans have only added to the lost jobs.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 14, 2011 11:41 AM
Comment #323166

“The Germans did NOT increase spending when the recession hit and took heat for it.”

C&J,

That simply is not true. Germany did indeed increase its spending on bailouts and economic stimulus. These measures included “….an extensive package of stimulus and bailout measures, which included €480 billion for ailing banks, €115 billion for financially weakened companies and €80 billion for two programs to stimulate the domestic economy.” http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,707231,00.html.

It should also be noted that Germany has a more extensive built in system of “automatic stabilizers” in the form of unemployment compensation, health care subsidies, short term work extensions with government assistance, etc. When those additional automatic stimulus measures are included, Germany’s stimulus amounted to 3.2% of GDP as compared to the US at 3.5% of GDP. “In 2010, the IMF says, the German stimulus will rise enough to surpass the U.S. figure as a percentage of GDP.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123681293916501451.html


Posted by: Rich at May 14, 2011 2:54 PM
Comment #323167


J&C:

2008-German government provides E480 billion stimulus to banks.

2009- German economic stimulus package E82 billion.

2009-“Germany’s cash for clunkers program stimulates economy.”

Posted by: jlw at May 14, 2011 3:08 PM
Comment #323168

SD writes; “Why of all times have you chosen to impose the economic burdens of austerity on this country? You substitute policy that is irresponsibly stingy for policy that was irresponsibly generous.

Republicans are too impatient, too eager to shed a well deserved, well-earned reputation for fiscal incompetence, so they’re going to prove their meddle by making families starve so they can pretend like they’re tightening the nation’s belt enough to redeem their failure.”

Just imagine, not going ever deeper into debt is called “burdens of austerity” by SD. He writes that Rep/Cons policies of fiscal prudence will lead to “making families starve”.

It’s the same old hyperbole used for decades by the libs. It’s a new day and one would think they could come up with a new tune. But no, it is the same old song and dance. We must borrow more, print more money, increase the national debt limit to artificially keep our economy going.

According to SD’s comments, there will magically come a time when an artificially stimulated economy will produce a real economy and when that happens we can become austere.

Children think like children and the current dem leadership is simply childish in its belief that they can continue to sell this magical theory to the adults.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 14, 2011 4:37 PM
Comment #323169

“According to SD’s comments, there will magically come a time when an artificially stimulated economy will produce a real economy and when that happens we can become austere.”

Royal Flush,

Well, for the first part, isn’t that just about what Reagan did to stimulate the economy. He ran a huge deficit during a period of deep recession by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Along, with an eventual relaxation of monetary policy, the economy responded. For the second part, isn’t that exactly what Clinton did by cutting back on government expenditures and raising taxes. I am not suggesting that the circumstances are exactly comparable but simply to point out that “artificial” stimulation of the economy by fiscal (tax and spend) or monetary policy actually does impact main street.


Posted by: Rich at May 14, 2011 4:59 PM
Comment #323170

Royal Flush-
The Republicans can’t even balance the tax cut they just continued with all of the spending cuts they asked for, much less the ones they got. If that is prudence, we know how your party got us in such great debt. It’s pretty simple: rather than balance numbers with straightforward policy, Republicans believe in a system where they gamble with cuts in revenue in order to create secondary effects in the economy.

And it’s a gamble they’ve never won.

It’s not merely spending. No going economic concern just spends. Businesses have to charge for their product, so does government. If you want law and order, if you want that bastard on Wall Street to treat you right rather than throw your retirement savings into the ****can, if you want to be able to breathe the air and drink the water, unlike in China, where they don’t have such laws, if you want the guarantee of a Salary you can live on, then paying for government is what you’ve got to do.

Here’s the funny thing I’ve observed: when we talk about taxes, you act like we’re just going to start confiscating everybody’s salary, and leave them holding a penny with puppy-dog eyes. But then, your people haveing blocked any kind of increase, you accuse us of not wanting to spend what it takes to pay for government.

If we were working through our arguments on a rational basis, that might seem a little strange. You criticize us for the taxes it takes to pay for stuff, and then you criticize us for not paying for government.

And really, I can’t help but notice which way that pushes the discussion: cut spending. Of course, as the Republican just found out, people want that particular spending, or at least the benefit it carries.

So, how hard will Republicans fight to cut this spending? I suspect they’ll be running from it every chance they get, unless they want to drop out of Congress as a freshman.

So, Republicans put themselves in a position where they find it difficult to operate from either end effectively.

Democrats can reconcile the two ends, and will reconcile them. But as most Americans agree, solving the jobs and other problems will take precedence.

As for your distinction between artificial and natural market increases? First, you couldn’t tell the difference when the reason the market was growing was the fake activity done by the mortgage companies and Wall Street.

Second, even artifical growth creates real effects, and those effects feed back into economic performance as well. The issue is spreading the stimulus appropriately, so you’re not just promoting a short term spike in one area.

The point is not to keep on artificially pushing things. I mean, what were all the tax breaks and tax cuts your side wrote into law all about? Didn’t you think that the economy could naturally recover?

It’s not hyperbole that people are being put out of work, and the unemployed are being denied benefits. The Republicans are acting like they have a garden variety downturn, and have decided that it’s already over.

And yes, there are people who will end up living with friends and family, maybe eating, maybe not. But they’re not your concern, because your party has decided that rich people drive the economy, not consumer spending, which would pick up if these people’s fortunes recovered.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 14, 2011 7:44 PM
Comment #323171

SD writes; “You criticize us for the taxes it takes to pay for stuff, and then you criticize us for not paying for government.”

Yeah, right…”stuff”. As in stuffing the pockets of the interest group liberals. “Government Stuff” isn’t what grows the economic pie and doesn’t create meaningful, long-lasting jobs. Of course I criticize dems/libs for growing a government we can’t pay for. And even more moronic, they expect Americans to applaud them for the effort. Juvenile and childish just like obama.

Continue to beat the drum for more spending SD and urge your party to do the same. Even if you win an election you will lose a nation. But then, why would anyone care?

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 14, 2011 8:16 PM
Comment #323172

“It’s not merely spending. No going economic concern just spends. Businesses have to charge for their product, so does government. If you want law and order, if you want that bastard on Wall Street to treat you right rather than throw your retirement savings into the ****can, if you want to be able to breathe the air and drink the water, unlike in China, where they don’t have such laws, if you want the guarantee of a Salary you can live on, then paying for government is what you’ve got to do.”

So while the private sector loses millions of jobs and benefits, Obama continues to grow the Federal Employment by hundreds of thousands. While the private sector saw no pay increases, Obama cut the Federal Employees pay increases from 2.4% to only 2%. In fact the average Federal employee’s pay and benefit package was twice that of the private sector. And it was all done so we could breathe clean air, drink clean water, and of course save us from Wall Street.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/23/obamas-federal-jobs-program/

I believe we could get buy very well with ½ of the Federal employees we now have. The intrusiveness by government is the result of federal employees trying to justify their jobs. Stephen Daugherty, like other socialists, believe we cannot operate without the Federal government overseeing our every move.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 14, 2011 8:36 PM
Comment #323176


“like other socialists” must be a reference to the 80% who rejected the Republican budget proposal.

