Democrats & Liberals Archives

Flake announces GOP candidacy; Democrats Rejoice

Michele Bachmann delighted her two major constituencies, wingnuts and comedians, by announcing her official candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination. Many wondered if her long catalog of videotaped inane, insane, and nutty statements were over, mere relics of a batty past. Was the flake turning over a new tea leaf? Were stupid assertions and dark ‘misstatements’ a thing of the past? Of course not. Michelle did not disappoint. She brought the stupid AND the crazy, and rocketed into a statistical tie in the polls.

Never one to miss an opportunity, Phx8 first called his commodities broker to go long on fake eyelash futures. Next, he pondered the latest gaffe. Michele announced her candidacy in Waterloo, IA, declared her "deep roots" in that town, and then said in an interview that she was more or less channeling the spirit of John Wayne, who she asserted was from Waterloo."

"I want them to know just like John Wayne is from Waterloo Iowa, that's the spirit I have too,"

Except that John Wayne was not actually from Waterloo. He was from Winterset, over 100 miles away. So much for "deep roots." Hilarity ensued when people realized there actually was a famous John Wayne from Waterloo: John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer. Was Bachmann the Flake actually channeling the spirit of the Killer Clown? Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, Michele claims God regularly communicates with her when she prays, but if she gives a speech urging Republicans to "Kill Your Dog," then we know the Killer Clown preempted her personal God channel.

All kidding aside, one has to wonder how long the American people can continue playing a game of political chicken with their destiny. Perhaps the apocalypse is upon us after all. Perhaps these really are the end days. It almost feels like the American people are The Joker from "The Dark Knight," striding up a dark street towards an oncoming vehicle, firing an automatic rifle at random, targets and muttering "do it, do it, come on, hit me, do it..." How long before some wingnut slips into the presidency by accident or a strange twist of fate?

Posted by phx8 at June 28, 2011 1:15 AM
Comments
Comment #325063

phx8


the john wayne gaff? really? minor considering obamas latest gaff. you know the incident when speaking to a group of soldiers. i guess he gives out so many congressional medals of honor he can’t keep them straight. i’m sure that soldiers parents understand. NOT. not to mention the 57 states. now that’s funny.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/06/obama-flubs-medal-of-honor-winner.html

oh how about this one from chucky schumer” three branches of gov’t, the house, senate, and president” really? the last i checked they were the legislative, judicial, and the executive. hey, but he’s just a US senator why should need to know that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG0Jpu9geWY

bachmans gaff was at least understandable considering they both lived there, even if it was 100 miles apart.

i wouldn’t worry though, no matter who beats obama they will be with out a doubt more qualified for the job. hey how does president rick perry sound? be afraid, be very afraid, because unless the dems throw obama under the bus come jan 2013 we’ll have a new party in the white house.

Posted by: dbs at June 28, 2011 2:05 PM
Comment #325064

joe bidens always good for a laugh too.

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.”

“Joe Biden, apparently unaware that FDR wasn’t president when the stock market crashed in 1929 and that only experimental TV sets were in use at that time”

people living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!

Posted by: dbs at June 28, 2011 2:18 PM
Comment #325066

Dbs,
Every politician makes gaffes, some more than others. Sometimes there are amusing grammatical errors or misstatements of fact on inconsequential matters. The problem for Bachmann is that she continually makes gaffes concerning policy. She is misinformed, or just winging it, and so her policies are wrong, because she does not know what she is talking about when it comes to consequential matters.

The ‘John Wayne’ gaffe is relatively minor. She staged an announcement in a small town in IA and claimed “deep roots” in that place, but obviously that is not true, because once again, she does not know anything about Waterloo IA. It was merely an attempt to gain publicity for the IA caucus. By demonstrating her lack of knowledge about that town, she undermined the whole point of the exercise for anyone who was actually paying attention.

The gaffes are worse than that; for example, take energy policy. Bachmann opposed the recent use of the strategic oil reserve. In an interview with Schieffer, she said the president “released all of the oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve.” That is simply wrong. The release consisted of 60 million barrels out of a total of 727 million barrels. How can she be oppposed to the policy when she says “all” of the oil was being released. Another example; she claimed the Obama administration granted only one offshore drilling permit. In fact, 270 permits had been granted at the time of that statement, and 300 when she was called on her wrong statement. She refused to retract her error, and repeated her opposition to Obama’s energy policies. Yet how can she oppose it when she obviously does not know what is going on?

She wants to get rid of the EPA.

I see no possible downside to that idea.

Snort.

Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2011 3:14 PM
Comment #325067

Can anyone imagine a ticket like this..?? Palin, Bachman and the witchie girl? What a f—-ing circus!

Posted by: jane doe at June 28, 2011 3:21 PM
Comment #325069

Jane doe,
I think they are called ‘Evangelical Feminists:’ crazy Jesus-freaks who talk with God and get their facts wrong.

Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2011 3:51 PM
Comment #325070

She’s doing really well in the polls. I wouldn’t be surprised if she got the GOP nod. She, like Joey Biden, are gaffe goldmines. This latest one was kinda creepy because John Wayne Gacy totally ruined clowns for me.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at June 28, 2011 6:31 PM
Comment #325071

Spinny,
She’s unelectable. Period. From a Democrat’s point of view, that makes her the perfect candidate. She’s trying to walk back from her comments about Obama being Un-American (“absolutely!” she once chirped) and other wingnuttery, but it’s too late. There’s too much on record.

Romney has been much better about restraining his partisanship. He also walked back his silly comments about Obama ‘apologizing’ to foreign countries while on tour, but he has precisely the opposite problem from Bachmann. He doesn’t say enough crazy stuff to attract the rank and file. They know the only thing Romney really, really believes in is Big Business. With him, everything else is subject to change. That leaves the rank and file cold for the time being.

But the Republican conservative base cannot help but eventually notice that all the stupid talk about Obama as a Socialist Marxist Communist Anti-American Kenyan-born terrorist turns off the vast majority of the electorate. They love Bachmann for her crazy, yet in the back of their dim partisan minds, they know that will mean a big loss in 2012.

Romney will throw lots of corporate and laundered LDS money into the campaign, and the GOP base will take its cue; by this time next year, they will be dutifully singing his praises. Just watch.

Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2011 6:49 PM
Comment #325073

Contributing Editor
Do not reproduce other people’s copyright work wholesale, except by the permission of the author. Quote and link.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/

And this is only up until May, 2008; how many since then.

“National Survey of 3,500 Likely Voters
By Rasmussen Reports

Please note that we split the survey to rotate the order of the candidates, so while half will hear the Republican first, the other half hears the Democrat mentioned first.
1*In thinking about the 2012 Presidential Election suppose you had a choice between a Republican candidate and Democrat Barack Obama. If the election were held today would you vote for the Republican candidate or Democrat Barack Obama?”


Answer:

Republican candidate earns support from 46% of Likely U.S. Voters, while the president picks up 42% of the vote. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and nine percent (9%) are undecided.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot

Posted by: Mike at June 28, 2011 7:28 PM
Comment #325077

Mike,
Please do not bother linking Rasmussen polls. They are not a credible outfit. If you want to dwell in the conservative echo chamber, then fine, have at it; but do not presume such an inaccurate source of information is going to fly in a political discussion outside of that conservative bubble. Try again. Otherwise, please do not waste my time repeating propaganda from a highly partisan, inaccurate polling organization.

Most of your Obama “quotes” aren’t really quotes, are they? Look again. And please don’t bother quoting Michelle Malkin pretending to ‘quote’ the president. That’s just insulting.

Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2011 8:52 PM
Comment #325078

phx8

That sounds like a direct order!!

Telling someone to not quote a source because of your opinion is quite arrogant and ignorant.

You finished your last item with, “That’s just insulting.”

Likewise you are quite insulting with your censorship approach.

Now I must ask you for documentation about Rasmussen. You don’t know diddly about Rasmussen. For instance, quote exactly how a question is asked from Rasmussen, the exact verbiage. If you can’t do that then you have no integrity.

Pollsters all have a bent to their questions; no exceptions. So what makes Rasmussen Polls not so trustworthy. Their results are pretty much like other pollsters.

Posted by: tom humes at June 28, 2011 10:59 PM
Comment #325079
i wouldn’t worry though, no matter who beats obama they will be with out a doubt more qualified for the job.

Careful what you wish for dbs, if the last repub president is any indication then they may not be as qualified. Even former Bachmann staff says she is not ready for the job. Unless the repubs pull their heads out of the teapubs rear it could very well mean more of the last decade, which of course we are still suffering from, when you guys gonna learn?


hey how does president rick perry sound? be afraid, be very afraid…

Oh boy another Texan governor, you guys ran that on us before and it was turned out to be the worst president ever. It seems the Texas governors really don’t do that much when it comes to actually governing, don’t you guys ever learn?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 28, 2011 11:26 PM
Comment #325080

Tom humes,
This is from the Wikipedia article on Rasmussen:

“In 2010, Nate Silver of the New York Times blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article “Is Rasmussen Reports biased?”, in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias. [22]. However, by later in the year, Rasmussen’s polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a ‘house effect.’[23] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[24] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering. [25] Silver also criticized Rasmussen for often only polling races months before the election, which prevented them from having polls just before the election which could be assessed for accuracy. In response, he wrote that he was “looking appropriate ways to punish pollsters” like Rasmussen in his pollster rating models who don’t poll in the final days before an election. [26]

After Election night that year, Silver concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver’s model. [27] He singled out as an example the Hawaii Senate Race, which Rasmussen showed the incumbent 13 points ahead, where he in actuality won by 53[28] - a difference of 40 points, or “the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.”[27]

There are many articles on the bias in Rasmussen polls. This is not exactly new news.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2011 12:09 AM
Comment #325081

phx8; perhaps you could recommend a liberal poll that we could all believe?

