Democrats & Liberals Archives

Things are looking grim for Thurston Howell. Ohio should be turned to leaning Dem as should Iowa, Wisconsin, and Colorado. Those states alone put Obama over 270. My home state of Virginia is starting to head that way too, and it looks like Tim Kaine is taking a lead over George Allen.

Maybe they can sneak some alum in Obama’s water so he can’t talk during the first debate - that might be Romney’s only hope.

Not to hijack the thread or anything, but the indicators you cite about inflation and the economy are utter Keynesian fantasy. Ben Bernanke isn’t Obama, and Obama isn’t really in control of the economy (that’s the 3 card monty the Alphabet Soup channels want the sheeple to think) but if you think Inflation is under control, or that there won’t be any MAAASSIVE repurcussion to Obama’s humongous debt expansion, you are drunk on the “it’ll be fine a.k.a normalcy-bias” kool-aid.

The way the current CBO numbers are calculated is changed as often as the data changes. It’s just bullshit spin. Look at Debt to GDP, ACTUAL unemployment, and Dollar-Basis comparisons and you won’t see such a rosy picture.

“Not to hijack the thread or anything…”

Though I don’t even agree you’re hijacking with the points you bring up, you’re still free to hijack…

“…if you think Inflation is under control…”

It’s not? Explain.

“ACTUAL unemployment…”

What exactly is “actual” unemployment?

“…and you won’t see such a rosy picture.”

There are things that aren’t rosy. But a high debt to GDP ratio and struggling employment is because of the weakness of the economy and not a sign of a weak economy, if that makes sense. A stronger economy will fix both problems just like it did in the late 90’s. Unless of course we end up like the 2000’s where we had another recession as soon as we started to grow stronger again.

Not surprised the crappy economy and high unemployment aren’t having that big of an effect, like Romney said, 47% will vote for Obama no matter what.
The closer we get to election day, the Obama campaign of lies and fear were bound to scare up more enthusiasm.

As I said before, the country’s only hope is that Republicans keep the House.

“As I said before, the country’s only hope is that Republicans keep the House.”

They are more likely to keep it than not, I believe. But approval of Congress is so low you just can’t tell what will happen in the next 43 days.

kctim-
It is the mark of Republican’s failures as a party that they have taken a fundamentally offensives message, that 47% of Americans somehow having taken responsibility for their lives, and these are the people voting against him, and tried to turn this into another “truth.”

You talk of a campaign of lies and fear, but seriously, fellow, you have Romney not only belting out the greatest hits of “pants on fire” lies, but brazenly stating that his campaign won’t be constrained by the factcheckers.

Oh, and what are these claims? That Obama’s going to steal your benefits, that he’s going to let the welfare people mooch off your hard-earned money, that he sympathized with the terrorists, even as they were attacking our ambassador.

As for scaring people, you know what we do? We tell them the truth about what your people say. Your people are so God forsaken cut off from reality that they don’t even know how a frank explanation of their policies washes with people anymore.

SD wrote; “(obama) he sympathized with the terrorists, even as they were attacking (killing) our ambassador (and others).”

No…I don’t believe that’s the case, but obama said today that it was “merely a bump in the road.”

When obama is “live” and unscripted he is prone to gaffs like the one above and numerous others. obama is easily ruffled and easily angered. I believe Romney can create a situation during the debates that will cause obama to lose it and say things very harmful to his reelection but which do reveal the real person.

The “real” obama can be found in his own writings.

Stephen
47% of voters will vote for Obama no matter what. These are “your people” who wish for less responsibility for yourselves and who wrongly believe they are victims of one thing or another. The so-called 1%, the Christians, the Republicans, men, whites, you name it, there is always somebody else to blame for your failure to save, prepare or help others.
Fact is, “your people” will never vote for a candidate who promotes personal responsibility over government dependency.
That is not offensive, that is the truth.

What are the pro Obama lies? Where would you like to start? That paying for your own abortion and contraception is the same as outlawing it? That Republicans will end Medicare? War with Iran? All who don’t vote for Obama are racists? That you care for and represent ALL Americans?
EVERY “lie” your people can come up with for Romney can be met with a lie from your Obama.

“We tell them the truth about what your people say”

BS! You tell them your opinion of what was said and then pass it off as fact. More interesting though, is that you never give the full facts of your policies when seeking support.

Talk about being cut off from reality, “your people” have the American sheep right where you want them.

Royal Flush: “I believe Romney can create a situation during the debates that will cause obama to lose it and say things very harmful to his reelection but which do reveal the real person.”

I’m not a betting man but if I were I’d put money on the debates being the same as all other debates where stupid questions are asked and given meaningless practiced canned answers and both sides declare themselves the winner afterwards.

I think anyone wanting to see a meltdown in a debate is going to be disapointed. My favorite screwups happen in one on one interviews with the press. Think Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, etc. They call it the “gotcha press” after simple questions are bungled by folks who should do better.

“The ‘real’ obama can be found in his own writings.”

What writing? I thought Bill Ayers wrote all that.

Royal Flush-
The one defining feature of Barack Obama is his cool under fire. If you’re holding his breath waiting for him to get angry, you will get pretty blue in the face.

kctim-
Do you even realize the full extent of how terrible what he said was? He equated not paying income tax with being a mooch, on the dole. Trouble is, if you really look at the 47% who don’t owe the government income taxes, you will find hardworking Americans front and center there. Maybe he didn’t understand that, and just bought into a false assumption, but even so, it gives us a picture of somebody who is well and truly an elitist, whose contempt for others is blindingly obvious.

Romney’s quote, like many from the Republicans, is prima facie offensive. We don’t have to treat it too much to get people to oppose it.

You whine about it just being people’s opinion, or bias. But maybe people really don’t like it, and your side has too much of a political ego to admit it. There’s too much self-flattery on the right, especially given how many political disasters it’s suffered over the past few years.