Posted by: jlw at May 15, 2011 1:28 AM
Comment #323181

Stephen

Condition change. Often the very act of doing something for a long time changes conditions. The Keynesian economics seemed to work in the immediate postwar world, when we had American hegemony, docile energy producers, fixed exchange rates, European economies bouncing back from wartime destruction and a rapidly growing baby boom young population.

It broke down in the 1960s and crashed in the 1970.

Do you feel that those conditions of 1945-1965 are similar to those we fact today? If so, read a little history of the times and look around a bit more.

BTW - there are two REALLY important factors.

Back then people wanted dollars. There was not enough to go around. The other thing is IF you indeed want to follow Keynes, you do NOT raise taxes. Your policy is kind of a angry redistribution/naive economics.

I don’t think there is any economics that advocates your kind of action, i.e. raise taxes and spend a lot more than ever in hopes of stimulating the economy in the long term.
jlw

Your first link I got “Dokument nicht gefunden” I understand that German, but I have not really used German for several years, and I do not think I can actually still read through a whole German article w/o my dictionary.

The second one talks about Europe NOT wanting to stimulate as much as the U.S. Indeed they already did some, but they did not massively increase their % of GDP as we did.

Re the banks - I believe that the spending on banks in 2008 was necessary and appropriate. It all the slush spending that Obama did in 2009 anon. And now he has no plan left except more of the same.


The old stuff doesn’t work. Sorry Democratic ideas all hearken back to the 1960s and 1970s. Time to update a bit.

Posted by: C&J at May 15, 2011 7:58 AM
Comment #323184

The eighteenth-century Scottish historian Alexander Tytler said: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.”

you can have my medicare, and social security. give me back my freedom. i’ll take my chances.

Posted by: dbs at May 15, 2011 9:13 AM
Comment #323185

C&J,

The link to the German magazine “Der Spiegel” goes to German text. Sorry. The article that I read was the English version. I don’t know how to fix that. In any case, the quote from the article summarizing the German stimulus expenditures was an accurate account. jlw subsequently posted the same figures.

The conclusion of the further link that I posted from the Wall Street Journal was not that Germany “..did not massively increase their % of GDP as we did.” In fact, it was the absolute opposite. It concluded that Germany’s stimulus increase amounted to 3.2% of GDP compared to 3.5% for the US and that it would exceed the US percent of GDP in 2010. It also was not a criticism of the amount of German stimulus but rather that it was late relative to other countries. It further discussed the uneven stimulus approaches of the EU countries.

The links and quotes that I provided were in response to your blanket statement that Germany did not increase their expenditures in response the “Great Recession” but pursued an austerity program. That statement is basically false. There is some truth if it was amended to state that Germany did not “immediately” raise its expenditures. But even that would be false since Germany has extensive “automatic stabilizers” which kicked in immediately raising expenditures.

Posted by: Rich at May 15, 2011 10:15 AM
Comment #323186

“The eighteenth-century Scottish historian Alexander Tytler said: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.””

You might want to read the following article about the above quote. Who knows where it was from. It seems that it wasn’t from Alexander Tytler. http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html

Posted by: Rich at May 15, 2011 10:23 AM
Comment #323187

“I believe that the spending on banks in 2008 was necessary and appropriate. It all the slush spending that Obama did in 2009 anon.”

Why? Banks are more important than the main street economy? Major investors using excess leverage in ponzi schemes needed to be protected more than the average wage earner?

There may be some truth to the “too big to fail” moral hazard. However, that doesn’t justify turning a blind eye to the average American caught in a economic problem caused by a financial sector run amuck. Indeed, letting the overall economy twist in the wind while saving the banks would be the ultimate consequence of passing over the moral hazard.

Posted by: Rich at May 15, 2011 10:45 AM
Comment #323191

SD

“We worked on Keynesian Economics for the better part of four decades, and our economy became predominant in the world.”

Let’s get this straight. You are a Keynesian. You then are a socialist. That is what I have been saying for months. Now that we have that in the clear. It is more easier to understand your hyperbole and just plain wrong theory.

I said you would eventually admit to the above and in this column you basically have.

Thank you. That helps those of us little government people see your direction more clearly.

What happens when we run out of yuan? What happens when we run out of Euros? When happens when we run out of pesos? What happens when we run out of any currency? Oops, I new you had an answer. We print more. Ya, that’s it just print more. One of the problems with printing more is we have to cut down more trees to make the pulp for printing and the tree huggers have a powerful lobby that may not let us do that. So where do we get the money.

The obvious source is quit spending so much and call in the loans to other countries. Like the middle eastern countries, and those south of the border.

Get rid of those agencies, bureaus, commissions, and departments in the federal government that should not even be there. There, with just over two lines of print I gave a beginning solution to reducing the national debt and getting the country back on sound track.

I suggest much more. But, that is a beginning.

Keynesian theory has not worked I don’t care what SD says and puts in print. It only works in immagination plots.
Too much of anything good has the potential to ruin. Too much water in the mid west has the potential to greatly ruin and has already ruined much. Too much paper without and security backing will ruin. Such simple thought. It takes a college grad to deepen the well and the well is empty.

Posted by: tom humes at May 15, 2011 12:20 PM
Comment #323193

After spending time trying to figure out what republicans base there warp sense of economics on I ran across an article on Austrian school of economics. This theory has been rejected by all main stream economist. Do youself a favor and look it up it’s by a man named Henry Hazlitt.

Posted by: Jeff at May 15, 2011 1:26 PM
Comment #323194

“You are a Keynesian. You then are a socialist.”

I guess that closes the book on Mr. Daugherty.

Perhaps, you might try defining the great conservative, free market economist and advisor to Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, who argued that “…price inflation should be regulated with monetary deflation and price deflation with monetary inflation. He famously quipped that price deflation can be fought by “dropping money out of a helicopter.” Wikipedia. He argued that the Great Depression would have ended sooner if the Fed had increased the money supply. In other words, print money and get it circulating in the economy. Ben Bernanke, another free market economist and disciple of Friedman is attempting to do that with quantitative easing. Whether you are a Keynesian or a monetarist, the point is basically the same during times of recession and depression: get more money circulating in the economy.


Posted by: Rich at May 15, 2011 2:00 PM
Comment #323195

Royal Flush-
Oh, you just love talking about interest group liberals. Stops people from talking about your interest groups. If you want to know what the Republicans are worried about people thinking, just look at what they say about liberals.

You folks have called us radical socialists who want to destroy the economy so people don’t talk about how radical your brand of capitalist thought is, nor how spectacular its failures have been

You criticize how invasive our laws are into people’s personal lives even as you mount huge efforts to impose your judgments on the issue into marriage, abortion, and even religion, to the extent the law allows.

And here, you criticize how beholden we are to interest groups, even as your people fight to keep Wall Street, the Energy companies, the NRA, and the Club For Growth Happy. Who was it who voted, as a party, against the Disclose act.

How far would you have gotten without your corporate interest groups last election? Without your billionaire energy titan backed Americans for Prosperity? Your party not only carries water for them, it barely does anything else these days.

“Government Stuff” isn’t what grows the economic pie and doesn’t create meaningful, long-lasting jobs.