And perhaps I could say don’t insult us with your liberal hate rhetoric and claiming it as a legitimate post.

You called it “Flake announces GOP candidacy; Democrats Rejoice”, and yet you did not offer even one link to prove anything you claimed.

Perhaps someone could explain to me WHO the contributing editor is; who responded to me in bold black letters. Is this the same person as the WB managing editor? “Do not reproduce other people’s copyright work wholesale, except by the permission of the author.” I had permission and I always have permission to quote Michelle, or I would not have done it.

“After Election night that year, Silver concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver’s model. [27] He singled out as an example the Hawaii Senate Race, which Rasmussen showed the incumbent 13 points ahead, where he in actuality won by 53[28] - a difference of 40 points, or “the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.[27]”

There are many articles on the bias in Rasmussen polls. This is not exactly new news.”

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2011 12:09 AM

If you would like to check all the polls from Nov. 2008, you will find most of them were wrong. So what’s your point phx8, do you have any real proof that Rasmussen polls any more inaccurate than any other poll?

Posted by: Mike at June 29, 2011 12:23 AM
Comment #325082

Republicans can drag out as many mistakes as they’d like from Obama’s past, but two things work against this argument:

One, the argument itself effectively concedes that Bachmann’s stuck her foot in her mouth multiple times. It does not exonerate her by logical necessity.

Two, Obama does not have a reputation for gaffes outside the Republican Party. Bush? Bush has a reputation for gaffes beyond the party. And you know what? It’s not due to the fact that he was unfairly picked on. No, it’s due to the fact that people like him and Bachmann just don’t think before they say things. They just have a talent for saying the things that get the base fired up. But that’s a minor talent at best, and simply jumping for that is asking for trouble.

It’s also a sign of trouble when you have to trash the other politician to bring them down to your politician’s level. I can sell our President on merits alone.

Your side? Your side has to make John Quincy Adams a little mature for his peer group, So Bachmann can get away with saying that a man who was eight years old at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence can be explained away as a Founding Father.

Most Democrats would explain the 57 states gaffe as being the result of being tired after a grueling schedule of primaries and appearances. In other words, he misspoke, and nobody’s trying to justify what he said.

But people like Bachmann and Palin’s followers will actually try and go in and rewrite historical sources in order to fit their leader’s mistakes.

Then they’ll do something like declare that Obama was actually signalling he was a secret Muslim by talking about the 57 Islamic states in the world.

In short, everything just seems to be there for them to rewrite for their convenience, like the Soviets did with Pravda. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia!

You don’t want to be caught up in a feedback loop of revisionist history, where your feet can’t reach the truth underneath, and the facts are casualties of political expedience.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2011 12:28 AM
Comment #325083

Mike, you must be fairly new on WB. It was probably Stephen Daugherty who erased your comment. Stephen doesn’t like people quoting conservative thought. In fact, this is what Stephen said in another post after he said he was sick and tired of conservatives calling liberals, socialists:

“America deserves people who are in touch with reality, who can lay their ideological preferences aside, and work in the real world.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2011 08:40 AM

After you have been on WB for a while you will also come to find this statement from SD as hilarious. This is amusing because SD has never laid aside his ideological preferences and worked in the real world. Even when liberals throw their own under the bus; SD will still defend them. If there was ever anyone out of touch with reality, it would be the liberal socialists.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 29, 2011 12:36 AM
Comment #325084

“No, it’s due to the fact that people like him and Bachmann just don’t think before they say things. They just have a talent for saying the things that get the base fired up. But that’s a minor talent at best, and simply jumping for that is asking for trouble.”

That’s what happens when you don’t use a teleprompter. Obama will never have to worry about saying the wrong thing unless the power goes down; he’s the teleprompter king. Perhaps you could tell me why obama is campaigning in Iowa and elsewhere a full 1 ½ years before the next election, if not to fire up his base?

“It’s also a sign of trouble when you have to trash the other politician to bring them down to your politician’s level. I can sell our President on merits alone.”

Good Lord Stephen, you must be losing it. You make this comment on a post that says, “Flake announces GOP candidacy; Democrats Rejoice”, and then proceeds to trash a conservative. I wish you liberal socialists could get your stories in sync.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 29, 2011 12:47 AM
Comment #325085

Mike-
I’m the contributing editor. It’s essentially what you are if you’re a writer for this site. You’ve got the power to publish your work, to monitor and manage comments as well.

I would have preferred not to edit, because I think a soft touch on discussions is best, But you crossed a line here.

I cut short your comment because you reproduced the vast majority of that column wholesale, everything apparently but the first paragraph. That is not allowed unless you have permission, and by that, I don’t mean a vague informal understanding. That level of copying requires written permission.

Some folks on the right (and saying that is no free pass to the left) don’t seem to take copyright laws seriously, despite the fact that their basis is solidly constitutional and one of the foundations of the capitalist economy in communications fields (otherwise anybody could rip off your work). I would think you would take intellectual property law seriously.

You do that again, the whole comments getting junked. It doesn’t matter if the source is friendly. I quote and link my sources, because I have no desire to run afoul of intellectual property laws, nor any desire to be accused of plagiarism, nor any desire to disrupt or undo this forum by bringing a copyright suit Watchblog’s way.

I have no problem with you forwarding your point of view as a matter of free speech. Just look at the kind of stuff that I take and put up with on my columns without giving in to the temptation to take the nuclear option on the comments. That’s the measure of my belief in free speech, and really fricking hate a lot of what you have to say, and how you say it.

But in this case, it simply wasn’t ambiguous. You reproduced a copyrighted column-

Barack Obama: Gaffe machine Michelle Malkin Creators Syndicate Copyright 2008

Almost in its entirety.

There are copyright exceptions for fair use, which is basically when you’re trying to make a point relating to a work, and do so by quoting from the work. But those didn’t apply here.

If you were to quote, and set the link, that would be fine. I still wouldn’t like your opinion, but I’d have no urge to remove big parts of the text.

Next time, quote and link. You’ll still have the source to back you, but this time, the rights holders on the source could not hold you liable, if they so chose.

As for this?

If you would like to check all the polls from Nov. 2008, you will find most of them were wrong. So what’s your point phx8, do you have any real proof that Rasmussen polls any more inaccurate than any other poll?

Nate Silver is quite the numbers geek, so when he says something like that, he’s looked at the numbers and come to that conclusion by comparison, not by hyperbole.

Rasmussen has a consistent house effect that favors Republicans.

Conservativethinker-

Mike, you must be fairly new on WB. It was probably Stephen Daugherty who erased your comment. Stephen doesn’t like people quoting conservative thought. In fact, this is what Stephen said in another post after he said he was sick and tired of conservatives calling liberals, socialists:

I can handle people quoting conservative thought. Plagiarizing it is different matter. Quote and link. Stay within the bounds of fair use, and I won’t touch it. But copy things wholesale, and unless you can produce proof that the copyright holder’s given you permission, written permission, I’m going to cut out the offending part as a first warning, and junk everything thereafter.

After you have been on WB for a while you will also come to find this statement from SD as hilarious. This is amusing because SD has never laid aside his ideological preferences and worked in the real world. Even when liberals throw their own under the bus; SD will still defend them. If there was ever anyone out of touch with reality, it would be the liberal socialists.

To quote Jeff Bridges, “That’s, like, just your opinion, man.”

It’d odd, really, that you show such contempt for liberals, for certain people in particular, then you suddenly turn around and take that person’s side, proclaiming them a victim.

Look, if somebody in my party gets into ethics trouble, and it seems like the folks have a case, I have no problem with cutting loose those who disgrace my party. I’ll defend them to the hilt if I believe the charges are wrong, but if they’re not, I won’t come up with dozens of ridiculous reasons to continue support.

It’s like one Republican, McGeorge Bundy said: If you guard your toothbrushes and diamonds with equal zeal, you’ll probably lose fewer toothbrushes and more diamonds.

Well, I guard my diamonds, and the toothbrushes can fend for themselves. Whereas, with people like Michelle Bachman, and Sarah Palin, the Republican Party guards its toothbrushes, and loses man of its gems.

Good Lord Stephen, you must be losing it. You make this comment on a post that says, “Flake announces GOP candidacy; Democrats Rejoice”, and then proceeds to trash a conservative. I wish you liberal socialists could get your stories in sync.

We’re not angels, and I’m not claiming that. I’m just saying its a pathetic position to be in if that’s all you can do. We don’t have to trash Bachmann in order to win. We don’t have to bring her down to our level. Her lack of quality is a great foil for the virtues we can claim.

For you, Bashing Obama is a necessity. Otherwise people will be charmed and persuaded by him. For us? Bashing Bachmann is a gift. If she is nominated, Obama’s reelection is assured. But his 2008-2010 record give us plenty of positive reasons for voters to support him. Hell, his leadership after that gives him something to run on.