A little humility can do you some good, help you avoid more disasters.

Some on the left use the recovery of the stock market and 401(k)’s as proof that the economy is doing very well.

The economy is in such disarray that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has embarked on a third round of quantitative easing.

And then, we have millions of American’s unemployed or underemployed. Events in the Middle East are spiraling out of control while obama and SecState Clinton declare no responsibility and have no clue what to do next. obama is so out of touch with reality that the killing of four American’s in Libya is merely “a bump in the road.” One can only hope that the same will be said of his presidency.

A little humility can do you some good, help you avoid more disasters.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 24

Hmmm…did the election of 2010 bring humility to the left?

Royal Flush: “Some on the left use the recovery of the stock market and 401(k)’s as proof that the economy is doing very well.”

I for one don’t think the economy is doing “very well” but it is doing better than the right wants to admit. I don’t need to use the stock market or 404(k)’s as proof. I prefer this chart instead, which is 4 major measurements that indicate expansion or contraction of the economy.

“The economy is in such disarray that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has embarked on a third round of quantitative easing.”

Your statement runs counter to Bernanke who called for more QE in order to support a strengthening economy, not one that was in disarray. Slow and steady are the keywords for the Obama economy. Slow and steady might just be enough to help him win the race.

Obama is a good campaigner and he has the support of MSM.

His strategy was to trash Romney back when Romney suffered a big cash disadvantage. It worked. The strategy now is to maintain that by “giving Romney a flat tire”.

The Obama folks and their allies dribble out embarrassing news. MSM cooperates and Romney spends another day swatting flies.

Obama really fears talking about big things like unemployment or the economy. He prefers to talk about Romney’s dog etc. So far the Obama obfuscation strategy is working. Romney definitely needs to come from behind.

Obama is ahead now and it will be hard for Romney to win. Obama will do better in the debates, not because he has the truth on his side, but rather because Obama can play cool better. In addition, the MSM will play up any Romney gaffs and excuse those of Obama.

Another four years will be bad for the country. Obama is no Bill Clinton. He will double down on his failures in a second term. However, we have survived worse challenges. And maybe we will still be able to get a better president in November. Obama is not going to run away with this election.

Usually those who win second terms win by a greater %. I doubt this will happen with Obama. In fact, there is an interesting possibility that Obama will win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote. Our liberal friends, so outraged in 2000, will then defend the electoral college.

“Your statement runs counter to Bernanke who called for more QE in order to support a strengthening economy, not one that was in disarray. Slow and steady are the keywords for the Obama economy.”

Adam,

Well stated. I shudder to think about another bubble economy supported by massive consumer debt. Conservatives seem to think that it was public sector debt that got us into trouble. It was not. It was private sector debt (350% of GDP)not seen since before the Great Depression that caused a massive collapse of the credit system.

Lets let the private sector properly de-leverage, excessive mortgage debt clear and economic fundamentals take control.

We have come a long way since the collapse in 2008. Lets not screw it up by demanding another massive economic expansion fueled by unsustainable private debt.

Right Adam…QE 1, QE 2…now, QE 3 will do the trick. It will keep the economy from slumping just long enough for obama to get reelected. At least, that is the game being played. Then…well, who gives a dam if you’re obama.

Royal,

The Quantitative Easing programs are actions of the Federal Reserve, not the Obama Administration. Chairman Bernanke is a conservative Republican appointed originally by GW Bush and a disciple of Milton Friedman, the great conservative economist.

Royal Flush: “It will keep the economy from slumping just long enough for obama to get reelected.”

Why is there a hint of conspiracy in your response to everything the Federal Government does during Obama’s term? Your statement assumes that the economy was going to slump in the next few weeks with out it or that QE was even designed to prevent a slump. The Fed was worried about lingering unemployment, not an economic slump.

To those on the right:

It was only a matter of time before the right went too far. No cooperation in Congress. Sabotaging the administration’s efforts to fix the economy and then claiming that Obama is incompetent. Extreme claims about wars on Christmas, Christianity, etc. Whining about how any media that presents an honest view is tilted toward the left.

People are catching on. They are doing the math. They are putting 2+2 together about the right’s ‘plans’ to fix the economy - giving more to those who already have more than enough to invest and build if there was a market.

Claiming that 47% of the country are irresponsible leeches exposed your underbelly to those who pay attention. It is not going away. You’ve been exposed. No amount of crying foul or whining is going to stop the movement of public opinion of your positions. The trend is against you. The left couldn’t stop you. You did it yourselves.

I’ve been enjoying the contortions and twisting and excuses your side has been posting on this blog. Since there is no civil public discourse with most of the right, enjoying the public turn on them is the only sweet salve I have from being bullied and called godless, unpatriotic, idiotic, and worst of all… ‘liberal’.

Your side is obviously not going to help… so get out of the way.

Now how about some cheese with that whine?

C&J-
Obama, in a recent study, got just as much negative coverage as Romney.

I think I would talk about the problems of the GOP in social terms, but also in terms of the GOP trying to defy the implications of taking the course they have. They want to be more pure, they want more ideological consistency, they want to lock what people ask for to what they get, regardless of whether others in Washington will allow things to happen. Symbolic exchanges dominate over practical ones, negotiations and compromises.

The problem for Republicans is that there are always fewer people who devote themselves wholeheartedly to an agenda than people who do so partially. It gets even worse if you consider that the party isn’t monolithic, but is composed of interlocking interest groups that themselves need to compromise with one another in order to further their interests.

It gets to a point where to satisfy their base, the GOP, and by extension it’s factions, have to pull away from those who might merely partially support them.

And then what happens?

Compromises and negotiations, even just social interaction, serve a necessary moderating influence on people. Our nation is set up so that special interests are moderated in favor of the general interests. It’s assumed in the underlying logic of our system that we were not such space aliens or James Bond villains, irredeemably different in our interests, that we can’t come to agreements that work somewhat for the different sides.