Give me evidence of this. You may think that it doesn’t create long term economic growth, but I think we did just fine coming out of WWII.

The truth is, it has worked. Your arguments are built from another theory, though, one that even goes so far as to say government intervention itself is the cause of business cycles. That theory, applied, has not only failed, but failed spectacularly. Rather than be reassured that the government failed to pass a bailout, the markets took a nosedive when they learned that the government wasn’t going to bail them out.

Of course I criticize dems/libs for growing a government we can’t pay for. And even more moronic, they expect Americans to applaud them for the effort. Juvenile and childish just like obama.

I doubt most Americans would call Obama “juvenile and childish.” his poise and maturity, in fact, is part of his appeal.

Look, you grew that government, and you didn’t merely fail to pay for it, you chose not to pay for it. And you know what? When asked about that, your side’s response was to say that imposing the necessary taxes would harm the economy. That’s right, we could spend that money, to drive two wars, and major additions to Medicare benefits, but asking people to pay for it was a problem, right?

And your tax cuts? Tell me, was it your intention ever to make those shortfalls up? I mean, you were deliberately forsaking that revenue. Were you or were you not counting on a secondary effect you had no idea would come or not to recover the shortfall?

See, me and the other liberals don’t think like that. We think that when you need to balance a budget, you add and subtract on both columns until you get agreement. You don’t count on secondary effects to recover fiscally.

Yes, in the short term, we want to fix the economy. But there are very well established ways to gauge when that has happened, and to anticipate any surge in inflation so we know when to tighten things up.

Even if you win an election you will lose a nation. But then, why would anyone care?

You know, I understand you believe you know what’s best for the country, that you’re even looking out for its best interests. I just don’t agree with you.

I am not acting from the premise of wanting to lose anything. I care about outcomes, about getting the right ones. You probably do, too. The problem is that you depend on a philosophy that thinks it’s got those outcomes anticipated perfectly, and that all that has to happen is for ideal circumstances to come to play. The rest of us just have to get in line.

But the truth is, it’s not enough to think that something will work. People can think all kinds of things, but the world won’t pay attention.

Your folks are ignoring obvious signs that your approach is failing, insisting that the only thing to do is try harder with your politics, and attack its critics and adversaries more harshly. But really, you’re losing anyways.

Conservativethinker-
You ever get into an argument with somebody, and they just make the most irrational cariactures of your argument, and accuse you of wanting that?

I don’t need the government overseeing every move. I don’t need it to tax every rich person out of all their money, or any of that foolish crap that conservatives keep insisting that people like me want.

Republicans keep on repeating that notion given out by others that if people learn they can raid the treasury, that this will be the end of democracy. Or something like that.

If you stop and think about it for a second, this argument essentially promotes a rather elitist picture of people as being unable to judge when enough is enough, which I think is an odd and insulting way of going about the subject.

I think the problem is a culture that perpetually appeals to greed, and critiques responsibility as being too uptight, or too costly. As a result, people feel emotionally motivated not to do the responsible thing. For years, despite their rhetoric, Republicans have given people the Federal government’s borrowed money, even while they campaign on the promise that they’ll let people have a discount on paying for that government.

And as for the consequences of that? Ah, they don’t worry about that until a Democrat is in charge, and they can gain politically from saddling them with the blame.

Works politically, but practically, its a good way to sabotage the interests of the American people on multiple levels for the long term. Worse yet, they’ve picked a time to get concerned about decreasing the debt and everything where the economy is simply not up to it.

Like I said before, they pick an irresponsible time to be generous, and an irresponsible time to be stingy. We can’t just run our nation’s policies as if they’re philosophical abstracts to be matched to some checklist.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 15, 2011 3:08 PM
Comment #323196
You are a Keynesian. You then are a socialist.

TH,I dare you to find one quote by John Maynard Keynes endorsing the idea that the government should control the means of production. Or a quote that endorses wage or price controls.

You won’t find one, because Keynes was a fierce advocate against socialism his entire life.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 15, 2011 3:40 PM
Comment #323199

wr
read more on Keynes. He will teach you more about his belief and ties to socialism.

Posted by: tom humes at May 15, 2011 4:41 PM
Comment #323200

Rich
My comments were about non other than Keynes. All others are exempt.

Posted by: tom humes at May 15, 2011 4:43 PM
Comment #323203

rich

actually it doesn’t matter. the quote is still relevant. i’ve seen the articles like the one you’ve linked to. the short quote i’ve posted is attributed to him. the additions to it maybe not so much. it doesn’t make the point any less valid.

Posted by: dbs at May 15, 2011 5:54 PM
Comment #323204

TH,

I’m already well-versed in Keynes’ economic ideas. Please point to me an endorsement of socialism in any of his written works. You won’t because none exists.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 15, 2011 5:54 PM
Comment #323205

C&J-
I’m somewhat Keynesian in my perspective, but I’m not an absolutist on it.

I would just say that after decades of taking things the conservative’s way, your approach has been discredited. People did not police themselves. Lowering taxes on the rich did not create the economic surges desired, nor did the jobs come back, or the secondary effects balance the budget.

But does that mean Liberal ideas cannot be discredited, or that we should recapitulate all the old ideas? Of course not. I say act and observe. The world will always confound the folks who think they know all about it.

As for people not wanting dollars? If they didn’t want those dollars today, you wouldn’t see such low interest rates. As far as Keynesians not raising taxes? What gave you that idea? Whose tax rates did you lower, pray tell?

No, the truth is, what Keynesians would say is that you don’t raise taxes in the middle of an economic downturn. You’re literally taxing the strength of a weakened economy. You let the economy recover, and deficit spend to get the improvement on track as soon as possible. Then the improvement lets you become more austere because the private economy will take up the slack from the government. If you don’t have a thriving private economy to take over from it, there’s going to be nothing to keep the average person from falling on their face.

dbs-
I think your people have taken enough chances already. Economies do not work simply by the activies of individuals, but by the activities of masses of individuals. We cannot pretend that most people live in log cabins by themselves on subsistence farms.

This ain’t the frontier anymore. Most people live in or around the cities. You can’t run an economy or a society the same way when its urbanized as when it’s rural.

tom hume-
Still trying to shut down arguments by labelling people, right? Sorry. I believe in private ownership of the means of production.

What happens when we run out of yuan? What happens when we run out of Euros? When happens when we run out of pesos? What happens when we run out of any currency? Oops, I new you had an answer. We print more. Ya, that’s it just print more. One of the problems with printing more is we have to cut down more trees to make the pulp for printing and the tree huggers have a powerful lobby that may not let us do that. So where do we get the money.

What happened, did a young’un with a Obama sticker on his hybrid cut you off in traffic?

Look, contrary to your estimation, few of the countries mentioned have a real economic crisis going on.

It’s not that a huge debt burden isn’t a problem, it’s just not a problem that’s going to get solved the way Republicans are doing it. Part of the problem is that folks like you are engaging in economic policies where the common feature of your main policies is less about consistent results (that is, raising taxes and cutting spending at the same time to balance the budget), and more about a consistent emotion motivating it (Cut taxes and cut spending, because both represent what you see as the bondage of the hateful government.)

As good as those policies make you feel, they cannot balance the budget together.