Bachmann must run from her record. Obama can run with his.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2011 1:26 AM
Comment #325086

Mike,
I am not a Contributing Editor. I know I am supposed to avoid quoting at length. I believe it involves copyright issues; at any rate, I would prefer to hear your point of view.

Here is a partial- I say again, partial- list of legitimate polling organizations:
ABC, NBC, CBS, Harris, AP, Gallup, IPSOS-Reuters, Pew,
and Quinnipiac.

Liberal hate? If I recall, Mike Wallace from FOX asked Bachmann if she was a flake. That was his terminology, his choice of words.

Most politicians make errors and gaffes. Two aspects of Bachmann make her gaffes so extraordinary that even Mike Wallace has to ask her if she is a flake.

First, when she makes a gaffe, she can’t bring herself to just admit it, apologize, and say she was tired or jet lagged or whatever. Instead, she feels compelled to justify it, or ignore it (as in the recent Shieffer interview) and change the subject. It’s ridiculous, because in the case of the Shieffer interview, she cannot change the subject and credibly criticize Obama’s energy policy if she has the facts wrong about the energy policy in the first place. She has no idea of what she is talking about. It’s ridiculous. It’s flaky.

Second, she says things like this:
” “What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think the American people would love to see an expose like that.”

Only a flake would say that.

Finally, her prepared speech on CO2, given on the floor of the House, was one of the… Well, never mind. Judge for yourself. Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAaDVOd2sRQ
Really, it is shockingly stupid.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2011 1:59 AM
Comment #325087

Oh, don’t worry Stephen, obama will try to run from his record, but he will most certainly be running on it. I find it interesting that you would think his 2008-2010 record was so positive. Tell me again SD, how many governorships, state legislators, US senate seats, and congressional seats did your side lose? Of course, that was just a fluke, the American people weren’t really saying anything, were they? I’m not sure how things are in the lala land you live in, but out here in the real world (which you love to speak of), people are really pissed off. I guess we’ll see who’s polls are correct, won’t we?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 29, 2011 2:01 AM
Comment #325088
Liberal hate? If I recall, Mike Wallace from FOX asked Bachmann if she was a flake. That was his terminology, his choice of words.

You’re correct phx8, and he interviewed her after that, at which time he apologized to her for having said it. He also said that she does say some flaky things and she didn’t refute that comment………go figure

Posted by: jane doe at June 29, 2011 2:43 AM
Comment #325089

I began my article with this line:
“Michele Bachmann delighted her two major constituencies, wingnuts and comedians…”
Tonight, David Letterman used Michelle Bachmann for his Top Ten List.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2011 3:10 AM
Comment #325090

j2t2

“Oh boy another Texan governor, you guys ran that on us before and it was turned out to be the worst president ever.”


sorry bud that title belongs to the current squatter in the white house.

Posted by: dbs at June 29, 2011 5:31 AM
Comment #325091
sorry bud that title belongs to the current squatter in the white house.Posted by: dbs at June 29, 2011 05:31 AM

Yeah right, only in the minds of the extremist right wing. Face it guys, during the Bush years more damage was done to this country than at any time since the great depression, you can run but you just can’t hide from the facts dbs.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 29, 2011 8:41 AM
Comment #325092

dbs-
Squatter? Damn, you just know how to pick them, don’t you? It’s like you’ll say, “Oh, how dare you suggest that my party’s rhetoric is prejudiced.” And then you’ll push something like that.

Obama won the election, fair and square, by a greater margin than Bush ever did. Yet your people claimed Bush had a mandate, and Obama doesn’t.

Your people hand him a budget deficit already over a trillion, with your policies largely to blame, and then proceed to turn him into a scapegoat for your irresponsibility. And given the chance, do you join them in making the Medicare provisions cheaper for the taxpayer, or avoid the mistake of more tax cuts that aggravate the deficit? No. You fall right back to the same policies.

Your people simply aren’t responsible anymore. They’re not beholden to creating the best outcome for America, but instead for their agenda. It’s more important to you that we keep your brand of capitalism, rather than prevent the crash from ever happening again. More important to you to extort the policies you want out of a split congress, with our nation’s full faith and credit held hostage, than to actually do what’s best for our country.

You’re wrapped up in your vision of the world, that you won’t hesitate to bulldoze any recovery we’ve got in order to win. But you won’t win. The only question now, is how many people have to lose on your account.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2011 8:48 AM
Comment #325093

“Your people hand him a budget deficit already over a trillion,”

The exact amount was $1.4 trillion. The largest on record.

Posted by: Rich at June 29, 2011 10:12 AM
Comment #325094

I guess $1.4 trillion is a good excuse to spend another $3.4 trillion in the past 2 1/2 years, with I might add, no results except to place us in further debt.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 29, 2011 10:43 AM
Comment #325095

CT,
No results? The stock market is a leading indicator. It stood at 8281.22 when Obama took office. It now stands at 12225, a fantastic performance. Why is the stock market doing so well? By taking that additional debt, the Obama administration stabilized the market, boosted confidence, stopped the hemorrhage of job losses, and started adding jobs again. Oh. And did you know the economy is slowing to a projected growth rate of only 2.5%?

The truth is, CT, conservatives like yourself voted for Bush, supported conservative Bush economic policies, and it was a disaster. A disaster. The Obama administration has been cleaning up the stinking mess conservatives left in the middle of the country’s living room. Don’t do that and then complain the new management didn’t clean it up fast enough.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2011 11:05 AM
Comment #325096

I listened to the Bachmann interview with Mike Wallace in its entirety and I heard absolutely nothing to substantiate the comments made by phx8 as a result of posting a sound bite made by the liberal media and blog sites. I find her to be an intelligent woman who has much more experience in the private and public sector than President Obama. I would suggest everyone actually listen to the interview.

Phx8 has based his entire post on a comment made by Wallace, that Bachmann is a flake, but Wallace clearly made the statement that some of the media and others have claimed she is a flake. Wallace did not call her a flake. I believe she did a very good job defending her beliefs. Here is the link:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/index.html#/v/1025286407001/bachmann-talks-earmarks-obamacare-and-gay-marriage/?playlist_id=86913

Secondly, here is the response that Mike Wallace makes concerning his questioning of Bachmann:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/index.html#/v/1024372786001/wallace-unplugged-monday-edition-627/?playlist_id=86913

Wallace said himself that he was simply repeating what others had said about Bachmann and he even said her answers where strong. I find it disturbing that one would try to deceive people by posting a sound bite and then trying to expand on in with rhetoric instead of facts. I also find it very disturbing that the author as well as others would use this as an excuse to attack Christian beliefs. There are no politicians who are free from making gaffs, as some liberal writers have also testified; so gaffs are made on both sides. I’m sure we can all agree the king of gaffs has to be Vice President Biden, who has made some whoppers in the past 3 ½ years, so why would this even be a issue? Unless the sole purpose is to personally attack any serious candidate from the right?

The left has always attacked Palin, because the left has always considered her a threat and now the attacks begin on Bachmann for the same reasons. I once heard, “you can tell who the left fears, by their personal attacks”, and I believe it is true. Not much has been said about Rick Perry, but if he throws his hat in the ring, let’s see how the personal attacks begin.

The link below is the reason for Bachmann’s character assassination:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/28/989495/-New-polling-shows-Bachmann-surge?via=tag

If it wasn’t for her rise in the polls, the l;eft would never have anything to say about her. But she could be a real threat and like Palin; the left would rather personally attack her and make her look like an idiot, instead of dealng with the issues that face America.

Posted by: Mike at June 29, 2011 11:37 AM
Comment #325097

dbs,
Regarding a reference to the worst president ever, you write: “sorry bud that title belongs to the current squatter in the white house.”

Thank you for proving my point about Bachmann. Go ahead. Continue using such language. Call Obama a “squatter.” That is why the title of this article ends with the words “Democrats Rejoice.”

Please elaborate. Use your words. Why do you think Obama is the worst president ever? For example, I might note that when Bush took office, the stock market stood at 10,587.89, and eight years later, declined to 8281.22. When the stock market goes down, that is generally considered a bad thing. That bad performance puts Bush squarely in the running for Worst President Ever. Under Obama, the market has gone up. That is generally considered a good thing.

Now, you might be uncomfortable with facts and numbers and statistics, so it may be necessary to stick with name calling and vile aspersions. That’s what I expect. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2011 11:41 AM
Comment #325098

phx8, and you are basing a growing economy only on the stock market, which can move up or down as a result of many factors? Great analysis from socialists. Tell the 18% of unemployed Americans you drivel…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 29, 2011 11:44 AM
Comment #325099

SD

Obama’s mandate is to transform America. He is certainly trying to achieve that!! What needs transformed?

The rest of your stuff above is more broken records, stuck records, instant re-play, and re-hashed junk you do so well. No original thought, nothing new.

“I can sell our President on merits alone.”

If he were a house you would have to do a short sell. What merits are you speaking of?

-Apologizing to the world for our badness?
-Inexperience on finances?
-czars with extreme far-left beliefs?
-lying about legislation he backs and signs onto?
-ignorance about the number of states in the Union?
-more than a friendship with the Ayers clan?
-Pastor Wright?
-going to war without authority?
-filing suit against states who are trying to do their job?
-stopping Boeing from building a plant and creating jobs?

That is the first 10 selling points. You must be one hell-ofa salesman. Oops, the sale isn’t complete. Ya’ still gotta kick the tires.