But that’s not how politics is being done.

Politics is being done in this zero-sum, zero-overlap manner that makes it difficult to get anything done, and I think that’s the critical weakness, the friction that’s going to grind away at the GOP for as long as it refuses to adjust and moderate towards others outside the party. At some point, events are going to require the Congresscritters from the GOP and the Democratic Party to put aside their differences to get things done.

The question is, how bad a ****-up do we have to endure before the GOP starts considering practical legislative matters more important than dancing the political dances of the right wing?

I think Obama is winning primarily for the reason he was able to win in 2008. It’s not necessarily the charisma or the ideological shift of that year. It’s not even just the terrible outcome of the Bush years driving the GOP from office. I think a key to Obama’s political strength is that of all the candidates you could name in that election, Obama had the ability in the midst of the campaign to actually speak and behave like a regular human being.

Don’t underestimate that.

Too much in Washington and in the media is so precisely packaged as to quickly rob itself of any meaningful punch. People don’t take logical positions in regard to facts, but instead according to what people deem political realities.

But political realities often just reflect organizational beliefs, the stubbornness and ideology of a particular group. Real reality allows for any number of solutions of varying degrees of quality.

Think of it in terms of a plant putting down roots. You might have it put down roots down the well worn ruts, but the roots can also push into new soil, connecting grains of truth that wouldn’t otherwise be normally connected.

It’s not merely about one group coming back and merely more enthusiastically pushing ideas that had been pushed before, it’s about somebody making actual decisions with sound judgment, on subjects that don’t yield themselves to an easy solution.

Like the President has said, the easy decisions have already been made by the time the issues reach the President’s desk. I think people are looking at the rigidity and the alarming things coming out of the mouths of the GOP, and they’re thinking… well, that Republicans aren’t really thinking, they’re just going through the motions.

People want something more than that. They want people who create solutions where none are obvious. They want folks who have the competence and judgment not to make things worse for themselves or others, combined with an intelligence and insight that allows for creative problem solving.

Romney has not acquitted himself well, in that respect. His judgment seems to change not based on facts, but on who’s watching. This kind of property might work for Schrodinger’s cat, but it’s terrible for an American people who want the reassurance of solid policy. It goes to demonstrate a fundamentally indecisive nature, or an impulsively decisive nature not moderated by memory of previous choices.

Folks want better than him.

LibRick

What he said was that 47% don’t pay Federal taxes, were dependent and felt like victims. While he conflated various groups, this was not an inaccurate statement.

It is really a challenge to make policies when a large number of people can expect to get more than they put in.

The Obama folks want to make people more dependent on government. Romney prefers to help people get jobs and stop being on food stamps etc.

Being on food stamps is not a good thing and Obama folks should quit selling it as merely an alternative lifestyle.

Stephen

You keep on talking compromise but what do you mean? President Obama personally blew up a big compromise made by Reid, Pelosi and the Republican leadership.

For you, “compromise” means agreeing to massive tax increases and a permanent change in the relationship of Americans and their government that would take us in the direction of France, Spain or Greece. These are wonderful place to visit, but I prefer to live in the United States. I am not in favor of Obama bringing those structures here and if the means seeming unwilling to compromise, I suppose it it true.

Re Schrödinger’s cat - the cat doesn’t actually change its behavior. Reality is affected by the observer. The cat changing its own behavior means nothing. It is still either dead or not.

C&J-
Yes, 47% don’t pay income taxes. Income Taxes. Many of those 47% do pay Payroll Taxes, which ARE federal taxes, not to mention state and local taxes. He also did conflate that 47% with essentially the mythical class of pure government mooches that people like you seem to think is absolutely huge. Actually, the number of people on Welfare is 4.1%, 15 million and costs 168 billion a year. Compare that to Social Security and Medicare, the benefits people consider deserving benefits. And try telling those people they didn’t work for their benefits.

This is not a nation half composed of people looking to mooch off of Mitt’s money, who can’t take responsbility for their lives. Most seniors did take responsibility for their lives, and ours, not to put too fine a point on it. Most working class Americans I know of take full responsibility for their lives. The “inelegance” of what Romney said can be found in the prejudices it seems to betray.

I mean, I want you to think for a second about what just happened to us, financially, as a country. Maybe you and Romney can pretend that the reason so many people are on assistance is that they’re lazy bums jumping at a handout. But we just got hit with a financial crisis unlike anything this nation has seen in decades, since the Great Depression. It is not merely wishful thinking, but blinkered thinking to believe that the social safety net wouldn’t be getting something of an exercise at this point.

The Damage done to this economy, the rareness of its severity, the degree to which we were not prepared for this level of damage should not be brushed of, when we consider the moral dimension of what we have here. We should also consider that for years now, the Republicans have done their best to obstruct any followup aimed at getting people back to productive work. If your question is why are so many people on government assistance, then my question, why have you interfered in our efforts to get them off that government assistance, to get the economy back in the shape it needs to be in order in order to drive it’s own job growth?

I mean, especially given the welfare-to-work provisions, the history of the Interstate Highway System, the obvious love of Republicans for promoting American business, we could think of something that would help create jobs. But you’re not even going to start, because you want all that power, and all that credit to yourselves.

And as far as being like those countries you mentioned? They’ve all tried austerity. It hasn’t worked. Austerity is, strictly speaking, an investment in debt reduction. Unfortunately, like many investments, it carries an opportunity cost, and a regular price tag as well. The single most significant factor aside from potential trouble in the Euro markets is that fiscal cliff the nice people in your party made possible with the debt ceiling deal.