Least of all can they do so in a time where people literally don’t have the money to do without the programs or do with the taxes that would come from a self-consistent attempt to balance the budget.

The obvious source is quit spending so much and call in the loans to other countries. Like the middle eastern countries, and those south of the border.

Again, we see a dichotomy between a realistic policy and a self-satisfying, emotionally driven one. Sure it would feel good to call in those debts. But as we’ve seen elsewhere, the economic crisis of one country can have terrible effects on the economies of surrounding nations, and ultimately, in turn, on us. But also, wouldn’t that calling in of debts signal our weakness, and with currency floated, cause our dollar problems?

As wonderful and macho as it might make you feel, it’d probably be one of the stupider moves in history.

Get rid of those agencies, bureaus, commissions, and departments in the federal government that should not even be there. There, with just over two lines of print I gave a beginning solution to reducing the national debt and getting the country back on sound track.

Once again, more self-gratification at the expense of function. You believe that all those difference commissions, department, bureaus and agencies shouldn’t be there, but your explanation for why tends to be this generalized anti-government sentiment.

Most of our budget deficit comes from some rather simple differences in policy and differences in the economy. We were fine until Republicans, the supposed budget experts, got full control of the government.

As for what I’ve said? Look, you try and prove that Bush and Reagan economics helped this country, and you have neither the budget or economic numbers to prove that, just a bunch of financial scandals, recessions, deficits and debts. I can show deficits and economies recovering under Democrats with simple evidence anybody can check and see is there.

Oh, by the way: it’s not too much water, it’s too much all at once. Republicans have a tendency to let problems build to critical mass, and only do something about it after the dam has already burst.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 15, 2011 6:27 PM
Comment #323206

SD writes; “Royal Flush-
Oh, you just love talking about interest group liberals.”

Well, yes I do. And, you love defending them. Just think for a moment where the dem/lib support comes from. Then, look at the money spent on those liberal interest groups. It should tell you something but I doubt it will sink in.

There are literally thousands of government agencies (federal and state) that exist expressly for the purpose of doling out tax money to those who pay no taxes.

No one should be denied food, clothing, shelter and an education until they are age 18. We can easily handle that with just a few, and not thousands, of agencies.

So, the interest group liberals pander to their voting blocks with tax money and also employ hundreds of thousands of unneeded bureaucrats in the process.

After all the years since the New Deal and the Better Deal by Johnson the dem/libs have conditioned our citizens to expect ever more from government without any payback. And, using SD’s political philosophy, we must do even more for those unwilling to work. They won’t be content until 90% of the population is riding in the stalled wagon going nowhere.

It is a pathetic philosophy doomed to failure. A majority of Americans refuse to allow that idiotic plan to grow and we wish to stamp it out now…and forever.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 15, 2011 6:31 PM
Comment #323207

“It is a pathetic philosophy doomed to failure. A majority of Americans refuse to allow that idiotic plan to grow and we wish to stamp it out now…and forever.”

Royal Flush,

If the majority of Americans reject that “pathetic philosophy” of FDR and LBJ, then it would follow that they would be strongly opposed to two of their principal legacies, Social Security and Medicare. But that isn’t the case, is it. The overwhelming majority of Americans support those programs. Indeed, they are the third rail of politics. Ask Ryan how he is doing cutting Medicare benefits, and that’s for future recipients. Republicans are tripping over themselves getting out of the way of that proposal.

Posted by: Rich at May 15, 2011 8:33 PM
Comment #323209

Well Rich, the Federal Government has been taking the hard earned dollars of working Americans for many years and putting them in a so called locked box of SS. Of course we know that was just a lie and the socialist democrats were spending the tax dollars as fast as they came in, as a slush fund for their transfer of wealth plans. I have known many over the years who would rather have had the opportunity to keep their own money and invest it on their own, just as there are many today who would do the same thing. The younger generation have enough sense to know there will be nothing for them, when they reach retirement age. The “Pathetic Philosophy ” of FDR and LBJ, was just that; a shakedown of the American worker. But it is too late now; people have paid all their lives into a program that promised them a retirement check.

Your claims the Ryan and the Republicans want to destroy these systems is completely false. Perhaps change them, but not destroy them. It is too late for that.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 15, 2011 10:06 PM
Comment #323213

Royal Flush-
That pathetic philosophy you decry is a figment of your imagination. You present it because in the wake of the disaster, you can no longer claim that the economic policies are as infallible as you once did. Instead, you must invision a plot so much worse, so much more horrible, so people are sufficiently scared enough to vote Republican.

The real pathetic philosophy is the one that keeps itself on the life support of demonization of opponents.

I want a system that peforms well, that is robust and not liable to fall over because it’s been built top heavy.

Of course, you couldn’t oppose that so vociferously and angrily as you could oppose your fantasy of Democrats like me wanting everybody to just sit on their asses.

But I’ll tell you what, the way the Republicans are going, if they get their way, people will be so idled. But it won’t be because of some implausible, conspiratorial plan that only the completely nuts could support. It will be because of the stubborn insistence on policy that does not work.

Conservativethinker-
Completely false? You mean, it’s not true that they’re going to switch from a public single-payer system where service is assured, to a voucher-based system that doesn’t even index to inflation?

Well, if you want to try having this argument with most people, be my guest. Repeatedly trying to convince the American people that your plans will just change the system for the better will ensure a wave election in the Democrat’s favor.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2011 12:10 AM
Comment #323217

“Of course we know that was just a lie and the socialist democrats were spending the tax dollars as fast as they came in, as a slush fund for their transfer of wealth plans.”

CT,

The Democrats have been doing nothing differently than the Republicans with Social Security tax revenue. Both have been using surplus funds from the Trust to fund general operations. There is a simple reason for this. The Trust is obligated to exchange the cash received from the payroll tax in excess of its operating needs into interest bearing special US Treasuries regardless of the condition of the federal deficit/surplus. Excess SS funds will always flow into the general fund. The real issue is whether government expenditures increased beyond what it was willing to tax or borrow from the public at the time or whether the influx of SS funds simply offset the need to borrow from the public market or raise taxes. If the latter, it is not such a bad deal. We have been simply borrowing from a different source. Whether we are paying off Treasuries held by the public or the “special treasuries” held by the Trust Fund makes little difference theoretically. In fact, it may be a means of saving.

As for your contention that the SS Trust fund has been used as a mechanism for transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, you are wrong. If anything, it is exactly the opposite. The SS tax is regressive with contributions from income above a certain level capped. Considering that excess SS funds have been used for general obligations by both parties, it seems clear that the average contributor of payroll taxes is in essence subsidizing expenditures that would normally be borne by progressive income taxes or through issuance of debt held by the public with ongoing private sector interest obligations.

Posted by: Rich at May 16, 2011 10:25 AM
Comment #323221

So Rich, from what you are saying; the latest move to increase the caps on SS would mean that the liberals are moving toward using SS as means of transfer of wealth. These are your words…

But I, on the other hand believe all socialist programs have the ultimate goal of re-distribution of wealth. TARP and the Stimulus were re-distribution of wealth. Cash for clunkers was re-distribution of wealth. Obamacare is certainly re-distribution of wealth.