This president is the novelty president. That is, people voted for him for the novelty of it. There was no record to run on. No information about him. Lied about his life and where he spent it. The only info was his friendship with the Ayers group, his mentor, Douglas, a communist, his pastor who preached venom, voted to kill babies after they were delivered, wants to transform America (into what), spend like there is not tomorrow, and raise taxes.

That is another 10 selling points. Well the contract on the sell you want to do has not been signed by the necessary voters yet. I venture to say there will be a lack of signatures necessary.

Posted by: tom humes at June 29, 2011 11:46 AM
Comment #325101

CT,

The economy has grown since Obama took office. The the nose dive the economy took during the last year of the Bush administration has leveled off and we are on a slow climb back. The enormous amount of private sector household debt will take time to work out. While everyone has been concentrating on the public debt, little attention has been paid to the very reasons for the crash in the first place: excessive private sector debt enabled by a de-regulated financial system that created a huge housing bubble. That can not be resolved overnight.

If conservatives have anything to offer about facilitating an economic recovery, I haven’t heard it. All they talk about is that Obama hasn’t achieved it quickly enough. So, what’s their alternative?

Posted by: Rich at June 29, 2011 12:17 PM
Comment #325102


While it is possible that Obama could be considered one of the worst presidents, I doubt seriously that he can break into the bottom 5 worst presidents. The Republicans have a pretty good lock on the bottom.

CT, I would think that the last thing that Republicans would want within the next year, is an economic resurgence with many of the unemployed finding work.

I heard that the Republicans in Congress have found a tax cut they don’t like. Hard to believe, isn’t it. One that might stimulate the economy and produce jobs.

Bachmann is a flake and the Democrats would love it if she where to win the nomination. The hard core conservatives are going to have to swallow their pride and accept Romney. That will definitely get the Democrats attention.

I think the real action may be in the Republican primaries. I wish the Democrats primaries would be just as exciting.

Romney and coattails, the Republicans and conservatives best political opportunity.

Posted by: jlw at June 29, 2011 12:23 PM
Comment #325103

SD said he is more than willing to condemn a democrat, if the democrat is wrong:

Comment #325085: “I’ll defend them to the hilt if I believe the charges are wrong, but if they’re not, I won’t come up with dozens of ridiculous reasons to continue support.”

Let’s put this claim to the test; today obam claimed, during a speech on the economy, that: “Despite Obama administration warnings that failing to do so would devastate the economy, a clear majority of Americans say they oppose raising the debt limit, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows.”I don’t think that’s real radical, I think the majority of Americans agree with that … [These revenue increases are ] coming out of folks who are doing extremely well and are enjoying the lowest tax rates since before I was born. If you are a CEO or hedge fund manager, your taxes are lower than they’ve been since 1950.”

http://www.salon.com/print.html?URL=/tech/htww/2011/06/29/obama_naive_class_warfare

Obama is a liar; today’s upper tax rate is 35%. Bu under Reagan it was 28% and under Bush one, it was 28-31%. So obama lied for the purpose of exaulting himself.

Now, does SD want to defend obama again, or does he want to comdemn him for lying. Or perhaps we can look behind curtain #3, and say it was just a slip of the tongue, similar to Bachmann’s slips.

To phx8; here is one of the polls you trust:


“Just 27 percent of Americans support raising the debt limit, while 63 percent oppose raising it.”


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056258-503544.htm?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Is this CBS poll correct, or do you now trash them like you do Rasmussen

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 29, 2011 4:29 PM
Comment #325104

Well, I screwed that up good, by combining 2 statements, Ill try again:

“I don’t think that’s real radical, I think the majority of Americans agree with that … [These revenue increases are ] coming out of folks who are doing extremely well and are enjoying the lowest tax rates since before I was born. If you are a CEO or hedge fund manager, your taxes are lower than they’ve been since 1950.”

http://www.salon.com/print.html?URL=/tech/htww/2011/06/29/obama_naive_class_warfare

and to phx8:

“Despite Obama administration warnings that failing to do so would devastate the economy, a clear majority of Americans say they oppose raising the debt limit, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows.


Just 27 percent of Americans support raising the debt limit, while 63 percent oppose raising it.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056258-503544.htm?tag=contentMain;contentBody


Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 29, 2011 4:38 PM
Comment #325105

stephen


“Damn, you just know how to pick them, don’t you?”

absolutely !!!!


“You’re wrapped up in your vision of the world, that you won’t hesitate to bulldoze any recovery we’ve got in order to win.”

if the recovery were a mound of dirt, it would take no more than a child with beach pail and shovel to ” bulldoze ” it.


phx8


“When the stock market goes down, that is generally considered a bad thing.”


and when unemployment goes up that is also a bad thing. the price of gas was $1.85 when bush left office. it’s what now? when the stock market goes up and the value of the dollar goes down that is not a good thing. what was the highest unemployment rate under bush? how high did the market go while he was in office.

here this might refresh your memory

http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia1900.html

you’ll like this one too. who has presided over the higher unemployment statistics. looks like the porkulus worked well.


http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000


“you might be uncomfortable with facts and numbers and statistics, so it may be necessary to stick with name calling and vile aspersions.”


i’m not at all uncomfortable with the facts. vile asperations? name calling? the title of your post is what?

Posted by: dbs at June 29, 2011 4:53 PM
Comment #325106

Jlw, I don’t think too many American voters think about who the best 5 or the worst 5 presidents were. We are dealing with a population who can’t even name the current vice president.

It is very cynical to believe republicans would want the economy to stay bad, and continuing to ruin the economic lives of Americans, just for the purpose of winning an election. Do you have some proof of that statement? I do remember when Bill Clinton questioned why 911 cold not have happened on his watch. I guess the reason was so he would have something to be remembered for besides Monica and the blue dress.

Perhaps you could enlighten us on that tax cut the republicans did not like, or is that just hearsay?

If Bachmann is a flake and democrats would love for obama to run against her; why is the left in an all out attempt to discredit her? This doesn’t pass the smell test…

Concerning obama, I personally would not want to see anyone run against him in the primary. He and his record are the one conservatives want to run against. If someone ran against him and won, it would be much harder for a republican to win. And people like SD are living in a fantasy world to think obaa can win a second term.

One more thought; if republican presidents are so bad, why have there been so many republicans elected for a second term and so few democrats elected for 2 terms?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 29, 2011 4:57 PM
Comment #325107

Only in the world of obama:

He rips the congress for taking a vacation at a time of economic crisis, while planning his own vacation at Martha’s Vineyard. By the way, how long has it been since the democrat senate passed a budget? Obama has sent his idiot (Biden) to work on a budget, while he has gone to the golf course (in the past 2 ½ years) more than me, and I’m retired. This man is totally out of touch and a complete joke.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/06/obama-scolds-congress-says-malia-and-sasha-are-more-disciplined.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/06/29/obamas_to_summer_on_marthas_vineyard_once_more/

But we are supposed to believe obama is really concerned about the economy…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 29, 2011 5:20 PM
Comment #325108

Two thirds of Americans cancel vacation plans:

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/06/29/americans-vacation-plans/

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 29, 2011 5:24 PM
Comment #325109

“Just 27 percent of Americans support raising the debt limit, while 63 percent oppose raising it.”

Well, that’s a pretty shocking poll result. Bachmann opposes raising the debt ceiling, and calls warnings from the Obama administration “scare tactics.”

(By the way, re the ‘John Wayne’ gaffe, Bachmann said: ” “People can make mistakes and I wish I could be perfect every time I say something, but I can’t.” Good for her! That’s the way to handle the occasional mistake and soften the “flake” reputation, NOT pretending the parents lived there or some foolish rationalization).

To date, Romney has refused to commit to the debt ceiling question.

So most people do not want to see the debt ceiling raised? Failure to do so would mean the equivalent of an instantaneous jump of 1/2% in interest rates and an unknown drop in the value of US currency. It would be a disaster, and effectively shove the country back into recession. I wonder if people understand that.

Personally, I think there is very little chance of not raising the ceiling. The banks own the GOP and much of the Senate, and they are not about to let the Republicans tank the economy. From their point of view, the financial sector is about making money, NOT driving the country into recession and even depression just in order to elect more Republicans in 2012. The financial sector will make its wishes known, and a deal will be made.

By the way, that same poll says 25% of Americans do not believe Obama was born in this country. Nice.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2011 6:05 PM
Comment #325111

“Just 27 percent of Americans support raising the debt limit, while 63 percent oppose raising it.”

Perhaps, if they simply asked if the US should pay its bills, the answers might have reversed. Perhaps, if politicians and the media properly explained the consequences of not raising the debt limit, there would have been an entirely different response. Perhaps if the public truly understood the consequences of an austerity approach, the answers might be quite different. Somebody might actually look at what has happened in Ireland and Great Britain since they adopted an austerity approach.

Posted by: Rich at June 29, 2011 6:08 PM
Comment #325112

About Bush, you ask: “How high did the market go while he was in office?”

That’s a little bit like asking Mrs. Lincoln “How did you like the play?” And you know, no one ever gives Herbert Hoover credit for the stock market high during his administration. Gee. That’s just not fair, is it?