We wouldn’t be in that position had your people just left the matter alone. So, if you’re talking about policies that make us like Greece, the GOP’s policies probably do more of the same. What’s more, Romney’s policies can’t seem to reduce the deficit without hitting some deductions that will raise taxes on Middle Class families. And what, to employ one of the most ineffective forms of stimulus? And if he doesn’t pay for it with higher taxes on somebody else, it will be in the form of a spending cut or deficit increase that will only make matters worse.

The real problem, as far as I can see is that Romney has no consistent idea of policy where the actual outcome is valued as the political bottom line. He’s making promises to make Republicans happy, not ones that will necessarily solve the problem.

As far as Schrodinger’s Cat goes? I guess I’m invoking quantum theory because your candidate seems to operate off the question of who’s watching. His common axis of symmetry seems to only be the expedience of telling people what they want to hear. And maybe in a past age, he could have more easily gotten away with it. Unfortunately for him, it is ridiculously easy to find video of a guy saying one thing, when he’s said another. And whether or not you can find one of Obama in response, you can certainly find enough of Romney to illustrate what a collossal, consistent flip-flopper the man is. What is it with the Republicans these days, and nominating the guys who came in second in the last primary election? That to me is a sure sign of a thin bench of candidates.

C&J,

“What he said was that 47% don’t pay Federal taxes, were dependent and felt like victims. While he conflated various groups, this was not an inaccurate statement.”

Excuse me for a minute while I try to take in the ridiculousness of Romney’s statement.

If Romney truly believes that the “47%” that are “victims” won’t vote for him anyway, why is he still in the race?

Does he assume that there are no Democrats that pay taxes, and don’t feel like victims?

If there are even only 10% of Democrats that pay taxes, and don’t feel like victims and don’t vote for Romney, he would lose the race in one of the largest landslides ever.

Jack, the statement wasn’t just inaccurate, it was bone stupid.
If this is the math Romney, and his staff are capable of, it shows a profound disconnect from reality, and there is no way he should be elected President.

Rocky

What he said was that 47% don’t pay Federal taxes, were dependent and felt like victims. While he conflated various groups, this was not an inaccurate statement.

C&J… excuse me, but what Romney said was that 47% don’t pay income taxes (true) and that they didn’t take responsibility for their lives, expected the government to provide them with food, housing, healthcare, etc.

Now my parents don’t pay income taxes. They are neither irresponsible nor expect the government to care for them. They feel that they paid in a lifetime and expect some return services. My dad worked till he was 75 (he’s 81 now) and would be working now if he hadn’t been forced to retire (by a non-unionized private firm). He’s a leech looking to suck the lifeblood from job creators like Romney and that crowd in Florida?

Tell it so someone else. You can paint it they way you wanted to hear it. Romney most certainly stated more than what you laid out. He called that 47% irresponsible leeches. Watch it again.

Librick

He didn’t use the term leech. That is what you are calling them.

Rocky

It was a dumb statement. Almost as dumb as Obama’s comments about people in middle American clinging to their guns and God.

C&J: “Almost as dumb as Obama’s comments about people in middle American clinging to their guns and God.”

Except in that case Obama was speaking about folks who he felt had it rough due to a changing economy over the last 20 years and had lost hope. The right had to add context to make it as offensive as you say. Your side has to subtract context from Romney’s statement so that you don’t have to admit how hateful it was.

Adam

Obama showed utter contempt for middle America and a complete misunderstanding of their need. It is the liberal way to mix fake compassion with real derision.

He assumes, like many liberals, that they are just too stupid to vote Democratic. He also is telling them that their devotion to God is the result of their lack of real sophistication.

There was no need to add context. When Obama said that they cling to their God and their guns, that was enough.

Re Romney - the Obama campaign is trying to paint people as victims. It is the whole center of their effort. “THEY did this to YOU,” is the centerpiece of Obama’s campaign.

Romney missed the target, but he was facing the right direction.

C&J-
Obama was unintentionally condescending at worst. He did not show true contempt for them, though, he simply said that they clung to those things because those who promised them better on the economic front had fallen short on their promises so often.

Mitt, on the other hand, just completely wrote people off who don’t pay income taxes, said he wasn’t even going to try to get their votes. He incorrectly associated them with the Obama campaign, though many groups in the real category were well represented within his own, and most importantly, he basically said that they could not take responsibility for their own lives.

That’s rather personal. That’s rather ugly if you’ve, in fact, struggled to do just that, against the force of a financial Tsunami not seen in three generations.

I happen to be one of those people who doesn’t earn enough to actually owe net income taxes. Let me tell you, you might think that’s being a lucky ducky, but it’s very difficult making ends meet. And I’ve tried over the last several years.

So, he’s gone and pretty much made sure that the Obama voters who were part of this group don’t have second thoughts about voting against him. He’s offended at least some of the groups that have been more strongly for him, including Seniors and working class whites, and worse yet, he’s reinforced this view of him as being this upper-class twit who looks down on those who are below his station.

You need to admit mistakes in politics, or what will happen is that you will either obliviously ignore an error you shouldn’t, or you will deliberately keep poking at something sore until the people you did alienate remain alienated.

And you know what the worst thing is going to be for your party? If Romney loses, the GOP’s next response is going to be sadly similar to its last few: we need to go further to the right; we lost because we weren’t conservative enough.

Stephen

“Do you even realize the full extent of how terrible what he said was?”

I realize how terrible that 47%, “your people” who will vote for Obama no matter what, think it is, but that does not make it an untrue statement.

Of course he is wrong about all of you not paying income taxes, but he is absolutely correct in saying those who will never vote for him “believe the government has a responsibility to care for them” and want government to provide them with health care, food, housing etc…

No matter where a person falls on the economic scale, his statement isn’t “terrible” if you don’t believe government should provide and control your life. And there is no point for us to worry about offending “your people” because you will vote for Obama “no matter what.”

Adam,
Speaking of things that aren’t coming true… When it comes to reality, conservative Republicans are in full denial. Reality does, indeed, have a liberal bias.