But, I am happy to see at least one liberal realize the increase of SS caps is re-distribution of wealth.

By the way, I will be more tan happy to concede that republican politicians have been more than happy to jump on the SS general fund spending spree. This is why I support the Tea Party; we are demanding our politicians actually make a change in DC.

And I might ask; if there is no physical SS fund, and it has been used, why did Al Gore tell the Americans it was in a “Locked Box”?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 16, 2011 11:53 AM
Comment #323224
why did Al Gore tell the Americans it was in a “Locked Box”?

Al Gore never said that SS was in a lock box. What you are referring to is one of Al Gore’s proposals from the 2000 campaign. Gore lost the election; so we’ll never know how his lock box idea would’ve worked out, but chances are we’d still be in the same mess. Nonetheless, it is erroneous to compare entitlements as they are currently implemented as anything resembling a “lock box”.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 16, 2011 12:30 PM
Comment #323225

SD wrote; “But I’ll tell you what, the way the Republicans are going, if they get their way, people will be so idled. But it won’t be because of some implausible, conspiratorial plan that only the completely nuts could support. It will be because of the stubborn insistence on policy that does not work.”

The implication in your comment is that if we don’t continue to borrow and print money the nation will become idled. The only thing keeping us afloat is borrowing, printing and spending? Well, if your defeatist comment is true, we might just as well lie down and die now, rather than continue the misery.

I am much more optimistic and realistic than SD. This nation was not built by government, but rather, by hard working folks using their own talent, brains, sweat and investments. Big liberal government would like to change that and convince folks that they don’t have to work or think for themselves, but rather, let the government do that for them. The price…just loss of freedom, that’s all.

The “conspiratorial implausible plan” you refer to is not a figment of our imagination. The Social Security and Medicare Ponzi Scheme was the creation of socialists. It’s simple premise is…you can’t take care of yourselves, vote for us and we’ll do it for you. Millions of Americans have swallowed this socialist crap and it grows like a noxious weed. It continues as we haven’t quite run out of spending the peoples money. Instead, we are borrowing crazily which must be paid back or the nation goes bankrupt. You many not call this “conspiratorial”, but I certainly do and millions of other Americans are awakening to the fact that this philosophy can not, and will not, continue.

All your hopes and dreams, and that of your fellow dems/libs depends upon the people remaining somnambulant and willing to sell freedom for nannyism.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 16, 2011 1:04 PM
Comment #323226

conservativethinker-

This is why I support the Tea Party; we are demanding our politicians actually make a change in DC.

Yes, they are. They’re taking this country to the brink of an unprecedented disaster, and it’s a completely unnecessary risk to boot.

They want to impress you folks, so they are about to do what no Congress has ever done: allow America to default on its debts. Not even in Washington’s time, nor the Civil War, Nor the Great Depression, Nor WWII, have they allowed this to happen.

But your people will allow it to happen, even planning to inflict it on this country every two months in order to push radical agenda items they couldn’t otherwise get through.

Will your people not be happy until this nation is beaten back down to the frontier economy it had a century and half ago, until you so **** up the economy that we can’t even recover from it? Is the Republican Party’s goal to take everything that was good and great about this country and destroy it?

Our armies are years away from recovering their former strength, and meanwhile we pay hundreds of billions of dollars to run wars that shame us by how long they’ve run without resolution.

Our economy is in a shambles after your side let wall street go nuts and prop up the economy with financial hallucinations. Now they’re estimating that up to 68% of gas prices might be due to what those idiots are doing at their desks, or worse what their computers are doing, free of the moderation of human judgment.

The gulf coast has suffered terribly, beaches soaked by oil, yet you folks want to let the irresponsible bastards have even more freedom, and apologized to the twits who have put so many out of jobs for getting them to pay for it.

How many more trials and tribulations do we have to go through at your party’s hands? How much continued stupidity do we have to endure before we can get people in charge who actually contribute to the stability of this country, instead of holding the rest of us hostage to get the policies you want without earning it?

I mean, if I were to look at this cold bloodedly, could I ask you why your side went through all this effort to portray Democrats as insane with power, if you were just going to turn right around, and show people what true insanity really is?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2011 1:15 PM
Comment #323227

Royal Flush-

Well, if your defeatist comment is true, we might just as well lie down and die now, rather than continue the misery.

The only people continuing the misery are those who vote against the financial best interests of this country, who will not admit the damning truth of what they’re doing:

America has the wherewithal to pay back its creditors right now. Any debt crisis right now is artificial, and solely the responsiblity of the sole party that is foolish enough to tempt fate by forcing the matter in this way.

You are not more optimistic than me. If you were, you would take my side, because you would believe that we can grow, rather than self-mutilate our way out of our current debt and deficit. You are not more realistic than me, because no true realist would endanger the credit of their country in order to force attention to debt problems. A realist would shudder at the prospect of enslaving generations of Americans to debts they cannot pay, devaluing our currency, and essentially inviting the second great depression.

A realist would understand that you cannot pay your bills and neglect your needs at the same time.

At the rate your party is going, it’s cruising for a bruising in 2012. Your party’s arrogance has lead it to try and push policy on Americans that even most Tea Partiers are against.

My one worry will be if your party manages, for the second time in the last few years, to break the American economy trying to impress their constituents with this political bull****.

Your party is well on its way, at this rate, to getting people to swear it off for good. I just hope the morons leading your party don’t take the rest of us down with you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2011 1:34 PM
Comment #323228

SD writes; “Your party is well on its way, at this rate, to getting people to swear it off for good.”

What an odd comment considering the last election centered on TEA party political realities as relates to government spending.

SD is either asleep or unconscious if he can’t recognize the message of the 2010 election that gave control of the house back to the reps/cons. Does he really believe the will of the American people has changed in six short months?

I doubt it and rather, imagine he is whistling thru the cemetery where the dead and buried dems/libs can be found hoping for some miraculous resurrection of their failed socialist policies.

The senate will fall next to the reps/cons and with control of both houses, Dear Leader, should he be reelected, will become nothing more than our ceremonial figure. That’s appropriate for someone of his calibre.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 16, 2011 1:48 PM
Comment #323230


I could see the Republicans retaking the Congress if moderate Republicans come out in droves during the primaries and prevent the far right from nominating their candidates.

Yesterday, Newt acted like a sensible Republican, saying that the Ryan budget was to radical right for the country to accept. Today, Newt is back on the far right.

Posted by: jlw at May 16, 2011 2:32 PM
Comment #323231

jlw, I believe the same folks who came out to vote and took back the house will be the ones to vote and take back the senate. I like Newt for his brainpower but I don’t believe he will be the rep candidate. I have no idea who our candidate will be but I do hope it won’t be a “retread”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 16, 2011 2:37 PM
Comment #323232

Newt has no chance; he has sealed his doom with these RHINO statements.

Obama and the dems are really running scared. That is why obama is now talking “drilling for oil”.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 16, 2011 2:57 PM
Comment #323233
Obama and the dems are really running scared. That is why obama is now talking “drilling for oil”.