As for Bush, the market stood at 10,587 when he assumed office, and peaked at 14,164.53 on 10/9/07. That’s a slightly below average gain over a period of almost seven years. It took place during the weakest economic recovery since WWII. The market then crashed, and stood at @ 8000 when Obama took office.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2011 6:33 PM
Comment #325113

phx8


“It would be a disaster, and effectively shove the country back into recession.”


earth to phx8!!! it never ended. that is,… except in the mind of the obamatons.


“Failure to do so would mean the equivalent of an instantaneous jump of 1/2% in interest rates”

hate to rain on your parade, but without a major change in US monetary policy, interest rates will have to be raised just lure lenders. under reagan the top tax rate was 28%. go back and check the growth in the economy, and increase in tax receipts to the gov’t. notice the increase in revenue just after the time of the tax cuts?

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

Posted by: dbs at June 29, 2011 6:47 PM
Comment #325114

CT,
You falsely accuse Obama of mistating his case re tax rates. Please watch the sequence on video, see what Obama said, and apologize.

Dbs,
Oh no. Is this one of those things where you re-define recession? Ugh. Not interested.

“…without a major change in US monetary policy, interest rates will have to be raised just lure lenders.”

No. That’s just wrong. Check with reality and get back to me. Check the bond market’s yield curve.


Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2011 7:14 PM
Comment #325115

Obama’s assertion that taxes are lower than any time since 1950 is essentially correct. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

Posted by: Rich at June 29, 2011 8:18 PM
Comment #325116
who has presided over the higher unemployment statistics. looks like the porkulus worked well.
Who presided over the economic crisis that took the unemployment rate up 5%. GWB. Who was left cleaning up the mess? Obama. What you call the porkulus was roughly 33% tax cuts dbs. So much for the nonsensical conservative approach to creating jobs, right?


Posted by: j2t2 at June 29, 2011 8:26 PM
Comment #325117

p8xh said:

“The banks own the GOP and much of the Senate, and they are not about to let the Republicans tank the economy.”

Let’s see now; which party handed billions of dollars over to bail out the banks, hmmm, can we say democrats?

“Just 27 percent of Americans support raising the debt limit, while 63 percent oppose raising it.”

Well, that’s a pretty shocking poll result. Bachmann opposes raising the debt ceiling, and calls warnings from the Obama administration “scare tactics.”

“By the way, that same poll says 25% of Americans do not believe Obama was born in this country. Nice.”

So now we are trashing the CBS News poll, but phx8 said to Mike, “Here is a partial- I say again, partial- list of legitimate polling organizations: ABC, NBC, CBS, Harris, AP, Gallup, IPSOS-Reuters, Pew, and Quinnipiac.”

I guess we can scratch CBS because they failed to make obama look good…

“So most people do not want to see the debt ceiling raised? Failure to do so would mean the equivalent of an instantaneous jump of 1/2% in interest rates and an unknown drop in the value of US currency. It would be a disaster, and effectively shove the country back into recession.”

So, what is the feds unlimited printing of money doing for the US currency?

Disaster? Tell me phx8; will the current tax revenue continue to flow into the fed coffers, or does it all shut down the day we refuse to raise the debt ceiling? Yes, obama scare tactics.

Rich gave us his words of wisdom:

“Perhaps, if they simply asked if the US should pay its bills, the answers might have reversed. Perhaps, if politicians and the media properly explained the consequences of not raising the debt limit, there would have been an entirely different response.”

Perhaps the public already knows all the liberal hype is bullshit. I don’t see how the public could not know “consequences of not raising the debt limit”; the socialist democrats and the “in the bed with obama” MSM have done their best to spread the bullshit lies. What else could have been done, and still the American public is calling for spending cuts. They are so stupid and liberals are so smart.

Back to phx8:

“CT,
You falsely accuse Obama of mistating his case re tax rates. Please watch the sequence on video, see what Obama said, and apologize.”

Okay, let me see…..is this a trick question? Are we dealing with a Bill Clinton is/is moment? I will apologize when you stop attacking conservative women, ok?

“Obama’s assertion that taxes are lower than any time since 1950 is essentially correct.” http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/
Posted by: Rich at June 29, 2011 08:18 PM

Rich, I should have read further down, my bad; it was a trick question. You guys on the left have no shame; if it doesn’t say what you want, just change the rules. Let me give an example:

“Who presided over the economic crisis that took the unemployment rate up 5%. GWB. Who was left cleaning up the mess? Obama. What you call the porkulus was roughly 33% tax cuts dbs. So much for the nonsensical conservative approach to creating jobs, right?”

Posted by: j2t2 at June 29, 2011 08:26 PM

There are about 14 million Americans who would love to see 5% unemployment right now… Only a socialist liberal could call going from 5% unemployment to 9.1% unemployment as cleaning up the mess, go figure.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 29, 2011 10:30 PM
Comment #325118

This has to go down in history as one of the most conceded, arrogant, elitist SOB’s who ever lived:

John Kerry: “I Would Have Been A Good President, Maybe Even A Great One”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/06/29/john_kerry_i_would_have_been_a_good_president_maybe_even_a_great_one.html

Or this one:

“Jewish Dems losing faith in Obama”

“If several dozen interviews with POLITICO are any indication, a similar conversation is taking place in Jewish communities across the country. Obama’s speech last month seems to have crystallized the doubts many pro-Israel Democrats had about Obama in 2008 in a way that could, on the margins, cost the president votes and money in 2012 and will not be easy to repair.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CCC173C6-27F6-4CEA-B94F-B0DB75F91846

Obama is like Roger Dangerfield; he gets no respect… After all the crap he has shoved down the throats of the American people, and the ungrateful masses don’t appreciate a thing he has done. Except for WB liberals…

How about this one:

“Nerves Show on Team Obama”

“Recent scrambling by the president’s political advisers indicates they’re very worried about his reelection chances”

“It’s been a rough June for the White House. Instead of being able to run a campaign taking credit for economic improvement, President Obama will, according to the latest forecasts, be trying to win four more years amid a grim economy next year. The president’s reelection team, once hoping to run on a “Morning in America” theme now doesn’t have that luxury…Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz recently said Democrats own the economy”.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/nerves-show-on-team-obama-20110628?page=1

Wait, who made that quote?

“Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz recently said Democrats own the economy”.

Oh, it was one of the most liberal democraps in DC and she said obama and the dems owned the economy; I guess the socialist libs on WB didn’t get that memo. They still think Bush owns it, even after $3.4 trillion spent and almost 3 years.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 29, 2011 10:58 PM
Comment #325119

CT,
No one liked the bailout of the banks. That was ugly. The Democrats did what they had to do. It worked, at least in terms of stabilizing the economy.

You misunderstood my comment about the CBS poll. I was making the comment about the content of the poll, that so many Americans actually believe Obama is not an American citizen. I was not doubting the veracity of the information.

Re the debt ceiling: will it be a disaster if the ceiling is not raised, and the country defaults? Yes. It is not a matter of revenues, (at least not immediately), but of investor confidence in the currency and bonds. If the bonds and currency are more risky, investors will require a premium; in the case of bonds, more interest.

Bonds make the financial world go around. Bonds are where the big money plays, the money of the largest governments on the planet. These investors, these governments, they do not care about capital appreciation. They want and need financial security. Bonds are secure because issuing governments can back them through taxation. That puts investors at ease, and makes them feel secure. The interest will be paid. The principal will be safe. It’s guaranteed.

In the case of the United States, when we refuse to raise the debt ceiling, it means we will not make good on what we own, in particular because we do not want to back the bonds through taxes.

‘Scare tactics’? If we scare investors, interest rates go up. The full faith and credit of the United States, which supposedly backs the currency, becomes subject to doubt.

Look, there’s no way- no way- that the Democrats and Republicans will allow a default. No way. What we’re seeing is political theater, it’s posturing. Actually refusing to raise the debt ceiling would be the height of irresponsibility.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2011 11:25 PM
Comment #325120

dbs-
Top tax rate was 28 percent.
By the END of the Reagan Administration, after 1986.

Even so, Reagan was forced to cancel a lot of tax breaks and destroy a lot of tax shelters to do it, and raise taxes on plenty of other items than just income to make up for that.

For most of his time in office, the top tax rate was more like fifty percent.

And what was the effect of all this tax cutting? debateable, really. His most profound cuts came first, and rather than fill the coffers of the treasure to running over, the deficit exploded (sound familiar?) From the date he began these tax cuts, the markets didn’t jump for joy, they dropped like a rock, coming into the recession that would define most of Reagan’s first term. The legend is purer and promotes the policy better than the reality.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2011 12:14 AM
Comment #325121

Conservativethinker-
The polls would tell you not bailing out the banks or the auto companies would prove the best course of action.

Except neither would have been. People aren’t stupid, but they can be naive, misled, or mistaken regardless of their intelligence level.

Truth is, nobody really remembers an actual, full blown default by the US government. Hell, you could go as far back as the Founding Fathers themselves, and you would not find that occuring.

The Republicans had the choice not to spend back in march. They chose to spend instead. Now we’re dealing with the debt ceiling, which is about authorizing the treasury to take the steps necessary to pay for it.

Your side is somehow working off the notion of magic money, as if deficit spending just creates it out of nothing. But it doesn’t. People across the world lend us the money, give us the cash we require to pay off what we’ve decided to spend.

It’s bad that we’re having to pay for so much of this by taking out debts, but at least we’re paying for it. Your idea won’t make things better, it will add another layer of severity to our problem. It will add high interest rates where there were none. It will make unwilling creditors of more people, where there were willing creditors before. It will also make what was already a difficult and expensive national debt even more of a problem.