In the past, the denial has taken many forms: In political terms, the GOP convention was great; Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair was awesomesauce; the Democratic convention was awful; there was no Democratic bounce; Romney was presidential in the way he handled the first 24 hours after the attack in Libya, and Obama was not. Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrich all deserved to be front-runners and be considered for the presidency.

The denial extended to science: Global Warming is a worldwide hoax perpetrated by scientists in order to defeat America and advance socialism; Evolution is “just a theory”; women can stop rape induced pregancies because their bodies can tell the difference…

It extends to economics: the economy is terrible, even though consumer confidence just increased; you know the other stats…

Now, the denial has extended to data and math.
There is a web site to ‘unskew’ polling data.

You see, the latest Quinnipiac poll shows Obama up 9 in FL, up 10 in OH, and up 12 in PA. An ABC/WAPO poll shows voters overwhelmingly approve of the way Obama runs his campaign and voters like him. Voters disapprove of the way Romney has run his campaign, they dislike him, and they disapprove of his comments about the 47%.

Conservative Republicans losing it. How could they be doing this badly? How? Clearly, reality must be wrong. As a result, they have created a site to ‘unskew’ the polls, and shows Romney ahead in the general election by 12 points.

This just keeps getting better and better.

Repubs have done a great job of shooting themselves in the foot, but surely with a title of Things That Aren’t Coming True, you are going to mention all the unkept promises Obama made to all of us back in 2008. Do I need to list them all for you?

Just wanted to add a few points…GM doing well by following the lead of the mortgage lenders. Sell to the unqualified. Bubble’s going to burst.

Rioting over austerity measures today all across Europe. At least they are smart enough to take some. Our days of rioting are coming because we won’t quit spending and think it’s not going to happen to us. Keep doling out entitlements, this is what transpires when you take them away.

Finally, after Hillary and his press secretary publicly state that terrorists were responsible for embassy attacks and deaths, Obama stands up in front of UN General Assembly and mentions that film as basis of the attacks, not once, but ten times in his speech.

He is a slick talking charlatan, and almost half of the voters in the U.S. just can’t see it. Sad. Really sad.

Phx8: “As a result, they have created a site to ‘unskew’ the polls, and shows Romney ahead in the general election by 12 points.”

Hilarious.

John Johnson: “…but surely with a title of Things That Aren’t Coming True, you are going to mention all the unkept promises Obama made to all of us back in 2008. Do I need to list them all for you?”

Name a president that met all his promises? You could list but that’s not the topic and I don’t see the point.

“Our days of rioting are coming…”

I have to add that one to future lists of things that haven’t come true.

Typical “yeah, but” response. I don’t know how old you are but I can’t wait for your kids to give you the “but everyone’s doing it” response. Hope you remember all the times you’ve used it.

kctim-
Romney was wrong to say it…
a) because you never TELL people that you’ve written them off unless they really have been written off;

b) because not all of the 47% of the poeple who don’t pay income taxes actually pay no taxes;

c) because many of them, seniors on social security for instance, are actually Romney supporters;

d) because many who do pay federal taxes are actually Democrats and Obama supporters.

e) and last, but certainly not least, because it is extraordinarily insulting to tell people who all the above is true about that they take absolutely no responsbility for their own lives, and that they’re basically addicted to handouts.

That’s an insult to the Democrats who were his intended targets, and to the seniors and working class people who probably weren’t.

John Johnson-
They’re looking at depression-level economic downturns in those nations, thanks to austerity. What your slick talking politicians fail to say, or perhaps don’t know themselves is that austerity costs something. Less spending is going into an economy, more revenue is coming out, one way or another, it’s a reduction in economic activity.

Nobody’s prospering post-austerity. You go into austerity when you’ve recovered and can bear the burden without completely burning the economy. You put the horse in front of the cart, the economy that helps maintain revenues in front of the austerity that will pay the debts.

As for rioting? Go ahead. It did wonders for the images of Democrats in 1968. (I’m not serious. Take a chill pill.)

John Johnson: “Typical ‘yeah, but’ response.”

Sorry. I’m still not seeing the relevance of Obama’s un-kept campaign promises on the subject of things conservatives have incorrectly suggest would come true either with the economy or the election. Making a relevant point certainly isn’t required for commenting but it would be nice.

Gallup presidential poll shows Obama up +6. This thing’s turning into a laugher. Of the nine swing states, Obama leads decisively in most, with only CO and IA showing an Obama lead still within the margin of error, NH tied, and NC showing a small Romney lead- about 1%.

GOP conspiracy theories are starting to fly. The main one? It must be the media’s fault.

The big question will be who the conservatives blame for this debacle: their message or the messenger.

Stephen, he was talking about the 47% who will vote for Obama no matter what, NOT Romney supporters.
He didn’t TELL those Obama supporters he was writing them off, he was telling HIS supporters that there is nothing he can do to get their vote.

“d) because many who do pay federal taxes are actually Democrats and Obama supporters.”

Which is why I say he was wrong on that. The 47% of “your people” Romney was talking about ALL want government to provide for you, but not all of you pay no income taxes.
“Your people” can feel insulted by the truth all you want, but seeing as you will vote for Obama no matter what, it really doesn’t matter.

“That’s an insult to the Democrats who were his intended targets, and to the seniors and working class people who probably weren’t”

It was an insult to people who believe they are entitled to have government provide for them and who will vote for Obama no matter what, in order to get it, nobody else.
If the truth bugs you, makes you feel insulted or offends you, blame yourselves, not those who point it out.

Phx8:

But the polls! They’re polling more Democrats than Republicans! Everybody knows if the poll finds anything but 50/50 then it’s biased… …

he big question will be who the conservatives blame for this debacle: their message or the messenger.

I suspect they’ve already started writing their accounts of all the voter fraud. That must be where Frank is off to.