Obama hasn’t changed his rhetoric since 2008. He did stop to take a few months to reevaluate things in light of what the Deep Water Horizon spill taught.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 16, 2011 3:08 PM
Comment #323234

stephen

“Economies do not work simply by the activies of individuals, but by the activities of masses of individuals.”

what does this have to do with the fact that most people have come to expect to much from the gov’t. in fact far more than it was ever intended to provide.

the mass of idividuals cannot exist without each individual doing thier part. it is the role of gov’t to create an environment where the individual can succeed if they are willing to put forth the effort to succeed. it is not the role of gov’t to make sure they succeed, and if they don’t demand that others provide for them what they cannot, or will not provide for themselves. it is not the role of gov’t to gaurentee fair, or equal outcomes.

Posted by: dbs at May 16, 2011 3:18 PM
Comment #323236

Royal Flush-
First, you folks had people in quite an uproar. Now, though, much of the emotion of that uproar has faded. Second, I think people had a far different picture of what you were going to do than you really painted. Out on the campaign trail, you were all about jobs.

Once you got back to all the respective places you had taken over, it was union-busting, anti-abortion legislation, deficit reduction, anything but what you advertised.

There are a whole lot of people who got something they didn’t bargain for. And really, I don’t think much of anybody is going to find your party playing chicken with the debt limit, especially when the markets start to get a little antsy.

Oh, and on the subject of what I really think…

To all-
If you want to know what I really think and what I really want, listen to me. Royal Flush apparently thinks he can correct me on this count, but he hasn’t come close. He’s just repeating the same old button-pushing cliches because he doesn’t want to deign to have to actually explain why his approach is better on the merits, of which there have been few lately. Republicans are red scaring because their current version of radical capitalism is on its way out, to be replaced by something more moderate, like the system we use to run the country with. You know, the one that helped make us as an economic powerhouse, rather than break us.

dbs-
It isn’t communism to say people act en masse, it’s approximation. There is no possible way to make any sensible predictions about the economy basing everything on just single individuals.

The role of government, in my opinion, is to set the best possible stage for people to excel, for the economy to grow. People’s own performance is up to them. If they waste their chance to succeed, that’s their problem.

People guarantee their own outcomes, government should just guarantee that their stockbrokers won’t cheat them, their bankers won’t go on a spending spree with the assets they deposit (like what happened with S&Ls), their products are safe, their food and drugs are pure, safe and effective, and so on. The government makes the rules that make the market worth participating in. Otherwise people just cheat and coast on legacies to the top.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2011 3:44 PM
Comment #323237

SD said;

“Royal Flush-

First, you folks had people in quite an uproar. Now, though, much of the emotion of that uproar has faded. Second, I think people had a far different picture of what you were going to do than you really painted. Out on the campaign trail, you were all about jobs.”

Don’t confuse the lack of the MSM to be harping on every move of the Tea Party, with what is still going on behind the scenes. The Tea Party is still just as active and are still contacting their politicians. Just because it isn’t making its rounds on the liberal news talking points, don’t mean we aren’t still there.

There are laws against cheating in the stock market; it would be best to just enforce the existing laws. There are laws pertaining to illegal aliens, but rather than enforce existing laws, we have liberals wanting to circumvent the laws and create new laws. And we all know it is about amnesty and liberal votes.

You will see the Tea Party in the news again as we get close to the 2012 election.

Oh, and by the way, I have absolutly no problem with failing to raise the debt ceiling. Of course the socialists and media and crying “the sky is falling”, I say let it fall. Perhaps it’s the only way politicians will ever understand we are fed up with the spending.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 16, 2011 4:01 PM
Comment #323238

SD writes; “First, you folks had people in quite an uproar. Now, though, much of the emotion of that uproar has faded.”

Keep right on believing that until you lose the senate too. Good grief man, were 18 months away from the next election and most Americans are busy working unlike the interest group liberals and their charges feeding at the government trough.

SD also jokingly writes; “Republicans are red scaring because their current version of radical capitalism is on its way out, to be replaced by something more moderate, like the system we use to run the country with. You know, the one that helped make us as an economic powerhouse, rather than break us.”

Really…it was the dem/lib political philosophy that made us the greatest country in the world? Isn’t it just like a socialist to wish to rewrite our history. We have nearly 50% of our adults who pay no taxes. Is that what made us a powerhouse? We are spending trillions on interest group liberalism to encourage folks to sit on their ass. Is that what made us a powerhouse? Liberals have taken over our education system and is causing us to lose leadership in the world. Is that what made us a powerhouse? We have a congress that passes bills they admit they haven’t read and don’t understand. Is that what made us a powerhouse? We have civilian leadership that goes to war, or continues wars, without any intention of winning anything. Is that what made us a powerhouse? We have a government policy of keeping our abundant fossil fuels in the ground rather than to be used. Is that what made us a powerhouse? We strangle business with unnecessary fees, taxes, and regulations. Is that what made us a powerhouse.

Go ahead and read the false history you like to spew SD. A few libs on Watchblog will applaud but they and you can’t stem the tide that is turning away from socialism.

SD wrote; “The role of government, in my opinion, is to set the best possible stage for people to excel, for the economy to grow. People’s own performance is up to them. If they waste their chance to succeed, that’s their problem.”

That is a true statement. It’s just a damn shame he doesn’t believe it himself.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 16, 2011 4:07 PM
Comment #323241

SD

I am thinking about getting your permission to collect all your posts over the last 3 years. I would compile them into a book with a title “The Goose In The Noose”. That should fit as a good cover for your wild imagination.

Posted by: tom humes at May 16, 2011 4:28 PM
Comment #323242

I have to laugh every time I see the obama photo below under Sponsored Links. With his nose so high up in the air he looks like someone just farted.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 16, 2011 4:39 PM
Comment #323246

Conservativethinker-
America has never defaulted on its debt in its entire history. Why in God’s name do you want to start now?

Are you so poisoned by your hatred of Democrats as a party that you’ll reject an independently verifiable truth from our mouths simply because we’re saying it?

The Tea Party’s strangling the Republican Party. It’s not merely holding them accountable, it’s holding them paralyzed, unable to move on from the GOP’s mistakes because the GOP’s succeeded in convincing itself that all it needs to do in order to succeed is blindly push through.

It won’t work this time. Your numbers in the Seniors Demographic have gone from +21 to +10. That’s a hell of drop. The problem is, as time goes on, Obama’s going to keep proving himself the right choice, and you’re going to keep proving to people that you’re the wrong one.

Royal Flush-
The way I see it, your party has 18 more months to demonstrate to people that they should be scared ****less at the prospect of your re-election. Keep pushing this debt limit BS, and the Medicare BS, and in 18 months, and you won’t have to worry about winning the Senate. You’ll have to worry about getting elected dogcatcher.

Really…it was the dem/lib political philosophy that made us the greatest country in the world? Isn’t it just like a socialist to wish to rewrite our history. We have nearly 50% of our adults who pay no taxes. Is that what made us a powerhouse?

You know, if you couldn’t use any ad hominem arguments, I don’t know what you’d find to right

Well, Dem/Lib philosophy turned the economy around several decades ago. Under Hoover it was just going downhill, under Roosevelt, it pretty much goes up. Then those Democrats you love to call wimps went and kicked Germany and Japan’s butts in WWII. Our economy pretty much worked thereafter.