Your people operate off the notion that spending cuts don’t affect an economy, or effect them positively. Any proof of that? Most certainly there will be businesse out of luck, or people who might have gotten needed assistance than don’t. For you, those disadvantaged by all this are a joke, a bunch of people, who, out of your sight, have been dismissed as unimportant.

That is, until you need a talking point to slam Democrats with. Truth of the matter is, until your party starts remember it’s got a nation’s interests to look after, not just a political agenda to implement, it’s going to be in real bad shape.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2011 12:48 AM
Comment #325122

“So, what is the feds unlimited printing of money doing for the US currency?”

The Fed flooding the economy with newly printed money. Period. It is increasing liquidity in the markets by converting existing Treasuries to cash. There has been no net financial gain in the private sector. That has had an effect in the commodity and stock markets but has had little or no effect in increasing the money supply in the main economy. Borrowing or credit expansion in the general economy remains depressed as people seek to de-leverage from debt and save. The ability of the Fed using monetary policy to increase the money supply has been weak.

Posted by: Rich at June 30, 2011 3:58 AM
Comment #325124

j2t2


“What you call the porkulus was roughly 33% tax cuts dbs. So much for the nonsensical conservative approach to creating jobs, right?”


what cuts would those be? oh, and continuing the existing rates under bush doesn’t count as a cut. keep in mind taxes were actually raised when you consider the death tax was re instated.


phx8


“Oh no. Is this one of those things where you re-define recession? Ugh. Not interested.”

it was ok when democrats did it, now it isn’t? if you asked the average working person if they are better off now then they were 3 years ago. what do you suppose thier answer would be? let me help you……..NO.

Posted by: dbs at June 30, 2011 5:38 AM
Comment #325125

dbs,

Actually, 37% or $288 billion of the stimulus package was allocated to tax incentives for individuals and corporations. They weren’t permanent cuts, of course, as they were part of the stimulus package but they were not simply continuation of the Bush cuts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Tax_incentives

The estate tax was indeed reinstated for 2011 as provided for by the Bush act of 2001 which only suspended the tax for one year in 2010 and resumed the tax in 2011 with 2002 level exemptions. The Act Obama signed into law in late 2010 essentially amended the original Bush act providing for a substantially increased personal exemption of $5 million and providing for transfer of the exemptions between spouses.

Posted by: Rich at June 30, 2011 8:26 AM
Comment #325126

dbs-
Amazing how blind Republicans are to tax cuts when they’re not made to the rich. Or Right-Wingers, as the case may be. Among other cuts was a significant cut to taxes on middle to low income earners that elevated take-home earnings beginning in April of 2009.

The Republicans couldn’t even get that right, claiming that people would still have to pay those taxes later, which was an absolute lie.

The really strange thing is that Republicans opposed renewing this.

As for whether people were better off three years ago?

People were better off three years ago because in 2008, the market was propped up by a hell of a lot of shady business which essentially collapsed that same year, creating our current situation. We had to fight the worst drop in GDP since my Grandparents were kids, with your people on our backs inhibiting government intervention every step of the way.

If you want a reason why we’re not better off, well then one answer is the right-wing’s refusal to believe that anybody else’s ideas could work, and it’s refusal to believe their own ideas haven’t worked. The deficit is a red herring here, because Republicans would have been glad to do 700 billion in just tax cuts. That was their proposal. What they objected to, ironically enough, was actually using money to pay for work, to pay for project, to pay for actual things, rather than just to reward more concentration of wealth.

The Republicans have revealed their priorities, and their hypocrisy time and again. Spending causes deficits they say, but cuts in revenues somehow magically don’t, despite the fact that their numerical effect is essentially the same, for the same dollar’s value. Fact of the matter is, it’s unlikely that anything they pass this year will even offset the tax cuts they continued, at the expense of our deficit. They’re not real deficit cutters! It’s about time that we say out loud what right-wingers like you refuse to admit: your policies don’t actually reduced debt and deficits, they increase them!

The Tea Party has only added a layer of fanaticism and callous disregard for this nation’s economic security to that mix. They’re so wrapped up in the propaganda, that many would be content to provoke the first clear and deliberate default in American history, a default most credible economists state would at least have the effect of raising interest rates, and increasing the real burden of the deficit, rather than removing it. Like Obama said yesterday, it’s not as if these people decided that oh, they couldn’t afford the trip or the car. No, they’ve bought the better part of a year’s worth of government already. Now they’re arguing as to whether they’re going to give the treasury the authority to pay for it.

If this happens, it will be a deliberate result of Republican policy, because the Democrats never sought to take America to the brink of this particular crisis. Only Republicans and those on the right have been foolish enough to tempt fate by forcing this on the American people, and I sure hope my party makes them pay for it, because this is not something you do to America when you really love it. If screwing up America’s finances, which are as of now pristine, is your idea of expressing the love of your country, then please keep that love to yourself, because America deserves better kinds of affection.

The stewardship of this nation’s good fortunes is more important than the political ideology of any one party or group. Competence and care come first.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2011 8:33 AM
Comment #325128

libs in general

It is really ignorant of you libs to sit here and say the republicans did this or didn’t do this. The entire congress is guilty of your charges. All you do is reframe it and leave out or put into your claims as you please.

Then SD tries to pontificate about how great the democrats are because they don’t act like republicans. There is more truth in one road apple than what you have penned above.

There is nothing to debate when talking points, liberal press releases, do nothing leaders, and bloggers, who all they want to do is demonize others because they don’t do it their way.

“People aren’t stupid, but they can be naive, misled, or mistaken regardless of their intelligence level.”

SD, you are a witness to that quote. Intelligence is not the factor, though. Wisdom is the factor. Wisdom has a component called common sense, and also truth.

From your writings above you have not exhibited wisdom. Many people have intelligence, but when it comes to politics very few have wisdom. We see that daily and it has no boundaries.

You will someday, hopefully acquire wisdom. Until then the ego trip of intelligence continues.

I will give you an example of intelligence vs. wisdom.

I have two sons who are adopted. They both have IQ’s above 150. That is an indicator of intelligence. But, neither exhibit wisdom. Some day, just like you, they will hopefully acquire wisdom.

After today, will be gone for a week. That gives you open season on me anyway. So take your best shots.

Posted by: tom humes at June 30, 2011 10:57 AM
Comment #325129

Well said, Stephen.

I will say again, what we are seeing is political theater, posturing. That’s fine, if the two sides work out fair compromises to reign in spending and increase revenues; in fact, I think the GOP is painting itself into a corner, because a successful compromise will be seen as a great achievement for Obama, while a failure to reach a deal will cause blame for the ensuing economic downturn to fall squarely on the GOP.

A failed compromise would be disastrous, and by failed, I mean an unfair one which caves in to GOP demands without resolving the revenue side of the equation- cutting corporate loopholes would be adequate. It would be perceived- quite correctly- as a sign of weakness by Obama.

The GOP chose this particular fight, and I’m beginning to think they chose unwisely.

Again, great comment. Couldn’t agree more.

Posted by: phx8 at June 30, 2011 11:13 AM
Comment #325130

Round 2 on intelligence.

The president issued EO #13575.

It is an order setting up a Council made up of 24 separate Departments, Offices, Agencies, etc. of the federal government, plus more as the president deems necessary.

The purpose is to tell the farmers of these United States what to grow, when to grow, how much to grow, and more.

Most of the bureaucrats in these areas of government only know how to throw BS and could not recognize it if they stepped in it. That is as much as they know about farming.

Now that is intelligence you can not believe in.

What does DHS have to do with farming?
What does DOT have to do with farming?
What does DOJ have to do with farming?
What dows DOD have to do with farming?

The more proper word here probably should be farting.
I’ll have to go back and read it over again to make sure I used the right word.

As I said there are 24+ bureaus of the federal government involved in this overstepping of authority.

If you thought your grocery bill was rising, watch it skyrocket now.

Posted by: tom humes at June 30, 2011 12:39 PM
Comment #325131

tom humes,

Did you actually read the EO, or is all this sphincter clutching coming from someone else’s opinion?

You guys out there in right field land assume you are well informed, but all you do is spout each other’s opinions.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 30, 2011 1:26 PM
Comment #325132

Rocky,
This EO sounds like the work of Reverend Wright and the Ayers clan. It’s what you get when you have a president who pals around with terrorists. Why, he doesn’t even know how many states are in the union!

Posted by: phx8 at June 30, 2011 2:03 PM
Comment #325133


Tom, you and Stephen are both right and wrong.

The agenda followed by the government, in the last thirty years, should properly be labeled the corporate agenda. Nearly 100% of the Republicans and at least 70% of the Democrats supported that agenda.

If you check the voting records of Congress during that period, you will discover that there was one group of holdouts, the progressives.

Agriculture has the potential of being a major target of terrorists. E Coli and other biological agents can and probably will be used as weapons in the future.

The War on Terror has given the government lots of excuses for keeping closer tabs on the American people. Technology is giving the government the means to do so.

Posted by: jlw at June 30, 2011 2:07 PM
Comment #325134

tom humes-
You really ought to cut down on the rhetorical trash talk.

People got their own lives to live, their own interests to follow. On the surface, not raising the debt ceiling sounds fine. After all, getting more into debt is uncontroversially a bad thing.