Interesting and relevant interview with Nate Silver:

What should people be looking for in the several weeks before the election?

People should be looking to see if the consensus of data moves. If there’s a meaningful shift, then it’s not that hard to detect. It wasn’t that hard to detect when Obama got his convention bounce. We’ll be looking to see if Obama’s convention bounce is sticking. This is about the last week when Romney can say, “Oh, the momentum’s gonna fade out.” You have three debates, you have two jobs reports, you have various news in the Middle East. It’s kind of more a question of Obama clearing those hurdles. There’s always a chance there’s some organic shift back toward Romney or, maybe also equally likely, is things could just kind of totally fall apart for Romney, where the wheels comes off and people lose faith in him and all of a sudden Romney is losing by 7 or 8 points. For the most part, we should assume whatever numbers Obama has about a week from now represent some sort of equilibrium in the race.

kctim,

Sorry, you’re wrong.

This is the quote;

“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the President no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That, that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. These are people who pay no income tax… . 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.”

I found this at Forbes online, hardly a bastion of liberalism.

Rocky

C&J,

“Romney missed the target, but he was facing the right direction.”

Romney wasn’t even in the same time zone as the target.
He changed the statement several times within the same statement.

Rocky

Rocky, he is talking about the 47% of the people who will blindly vote for Obama no matter what, in order to have government provide for them.

There would be no point to any Republican ever running for office if they believed every American who pays no income tax were all liberals and wanted government to provide for them.

Man, I really wish Obama wouldn’t have stripped away more of our rights with another government mandate. I would have loved to have been able to just sit back and enjoy the show this year.

Adam,
Republican claims of voter fraud? Or voter suppression? Another conspiracy theory in the works. I’ve already heard it on talk radio, the idea that the media is trying to depress GOP voter turnout by reporting false polling results. It’s absolutely ridiculous. There are so many things wrong with that idea, it’s hard to know where to begin pulling it apart.

Part of the problem is that the GOP echo chamber believes its own lies. They claim the mainstream media is biased, or even outright lying. They keep telling each other Obama is actually a terrible president, the “real” unemployment is terrible, there is no War on Women, no reason minorities should concern themselves about GOP positions, and so on.

Then reality intrudes.

This sends the conservatives into apoplexy. Why do women vote overwhelmingly Democratic? Latinos? Blacks? Gays? Now even seniors are evenly split.

As Nate Silver mentions, the momentum, the overall trend is unmistakeable. The foreseeable opportunities, such as the debate, are still there, and of course there are unforeseeable ones such as an economic crash or a disaster abroad; but that seems unlikely. When it comes to debates, Romney and Obama are known quantities. Unrest in the Middle East offered Romney that unforeseeable opportunity, and instead of taking advantage of it, he botched it. Badly.

I’m really, really enjoying this.

Phx8: “I’ve already heard it on talk radio, the idea that the media is trying to depress GOP voter turnout by reporting false polling results.”

The science of polling is just another science the right can’t stand. I don’t understand why they war on empirical reality.

If the polls were taken in the Northern copunties of Ohio I could believe there would be a 10 point lead for Obama because they are predominitely Democrat Counties and are hard core Democrat meaning all you have to do is have a “D” after your name on the ballot and you get elected. You have to be a real screw up if you are a democrat not to be elected up in these districts.

Stephen

You are condescending in the same way Obama was when you say – “Obama was unintentionally condescending at worst. He did not show true contempt for them, though, he simply said that they clung to those things because those who promised them better on the economic front had fallen short on their promises so often.”

You just don’t get it. “Those people” are not clinging to those things because “those who promised them better things” have fallen short. Rather those people believe in God because they believe in God and always have. They have guns because it is a centuries old tradition and part of their lives.

Your whole use of the passive victim voice is so … liberal. You are just out of touch with these things.

How would you feel if someone told you that you embrace your lifestyle and your religion only because life was beyond your control and others had done it to you? That is what Obama told middle America.

Here’s a short version of the latest conspiracy theory, in the form of a question posed by co-host Steve Doocy to senior campaign advisor Ed Gillepsie, on “Fox & Friends.”

“Ed, do you buy into this theory, and there are some people on the right who say, look, mainstream media is going to talk down Romney’s chances of winning. They’re going to show Mr. Obama way up in the polls just to tamp down enthusiasm so Republicans go, ‘You know, why even bother voting because it’s a foregone conclusion the guy’s going to get four more years?’”

Incredible. Just incredible. The media is “going to show” Obama- and that’s PRESIDENT Obama, by the way- show him up in the polls “just to tamp down enthusiasm.”

How crazy would a person have to be to buy that?

phx8

I think that anybody who thinks that there is widespread suppression of the vote is crazy.

I would say to my liberal friends that they should just consider the election in the bag. Many of the would-be Obama supporters don’t need to get off their rears to go all the way to the polls. Many won’t be able to find them anyway. Better if they just stay home and drink beer & watch reality shows all day, maybe buy some lottery tickets since November 4 will be a lucky day.

C&J-
Wow. Liberal. What an insult, you conservative. ;-)

Seriously, though, folks are more easily divided on such issues when it’s all they think they can depend on. If somebody doesn’t think the Republican Party can deliver on some issue, they might let socially liberal positions determine their vote instead. That’s when you choose an inelegant word. You could agree with his underlying point, that you hold to the things that are dependable and enjoyable in your life, the people you know and who are like you, without sacrificing too much dignity.

Romney? Romney chose an inelegant idea, one people can’t seriously digest wholesale as true unless they discount some pretty significant demographics, or their own self-worth.

He conflated those that effectively aren’t paying federal income tax with those who just laze about and don’t take responsibility for their lives, and also with Obama’s supporters. He basically said that if you’re not one of the other 53%, you are an irresponsible person, addicted to government aid to the point where you vote just to sustain your addiction.