As for rewriting history? Current tax policy represents Republican efforts the most. Whether it’s Republicans under Clinton, or Republicans under Bush, the shape of today’s income taxes are your responsibility.

We are spending trillions on interest group liberalism to encourage folks to sit on their ass. Is that what made us a powerhouse?

Still beating the welfare drum, more than a decade after welfare as we knew it officially died. I mean, there’s beating a dead horse, and then there this. It’s ridiculous how much you just try to push people’s buttons, rather than talk about anything in the real world.

Liberals have taken over our education system and is causing us to lose leadership in the world. Is that what made us a powerhouse?

No Child Left Behind. The forcing of standardized testing across the board. The idea of forcing competition between schools to make the highest scores, and defunding those that are failing. ****, man, this is textbook Heritage foundation stuff.

It’s a marvel that you folks think the barbarians are knocking at the gate, even after you win the battles. I guess the powers that be in the party haven’t seen you rush far enough to the right for their tastes yet.

We have civilian leadership that goes to war, or continues wars, without any intention of winning anything. Is that what made us a powerhouse?

Go back and read through my archives, while you’re at it. Yours is the civilian leadership that lead us into these neverending wars, and wouldn’t back down from them, accusing others of cutting and running. What is it, you screw something up, then you blame somebody else for your screw up when you think you can get away with it? Brave leadership, to be sure.

We have a government policy of keeping our abundant fossil fuels in the ground rather than to be used. Is that what made us a powerhouse?

Our dependence on fossil fuels has been one of the fundamental causes of many of our economic downturns. If we free ourselves of them, we’ll be able to shed that millstone from around our necks. You want us to keep that burden.

You do know that the “abundant fossil fuels” won’t get here in time to influence the prices, don’t you, and that some of those fossil fuels cost more to bring up because of their impurities, their viscosity, and in the case of Shale oil, the fact we practically have to bake the fricking things in order to remove the oil.

Yeah, lets just stay on that bandwagon, and watch the costs rise as we’re forced to extract fuels from more and more difficult sources, or choose between having pure water and abundant natural gas.

We strangle business with unnecessary fees, taxes, and regulations. Is that what made us a powerhouse.

Odd thing, when the regulations were strongest, we were doing just fine. The thing that keeps on kicking our economy in the ass is a reliance on dirty fossil fuels, and letting your buddies on Wall Street run up and burst big bubbles that force taxpayers to have to bail the rich elite’ sorry superior asses out.

I can get on board making regulations more elegant, simpler, easier to understand. But you know something? I have seen enough of corporate behavior in my three decades on the planet to know that these folks don’t work and play well with others. They see to their interests. It’s about time the public saw to their own.

As for the Obama photo? Someone just like you probably bought that ad space and put that picture there. Just an illustration of how incestous amplification guide thought on the right these days.

tom humes-
Will I be misunderstood? Will I make mistakes? Of course I will. But I offer substance. That means when I’m wrong, it’s not simply a matter of sweeping things under the rug with rhetoric. But you know something? You have to risk being wrong to take the chances necessary to be truly, provably right. Anybody who offers facts must expect to be challenge on them, but those who merely offer rhetoric and prejudiced opinion can never enjoy true vindication that comes with responsible treatment of the evidence.

Look at the wasteland that is your party’s (or political wing’s) slate of presidential candidates. Look at Gingrich’s world record flip-flop on Mandates and the Medicare reform plan. Look at the collapse of Trump. Look at Huckabee backing off. Your Tea Party has put such an impossible mass of unnegotiable requirements on your politicians heads that they literally can’t move to the center to save their political lives. It’s not an accident your slate is in such disarray. You’re too extreme to allow independents or moderates, and the candidates out there are too imperfect to summon unconditional support.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2011 5:32 PM
Comment #323247

Good one Tom and Royal; Obama has the look of who farted, but as my wife and I were laughing, she said he is the one who farted, but he’s trying to find someone to blame it on…LOL

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 16, 2011 6:00 PM
Comment #323248

SD wrote; “…this is textbook Heritage foundation stuff.”

Well, thanks for the compliment even though I rarely read Heritage. Unlike SD, my talking points come from extensive reading and the ability to think for myself. He seems to just parrot the latest lib talking points and endlessly repeats his tired old socialist mantra.

He writes; “It’s ridiculous how much you just try to push people’s buttons, rather than talk about anything in the real world.”

Ridiculous huh. Well, my talking points whipped the dem/lib ass in the last election. Your tired old crap doesn’t sell any more. I can’t recall the last time SD posted an original thought. Just warmed over liberal talking points of the day. And, he comes across as someone who considers himself an original thinker. How silly.

He writes; “Yeah, lets just stay on that bandwagon, and watch the costs rise as we’re forced to extract fuels from more and more difficult sources, or choose between having pure water and abundant natural gas.”

Lordy…Lordy…even his Dear Leader has abandoned, at least by his rhetoric, this notion that we should not search for and drill for more oil in addition to using natural gas. It makes one look like an idiot when their own leader refutes the old mantra that SD still clings to. While not very smart, Dear Leader knows what the public demands even if SD and the libs don’t.


Posted by: Royal Flush at May 16, 2011 6:05 PM
Comment #323250

Conservativethinker-
You know, I used to think Republicans stood for having a certain level of class.

Royal Flush-

Well, thanks for the compliment even though I rarely read Heritage. Unlike SD, my talking points come from extensive reading and the ability to think for myself. He seems to just parrot the latest lib talking points and endlessly repeats his tired old socialist mantra.

What do you want to bet that many of the authors you read have an association with think tanks, or purpose-built political imprints and publishers like Regnery?

He writes; “It’s ridiculous how much you just try to push people’s buttons, rather than talk about anything in the real world.”

Ridiculous huh. Well, my talking points whipped the dem/lib ass in the last election. Your tired old crap doesn’t sell any more. I can’t recall the last time SD posted an original thought. Just warmed over liberal talking points of the day. And, he comes across as someone who considers himself an original thinker. How silly.

So, in response to being charged with pushing buttons, he pushes buttons. Thanks for making my job easier, RF!

He writes; “Yeah, lets just stay on that bandwagon, and watch the costs rise as we’re forced to extract fuels from more and more difficult sources, or choose between having pure water and abundant natural gas.”

Lordy…Lordy…even his Dear Leader has abandoned, at least by his rhetoric, this notion that we should not search for and drill for more oil in addition to using natural gas. It makes one look like an idiot when their own leader refutes the old mantra that SD still clings to. While not very smart, Dear Leader knows what the public demands even if SD and the libs don’t.

The notion is not so much that we shouldn’t. At this point we must. The alternative hasn’t been sufficiently developed yet. No, the notion is that we can’t keep this up, and depending on this is costing our economy dearly.

You know that Shale Oil requires that you essentially cook the rocks at 900 degrees, and harvest the Kerogen that comes out, a heavy thick, rather sulfurous kind of oile that’s more expensive to process, right? You know that your people essentially highlighted the most optimistic predictions of what we had out there, rather than the more responsible proven reserves, right?