Except we’re running a sovereign system here. The value of our currency, and the quality of our credit depends on meeting our obligations. That means the obligations to our creditors. That means the obligations to those we’ve promised to pay, under our budget.

Let’s be clear on this: failing to raise the debt ceiling won’t save us a dime. Emergency taxes or spending cuts will bear economic consequences. The economy is not strong enough to absorb the loss of over a trillion dollars over the next year The rise in the costs of financing our debt will claw back much of our growth for a long time to come. Every outcome the Republicans profess to wanting to prevent will come about.

Explain the wisdom of that. Last I heard, the wise thing to do was not to lose trust, not to let a problem come to such a head. Last I heard, it was wise not to borrow trouble. America needs stability and growth.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2011 2:20 PM
Comment #325135

phx8,

“It’s what you get when you have a president who pals around with terrorists.”

That and apparently I missed the vast socialist takeover.

BTW, somebody mentioned that the left is afraid of Bachmann, and therefore that is why she is being “attacked”. Poor Michele.
From what I have seen, this, IMHO is chump change. If she can’t handle it now how could she possibly face what she might get from even her own side during the campaign.

She has two choices;

She can deal with it like Palin did, which is to say poorly, or she can show some character (yawn) and move on.

Politics is a contact sport, especially in a Presidential race.
The sooner she learns that, the better she might do.

Though I’m not holding my breath.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 30, 2011 2:29 PM
Comment #325136

Rocky,
Bachmann made herself look like a fool when she talked about the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling as mere ‘scare tactics.’ A person who does not understand the consequences has no business- literally, no business- running for president.

Romney has the wisdom to stay on the fence. He could be a formidable opponent in the general election if he can make it past the know-nothings in his party. Unfortunately, he has reversed himself on major positions in order to ingratiate himself with them.

Posted by: phx8 at June 30, 2011 2:39 PM
Comment #325137

Rocky

Before the first letter I typed above on the EO, I read it and copied it for my files. There are 5 sections to it. Section 3 is the listing for all the members of the Council. This is just one more power grab for the feds.

This is standard SOP for me. I don’t need assistance from other organizations, talking heads, etc. I can read and understand and comprehend what I am reading and then analyze what I have read. I am a poor example of a sheep.

This administration just can’t get enough power over the electorate.

Or course, I have to remind myself that candidate BHO said he wanted to “transform” America. Transform America into what? We are learning.

Posted by: tom humes at June 30, 2011 3:28 PM
Comment #325138

tom humes,

“This administration just can’t get enough power over the electorate.”

You must sleep with the light on at night because there must surely be bogymen in your closet. Everything has to be a conspiracy, especially when it comes to Obama.

Yeah I read it too, perhaps the dictionary in your vast storehouse of files defines words differently than mine does. I just don’t see what you see here.

What I see is a council made up of the various departments of government designed to make the best out of what we have.

Nowhere in the document does it say anything about a takeover of anything. Nowhere in the document does it even hint at a vast governmental power shift.

You don’t have even a scintilla of evidence of this vast socialistic take over you seem to think is inevitable.

You’re not making any sense.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 30, 2011 3:49 PM
Comment #325139

tom humes

obama is nothing more than an empty suit. the last three years have proved that. the very fact that the left spends as much time as they do on demonizing, and character assasination of republican candidates such as michelle bachman tells me they are very afraid, and realize they are hanging on to thier power by a thread.

regardless of what he does nothing gets any better. they know nov 2012 will soon be here, and the “hope and change we can believe in” will thankfully be history. it’s a good thing because this country cannot afford anymore of his marxist rememdies. the 2010 midterms were just the start. IMO 2012 will be the king of all a$$handers for the left, and they know it. let’s just hope they are foolish enough to try and get him re electd.

Posted by: dbs at June 30, 2011 4:39 PM
Comment #325140

stephen


“Among other cuts was a significant cut to taxes on middle to low income earners that elevated take-home earnings beginning in April of 2009”


bull$#%@, i’m in that category, and i have seen NO SIGNIFICANT increase in my take home pay. BTW low income earners pay 0 income tax, because they get back every cent and more at the end of the year. i won’t waste my time posting the link again, but the bottom 50% pay almost zilch.


” If screwing up America’s finances, which are as of now pristine, is your idea of expressing the love of your country, then please keep that love to yourself, because America deserves better kinds of affection.”


americas finances as of now are “PRISTINE”? really? good god stephen, do you actually believe what you’ve written? that’s incredible.

Posted by: dbs at June 30, 2011 4:56 PM
Comment #325141

Rocky

Why does it take 24+ department heads to help the farmer grow better corn?

When you have 24+ department heads getting involved with the farmer, as in the past, the farmer will get more controls over his own destiny.

Posted by: tom humes at June 30, 2011 5:20 PM
Comment #325142

tome humes,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201100431/pdf/DCPD-201100431.pdf

“Sec. 4. Mission and Function of the Council. The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration’s engagement with rural communities. The Council shall:
(a) make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America;
(b) coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America;
(c) coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas; and
(d) identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation related activities.”


“When you have 24+ department heads getting involved with the farmer, as in the past, the farmer will get more controls over his own destiny.

Where exactly in the above does it say that?

This is a regional act. It is dealing with groups and communities, not individuals.
You and those like you are spinning this as a government takeover, just as you, and those like you have spun anything Obama does as a government takeover.

You are making a vast assumption based on nothing, and if you can stick your thumb in Obama’s eye while you’re at it you surely seem willing to do so.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 30, 2011 5:35 PM
Comment #325143

dbs-
The problem for your people is that we would actually welcome a Michele Bachmann nomination.

I’m serious. Put an extremist like her center stage, please. Make the re-election of Barack Obama more likely.

I think the reaction of those on the right to our making fun of her is the more significant of the two. A reasonable Republican Party would be aiming for candidate who can satisfy both the right and the center, but Bachmann is none of the above. Liberals like me would be rolling out her extremist quotes by the dozens, and she most likely would be selling fresh crops of it every time she made a stump speech.

Your side’s lost all perspective on what’s mainstream.

As far as the tax cuts go, they are a matter of public record. They already expired. You might not have noticed them, but the point wasn’t to make them noticeable, but rather give people an imperceptible bump in their finances. So disbelieve at your own credibility’s risk.

As far as our nation’s finances being pristine? Well, they are. America might be in greater debt, but it has paid it’s creditors on time, all the time. For that reason we have a AAA credit rating, the best possible. People who lend to the government, know that the USA is good for its payments.

Why ruin that? It won’t help our deficit problem. The money we’re raising the debt limit for is already authorized by Congress. To not raise the debt limit would be to try and run out on the bill for what we’ve already bought, and the consequences are going to be worse than washing dishes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2011 5:41 PM
Comment #325144

Rocky

As in past history, when you put that many agencies of the federal government on a project, it has always been more control of the problem and trying to fix something that is not broken, so that they can fix the now broken item. That is the way the federal government works.

“Where exactly in the above does it say that?”

They never say explicitly what they are going to do. That would kill the whole plan.

I didn’t thing you were that naive, Rocky. You know they never say what they plan on doing, they just put out a directive and go do what they really want to do without saying what they really want to do.

Why does it take 24+ high level administrators to do what this short directive says. It is because the whole think is a lie.

Posted by: tom humes at June 30, 2011 5:59 PM
Comment #325145

Stephen said:

“Conservativethinker-
The polls would tell you not bailing out the banks or the auto companies would prove the best course of action.”

Stephen that is why we have bankruptcy laws and courts, and had the left not created a crisis, in order to protect the unions, this would have all been settled in the courts, the tax payers would not have had to pay for it, and Americans would be buying new cars. But the bailout has infuriated people, and most people would buy a Jap car before they bought a car from GM or Chrysler. So your statement is BS…

Rich said:

“The Fed flooding the economy with newly printed money. Period. It is increasing liquidity in the markets by converting existing Treasuries to cash.”

No Rich, it is causing inflation and the weakening of the US dollar…

Stephen again said:

“Let’s be clear on this: failing to raise the debt ceiling won’t save us a dime. Emergency taxes or spending cuts will bear economic consequences. The economy is not strong enough to absorb the loss of over a trillion dollars over the next year The rise in the costs of financing our debt will claw back much of our growth for a long time to come. Every outcome the Republicans profess to wanting to prevent will come about.”

The problem is Stephen, 63% of Americans don’t want the debt ceiling raised and if it is raised, these people will exercise their disapproval in the voting booth in 2012. If only 27% of the American people support the raising of the debt ceiling, then 27% will support those who raise the debt, but 63% will not support and obama and the dems are in the crosshairs. You conveniently ignored the link I posted earlier:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/nerves-show-on-team-obama-20110628?page=1

But, obama and the dems are in real trouble…

“tom humes
obama is nothing more than an empty suit. the last three years have proved that. the very fact that the left spends as much time as they do on demonizing, and character assasination of republican candidates such as michelle bachman tells me they are very afraid, and realize they are hanging on to thier power by a thread.
regardless of what he does nothing gets any better. they know nov 2012 will soon be here, and the “hope and change we can believe in” will thankfully be history. it’s a good thing because this country cannot afford anymore of his marxist rememdies. the 2010 midterms were just the start. IMO 2012 will be the king of all a$$handers for the left, and they know it. let’s just hope they are foolish enough to try and get him re electd.”
Posted by: dbs at June 30, 2011 04:39 PM

Bingo dbs; you are absolutely correct. As I said earlier, you can always tell who the left is afraid of; it is the one they personally attack and demonize…

Again Stephen, in his lack of understanding, stated:

“dbs-
The problem for your people is that we would actually welcome a Michele Bachmann nomination.
I’m serious. Put an extremist like her center stage, please. Make the re-election of Barack Obama more likely.”