That plays to your prejudices, but unfortunately, the falseness of the conflation, and the difficult in ignoring just who he’s talking about have just alienated quite a few people.

Your side, all too often, depends on this notion that people are being offended, it’s because liberals are putting an awful spin on something. Unfortunately, with that attitude, you begin to fail to perceive the points where your candidate has lost people’s support. As such, you can’t course correct, so Liberals win battles easier than they otherwise would.

I think the Republican, by trying to insulate themselves against any potential liberal bias, against criticism that runs counter to their doctrine, has ended up crippling it’s ability to recover from its mistakes.

The Tea Party has brought this trend to its apotheosis. The Price is a party that can’t actually pass a conservative agenda, or even help it somewhat, without having the government all to itself. And, at the same time, it’s done a poor job of convincing people that they should give them that kind of power.

Our Congress should be allowed to function, and Republicans should learn to live with getting part, not all of what they want. They can get that more easily if Democrats get part of what they want, and make the deals to make passage of bills easier. If all Republicans do is say no, then there is no advantage to telling them yes on anything, and with Democrats holding control of different branches, no chance of getting the stuff they want without popularity-destroying standoffs.

You’re working against the nature of the government, as the framers built it.

Stephen

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives generally welcome the appellation. You can find political ads with candidates both claiming to be conservatives. I don’t recall that with liberals.

Re cooperation - government is bigger than almost ever and getting bigger. I have often said that we should simply go back to the size of 1999. A Democrat was president and you all agree that it was a pretty good year. THIS is a compromise. Keeping the bloat is a liberal idea.

It reminds me of the saying, I want infinity but will settle for half.

Re liberal talk - there is a big style difference. Even if I don’t mention politics, people can often tell my conservative ideas and the same goes for you.

Conservative says - he didn’t save money
Liberal says - he didn’t have the opportunity or was not allowed to save.

Conservative says - They screwed up
liberal says - those who promised them better on the economic front had fallen short on their promises

Conservative says - He earned his success
Liberal says - He was privileged

Conservative says - He’s dead
Liberal says - He’s vitality challenged.

Conservative say - looters
Liberals say - alternative shoppers.

Things are so bad for Romney that Joe Scarborough is crying out for Jesus!

The video in the above link is so pathetic that I almost felt bad for Romney — but then I remembered that he holds half the people in this country in utter contempt — and felt free to cheer his hilarious awkwardness and obvious unpopularity!

Adrienne,
I am enjoying this election cycle quite a bit. Isn’t it great? I saw that segment with Scarborough. Romney is such a phony. I wouldn’t mind the social ineptitude so much if would just ditch the right wing talking points and be himself. I think he’s a pretty smart guy, and I don’t think he believes a lot of what he says. He keeps trying to please nutjobs and wingnuts, and the results are not good at all, not pretty.

It’s amazing that Democrats can even dream of holding the Senate, given the sheer math. There’s no way that should be possible, and yet, polls indicate the chances of maintaining a Democratic majority are very real. Who would’s thunk it? There’s even talk of a Democratic House. I’ll believe that when I see it.

At some point, the GOP will determine Romney is a lost cause, and the money will disappear. It will probably be re-directed downticket. On the one hand, that might be smart; it might keep the House in GOP hands, or even turn the Senate Republican. On the other hand, if the top of the ticket fails, the rest usually suffers.

Yeah, I’m really, really enjoying this.

Obama stands in front of the UN General Assembly and continues to blame some amateur film for embassy attacks after everyone on his staff had announced them as being terrorist actions. Our Ambassador fears for his life and O doesn’t want our Marines protecting him. Too much U.S. presence. Let local peons do it. Now he wants to cover up his poor decision making that cost four their lives. On national tv program he calls this a “bump in the road”. This is the real Barak Obama. He’s a phoney. He’s a lightweight. This says all you need to know about him.

Read Bob Woodward’s book The Price of Politics. Woodward, certainly no conservative, reveals the true character and weaknesses of our current empty suit President. The reflections, based on personal interviews with O and his staff are not flattering. It will be painful for many of you to read and accept the truth, but I challenge all of you to buy it and read it.

“Suppose we go to war and go into Iraq and there are no weapons of mass destruction?”

“I think the chance of that happening is about zero. There’s just too much there.”
Bob Woodward
Larry King Live, in response to a caller

Yeah, way to nail it, Bob.
Buy his book?
No. I think not.

John Johnson,
Terrorism means the threat or actual use of violence in order to inspire fear and terror. Usually it is aimed at civilians. It is a form of asymmetrical warfare with a primarily political aim.

There is no official definition of terrorism, so there is certainly room for debate; however, I would not consider the assault on the Libyan embassy an example of terrorism. It was, as much as anything, a case of Khaddafi’s people extracting revenge against one of the men primarily responsible for their fall. While the method of attack could be considered an example of asymmetrical warfare, and the targets at least nominally civilian, the goal did not seem to be to inspire fear or terror among others, so much as it was to simply kill the Ambassador.

And although killing those four people was unquestionably a terrible and despicable act of murder, in the larger scheme of things, Obama was right. Policy cannot be dictated by acts of revenge carried out by ten or twenty people.

By the way… Up to ten people who died defending the Ambassador were “local peons” whose lives were certainly valuable to themselves and their loved ones, if not to you.

Please. Learn to value the lives of people who are not Americans. Although they may be Libyans, mere foreign “peons,” their lives are ultimately like the lives of people in the US. Yes, I know this is hard to believe. But I assure you it is so. They were born. They lived, they laughed, perhaps they loved. And they gave their lives, their most valuable possession of all, defending the US Ambassador and others at the Embassy. In the final analysis, their lives were every bit as worthwhile as American lives.

phx8, I am really enjoying it all too!