I like Obama, in fact like him a lot. But I am not worried about having to stand by myself on this, because I know that the politics has yet to catch up to the facts on this count. There isn’t going to be a magic oil fairy, with her sparkling monolayer slick trail to save fossil fuels from eventual obsolesence. The question is how long we let our economy depend on a declining dirty fuel source.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2011 6:30 PM
Comment #323251

SD;

“Conservativethinker-
America has never defaulted on its debt in its entire history. Why in God’s name do you want to start now?”

It will never happen SD; you guys on the left are using the same old, “too big to fail”, “Armageddon”, “the sky is falling”, “never waste a good crisis”, tactics you have always used. Now, as of today, the latest figures are it will be another 10 weeks before we hit critical mass. Let me say again, I hope they don’t raise the debt ceiling; as long as tax money is coming in, the bills will be paid. In the meantime, cut, cut, cut spending. That is not hard.

“Are you so poisoned by your hatred of Democrats as a party that you’ll reject an independently verifiable truth from our mouths simply because we’re saying it?”

I don’t have a problem with Democrats, but I do have a problem with socialists like you. I guess I can call YOU a socialist, since you called ME “poisoned by your hatred”. What I do hate is the unadulterated call by socialist for more taxes and more spending.

“The Tea Party’s strangling the Republican Party. It’s not merely holding them accountable, it’s holding them paralyzed, unable to move on from the GOP’s mistakes because the GOP’s succeeded in convincing itself that all it needs to do in order to succeed is blindly push through.”

Well SD, help me with this one; either the TP is going down the tubes as you guys have been saying for the past 2 months, or we are not going down the tubes, which is it? If we have enough clout to influence the whole Republican Party, then we must not be going down the tubes. In fact, I believe you guys on the left are living in pure state of terror concerning the TP.

“It won’t work this time. Your numbers in the Seniors Demographic have gone from +21 to +10. That’s a hell of drop. The problem is, as time goes on, Obama’s going to keep proving himself the right choice, and you’re going to keep proving to people that you’re the wrong one.”

I’m assuming you got these numbers at the dailkos.com; or you just pulled them out of your ass. If you are so concerned that we are leading people astray with “our lies and falsehoods” and that we are “driving our constituents away and into the arms of the left”, why would you be warning us? Like everything else, you pulled this one out of your anal cavity too..

Sorry Royal, I’ll have to respond to this one:

“Then those Democrats you love to call wimps went and kicked Germany and Japan’s butts in WWII.”

I thought it was our non-partisan military that took care of America’s enemies? This sounds a lot like “Obama killed Osama”. Revisionist history and never waste an opportunity to grasp at political gain. Even FDR did not try to take credit as Obama has.

“Our dependence on fossil fuels has been one of the fundamental causes of many of our economic downturns. If we free ourselves of them, we’ll be able to shed that millstone from around our necks. You want us to keep that burden.”

Great SD, why don’t we just all squat and crap out batteries and windmills? If it’s going to take at least 10 years to produce our own oil, as you guys on the left have been saying for the past 30 years; then how long do you suppose it will take to produce, batteries and windmills?

“You do know that the “abundant fossil fuels” won’t get here in time to influence the prices, don’t you, and that some of those fossil fuels cost more to bring up because of their impurities, their viscosity, and in the case of Shale oil, the fact we practically have to bake the fricking things in order to remove the oil.”

As I said, a socialist talking point for the past 30 years…Question SD, isn’t Canada making money off oil shale?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 16, 2011 6:40 PM
Comment #323252

SD wrote; “The notion is not so much that we shouldn’t. At this point we must. The alternative hasn’t been sufficiently developed yet. No, the notion is that we can’t keep this up, and depending on this is costing our economy dearly.”

A compliment for SD. He’s is an excellent back-peddler. I am too lazy to go back and find all his comments that refute his own words here. I believe this is the first time I have heard him say, regarding more drilling and use of fossil fuels…”we must”. There is still hope for him to leave the “dark side”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 16, 2011 6:43 PM
Comment #323253

Mara Liasson (that socialist from the liberal socialist bastion of PBS), just praised Huckabee as being a great statesman and candidate, who was funny, intelligent, and worthy of running for president of the US. I wonder what she woud have said about him if he had decided to run? I have a gut feeling it wouldn’t have been praiseworthy.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 16, 2011 6:45 PM
Comment #323254

Sorry Royal, I fear he will never leave the dark side. He is parroting obama, because he knows obama has no intention of ever drilling. It is the old “drill baby drill” re-election slogan. But he has to many anti-drill groups who subsidize his election to ever mean it.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 16, 2011 6:50 PM
Comment #323255

I wonder what she woud have said about him if he had decided to run? I have a gut feeling it wouldn’t have been praiseworthy.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 16, 2011 06:45

Since they and I don’t believe Huckabee could have won if nominated, they would have said very nice things about him until he was nominated, and then thrashed the hell of out of him. We all recall how the left was so supportive of McCain until he was the candidate. Hell, the dem/libs were even crossing over in the primaries to get McCain the nomination as they knew he was a terrible candidate. Should I hear the dem/lib media say anything nice about a rep/cons candidate I will know for sure there is skulduggery at work.

We don’t need a “retread” running as the Rep candidate.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 16, 2011 7:19 PM
Comment #323256

SD

”..those who merely offer rhetoric and prejudiced opinion can never enjoy true vindication that comes with responsible treatment of the evidence.”

I say you are speaking as an expert on rhetoric and prejudiced opinion.

“Look at the wasteland that is your party’s (or political wing’s) slate of presidential candidates. Look at Gingrich’s world record flip-flop on Mandates and the Medicare reform plan.”

Your memory is extremely short. I am not a republican.

Gingrich is just as you are; a socialist. Gingrich the RINO socialist. He talks like his shoe laces are tied together. Or to simplify to liberals. His walk and talk are not the same.

Posted by: tom humes at May 16, 2011 7:22 PM
Comment #323259


Those who wish to know what a country that has been dominated by right wing wealth is like, need look no further than our southern border. A wealthy but impoverished country.

Posted by: jlw at May 16, 2011 8:35 PM
Comment #323269


Conservativethinker, the question is, at what price level does oil have to be in order for Canada to make money off of shale oil or tar sands oil. The price is critical in making money from extracting oil from shale, tar sands or costly places to drill. The lower the price, the less profitable these sources become.

There was a recent article about the oil in the Arctic, Some of it is profitable to extract at $78 per barrel, more at $90 per and even more at $130 per barrel. The majority of it isn’t worth the effort, isn’t profitable, at prices below $100 per barrel. No one is going to put forth the effort to extract oil that they can’t make a profit on. That is why the oil companies are already holding many leases that they are not using. What the oil companies really want is all the leases, NOW, at current prices, because the price is going to continue to climb steadily.

The human race is expected to consume three times as many natural resources by the middle of the century than we are now.

Posted by: jlw at May 17, 2011 12:05 AM
Comment #323288

I offer to your attention a film about six priorities of the generalized instruments of management by countries and people of Earth.
Six Principles of Global Manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fF3TQ0lJnU
Anti-Qur’an Strategy of the Bible Project Wheeler-Dealers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1wXgXwj3MI
Nibiru and Annunakis on the Swiss francs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDoU3tLwc3o

Posted by: tank at May 17, 2011 6:12 PM
Post a comment