This is a lie straight from the pits of Hell. If the left wanted her to run, they would be praising her. Let me give you an example:

“Alec Baldwin recently waded into the world of Twitter, and he’s already using it as a platform for talking politics. Weighing in on the 2012 presidential race, the “30 Rock” actor declared Friday that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney “has the best chance” of beating Obama.
“Unwarranted fear/loathing of Obama is sad, but real. Romney has that Plymouth Rock last name… and Ken doll appeal that a lot of right-wingers go for,” Baldwin tweeted.
“I mentioned Romney because if he can overcome the Mormon issue with the Christian right, he could win it,” Baldwin wrote. “His contradictions re: Health care can be ironed out by clever GOP and conservative think tank types.”

http://firedoglake.com/2011/06/05/yes-we-get-it-already-a-republican-could-beat-obama-in-2012/

Romney is not popular with conservatives and would have a hard time winning a nomination, but while the liberal left loves to say he is the best chance, why are they not personally attacking him? Instead of attacking the one whom they think has the best chance to beat obama; the left attacks the ones who, they say, has the least chance of beating obama, and it just so happens that these attacks are on strong conservatives. You, Mr. Daugherty, are full of caca.

“A reasonable Republican Party would be aiming for candidate who can satisfy both the right and the center, but Bachmann is none of the above.”

Tell you what Stephen; since you are a registered lefty, why don’t you continue to support your own socialist candidate and let conservatives support their own conservative. A reasonable democratic party would tell obama where to go in hurry, but nobody ever accused socialists of being reasonable. Thanks for your help, but I think we can take care of our own party.

“Your side’s lost all perspective on what’s mainstream.”

What a joke. Stephen, do you just spout words or do you think before you spout? You and the socialist libs represent 20% of American voters, moderates are 40%, and conservatives are 40%. Moderates are bailing from the progressive boat and supporting conservative ideals. Since when does 20% of American voters represent the mainstream? Only in the mind of a liberal…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 30, 2011 6:20 PM
Comment #325146

Tom Humes, have a good week away from the nut house (WB), we will miss you, but every now and then we have to get away in order to maintain our sanity. If we spent too much time on here, we would be a loony as the left…Have a good week, your comments will be missed.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 30, 2011 6:27 PM
Comment #325147

CT

Thanks for the going away words. Really appreciated.

Have a happy 4th with no 5th.lol

All of you have a 4th of July celebration for the day it is meant to be.

God Bless America

Posted by: tom humes at June 30, 2011 6:49 PM
Comment #325148

tom humes,

“Why does it take 24+ high level administrators to do what this short directive says. It is because the whole think is a lie.”

Like I said you are making an assumption. All of the members are heads of their respective departments.

Why, if this was the grand conspiracy you seem to think it is, would these folks be so overt in their actions?

“I didn’t thing you were that naive, Rocky.”

You mean naive like not being a truther, or like not being a birther, not believing that Obama is a Muslim plant?

The minute I see the word “they” used in a sentence like;

“You know they never say what they plan on doing, they just put out a directive and go do what they really want to do without saying what they really want to do.”

my spider sense starts to tingle and my eyes begin to roll.

I looked around and found things like;

http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topics/executive-order-13575-white

“…is designed to begin taking control over almost all aspects of the lives of 16% of the American people.”

And this from;

http://blog.beliefnet.com/watchwomanonthewall/2011/06/does-the-new-%e2%80%98white-house-rural-council%e2%80%99-equal-un%e2%80%99s-agenda-21.html

“You have just lost so much of your freedoms and you had no idea Obama did it with one slash of his pen. America is being gobbled up by subversives who mean to take control of every aspect of your life and every one of your possessions including your thoughts and children.”


Crap like this spreads like wildfire on the Net, and the really sad thing is that the stiffs just eat it up because stuff like this has been repeated so often it just has to be true.

No, I’d have to say that I am not so naive that I would believe this tripe, and I am quite able to see it for the hyperbole it is.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 30, 2011 6:59 PM
Comment #325153

Rocky,

Why bother responding to this tripe? Obama issues a directive for federal agencies to coordinate their efforts to improve the economic well being of rural areas of America. Sounds reasonable to me. But what is the right wing’s take? Its a conspiracy to do something nefarious to US farmers and rural areas of America. What is the plot? No idea, other than when 24 department heads get together its not to solve a problem or coordinate their efforts, its to conspire against Americans. If such thinking were not prevalent among some of the right wing, it would be laughable. The fact that some take it seriously is truly disturbing.

Posted by: Rich at June 30, 2011 9:13 PM
Comment #325154
Tom Humes, have a good week away from the nut house (WB), we will miss you, but every now and then we have to get away in order to maintain our sanity.

Little late for sanity from the extremist right Con, judging from Tom’s latest Obama conspiracy. Better shoot for something a little more in line with the possible Con, say the ability to think a coherent thought without it becoming a conspiracy.

If we spent too much time on here, we would be a loony as the left…Have a good week, your comments will be missed.

Typical conservative, blame the lefties for the imagined conspiracy of the far right and then claim “they” are loonie, I suppose WB is a conspiracy as well Con?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 30, 2011 10:14 PM
Comment #325186

phx8


here is an interesting prognostication by author john ross shortly after the 2008 election.


“President-elect Obama, I wish you all good fortune as you embark on your Presidential career. I suspect that you will come to realize (if you haven’t already) that Socialism and Communism don’t work, that we can’t tax our way into prosperity, and that punishing motivated people who succeed on their own by forcing them to support those with little or no ambition is a recipe for disaster. If you don’t figure those things out, that’s okay too. We might have to wait for the midterm elections of 2010, but one way or another, because of you, the nightmare of Socialism will finally be over for America.”

http://john-ross.net/obama2.php

interesting that he called the 2010 midterms just days after nov 2008. like i said 2012 will more than likely be a disaster for the left.

Posted by: dbs at July 2, 2011 12:41 PM
Comment #325188


dbs, the disaster for the left began more than two decades ago, when their party sold out to the higher bidders.

The party still claims to be the protector of what the left holds dear, while systematically compromising away what the left holds dear.

By an overwhelming margin, the people have rejected the attack on the social programs, but that hasn’t stopped the party from compromising on behalf of those that now pay their way.

For a decade now, poll after poll, year after year, the people have consistently said that the country is on the wrong track, headed in the wrong direction. That has had no effect on either party, because wealth is greasing the track that our train is on. While it may be true that the Republican party is driving the train, it is the Democratic party that is stoking the fire with their giveaways.

It doesn’t matter which party wins in 2012, wealth will be the winners, the people will be the losers and deservedly so.

Posted by: jlw at July 2, 2011 3:17 PM
Comment #325202

jlw,
That’s well said. The Democratic party keeps throwing the liberals/progressives under the bus. We end up with these crazy situations where most people want wars ended, universal health care, work on infrastructure and, investment in education, yet what actually happens?

I was really struck by this statistic: the average national debt per capita for the Greeks and Americans is almost identical, @ $45k per person; yet the Greeks enjoy universal health care, six weeks vacation, & retirement at age 61. What did Americans receive for all that debt?

(Greeks aren’t necessarily the best example of how to go about providing social benefits. They have the reputation of being the spoiled step-children of Europe.)

Posted by: phx8 at July 3, 2011 12:02 AM
Comment #325215

phx8

“I was really struck by this statistic: the average national debt per capita for the Greeks and Americans is almost identical, @ $45k per person; yet the Greeks enjoy universal health care, six weeks vacation, & retirement at age 61. What did Americans receive for all that debt?”

i don’t know that greece is really an example that i’de be using. greece is in a $#!tload of trouble. what did we receive? a lot of politicians beholden to special interests, whether that’s big labor, and the entitlement crowd, or big business. gov’t was never intended to be all things to all people. that is why we are in the trouble we’re in.

Posted by: dbs at July 3, 2011 12:20 PM
Comment #325256
Why, he doesn’t even know how many states are in the union!

But he does know how many states, DC and territories there are in the union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_area

What did Americans receive for all that debt?

Income inequality, loss of jobs, a corporate controlled political system and a loss of our representative democracy as well as some liberty. Oh for the good ol’ days of the company store and “free market capitalism”. Oh wait … it is the good ol’ days once again.

“You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ‘cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store”

http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/classic-country/sixteen-tons—-tennessee-ernie-ford-14930.html

Posted by: j2t2 at July 4, 2011 10:50 AM
Comment #330903

.feet?A pair of high qualityjordan sneakers 5825 UGG Classic Short Boots will help you live through the extremely cold winter easily.welcome to our online shop and we will introduce the best products to you.we have different styles in store for you to choose.these shot boots are especially designed for people who have to go outsidenew jordan sneakers in bad weather.some are waterproof,some are fashionable and others are recreational.The common of these 5815 UGG Classic Tall Boots is that

Posted by: rtyu at October 22, 2011 4:23 AM
Post a comment