Regarding Romney’s social ineptitude and his trying so hard to please the extremists — I think of both as serious problems.

Trying to please his party is a problem in the sense that it’s very clear that he himself has no real and deep personal convictions at all. In fact, if you look at all the various videos of him taking every possible position under the sun throughout his political career, it comes off truly scary and more than a little bit crazy. A friend of mine has recently taken to calling him Zelig Romney. Zelig like the Woody Allen film of the same name — pretty funny.

Romney’s weird social ineptitude and blow-hard CEO qualities also don’t bode well should he become the president. I mean, he wants to be our representative internationally, but a socially inept, undiplomatic leader is sure to create all kinds of terrible and embarrassing problems.
Look at what he did with the Olympics in London! He totally insulted the Brits and it was so completely unnecessary! Look at how he casually revealed what was supposed to be a secret meeting with M16! Look at what he immediately said before he knew any of the facts when it came to Libya! In these instances, he obviously just couldn’t keep his mouth shut. This is a fact that will no doubt make for unpleasant ramifications on the international stage.

He’s obviously not used to being under pressure in this way either, that’s for sure. He’s used to being the head of a company, but being a president isn’t anything at all like being a CEO — even if that’s exactly the way he’s been acting. He’s been a the top of the 1% food chain all his life, and this is clearly what makes him think he should be able to to say whatever he wants whenever he wants to, and call all the shots. He very obviously expects that there will be no one who will dare to disagree with him, nor does he think that people are going to feel free enough to react without any deference toward him when he chooses to say whatever it is he feels like saying. And, his now trying to act as if he hasn’t been at the top of that food chain his whole entire life is without a doubt why he seems so embarrassingly awkward.

phx8, your reply to John Johnson — very well said!

Adrienne,
Yes, “Things that aren’t coming true” for Republicans is certainly fun to watch. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’m really, really enjoying this election. It’s great to see people who have called Obama a Socialist Coommunist Marxist Kenyan Indonesian Mao Mao Muslim follower of Christian Minister Wright and pal of terrorists, this skinny black man with jug ears who is stupid and foreign and wasn’t born in this country and reads teleprompters and, by the way, is black- did I mention he’s black?- Anyway, it’s absolutely GREAT to watch these people DEAL so unsuccessfully with the fact that Obama is ahead by a lot, and likely to absolutely crush Romney; and not only that, but despite the mathematical odds, Democrats may hold the Senate and even take the House… Yeah, I’m really enjoying it.

To put it another way… I’m optimistic. I’m hopeful. In contrast, the conservative Republicans are pessimistic, and real downers, full of conspiracies and hate and negativity; they have salted their own barren fields, and now they are about to reap their reward, a harvest of fail they have so bitterly sown. And you know, it’s really really good to see people like that get smoked by reality.

phx8….why would Obama and his minions allow the interviews if Woodward was considered such twit?

And please don’t preach to me, and Hillary, and Carney about what the word “terrorism” means. Everyone, it seems, except you and Obama think it fits here.

C&J-
Conservative has become a buzzword that’s meaningless, while Conservatives have been constantly blasting their counterparts, with political strength behind it, to make liberal a dirty word. So, congratulations, another propaganda victory.

The price for it, though, is that anything a Democrat picks up on, Republicans have to find some way to be against now. You’ve set up the hatred, and the prices for that level of hatred is that you have nowhere to go on many issues. You’ve set taxes as a liberal a thing, and can’t even raise them when our budget is badly out of balance. You’ve set diplomacy and using critical thinking on foreign policy as liberal things, and now can’t even take advantage of the rich heritage of Republican Diplomacy from the 80’s and 90’s.

You say you don’t want further bloat, but what happens when we talk about the budget of the Defense Department? No cuts there, right? And you want to repeal Obamacare. Ironically, that includes repealing many provisions that actually cut down on the bloat in Medicare, while keeping its benefits stable.

As far as 1999 goes, I don’t care for playing symbolic games with budgets.

As for your list?

You know what, A Republican says, “he didn’t save money” but the whole policy that conservatives and Alan Greenspan was deliberately meant to prevent saving on people’s part, to encourage folks to finance more and more. You say you wanted people to be responsible, but that’s not what you legislated. You made it very attractive to people to endebt themselves.

You say Republicans say “they screwed up”, but do they really? All I hear, all the time, is how that main screw up was getting to liberal, not being conservative enough. I don’t hear them admitting that the wars were ill thought out, nor that their diplomacy let America’s image slip away. I don’t hear Republicans saying that letting banks get too big to fail through regulatory changes was a bad idea, nor that their fiscal policies, where they deficit spent for years and called it stimulus, were responsible for where the deficit was when Obama got into office.

No, I don’t hear that. Now you’ll say that people earned their successes, and some do, but a lot of people you defend seem to use the system to gain things for doing things most people don’t consider real good, much less real work. Placing bets in games of chance is not earning your money. Gaining your fortune by putting people through hell with mortgages you should have never sold them is not earning it.

As for “dead”? Give me a break. Find me a Democrat who says that as a serious remark.

I mean, really, you’ve bought into a whole load of propaganda, but in return you’ve become blind to how people see your party and those they support. They’ll support oil company tycoons even as the oil volcanoes out into the Gulf. They’ll support fossil fuel extractors even as the global climate smacks us across the back of our heads with the reality of climate change. They’ll fund big tea party events with healthcare companies footing the bill, but call themselves a grassroots movement.

John Johnson-
You know, I remember this line out of “All the President’s Men”, where Bob Woodward’s interviewing this lady, and she says, probably in defense of what she’s doing in talking to them about what was going on in the Nixon Administration, “I’m a Republican.”

And Woodward goes “So am I.”

Woodward is, and has been a conservative.

What strikes me is that you want to see him as an empty suit, yet this empty suit is beating your candidate like a rented mule. What’s up with that? Perhaps he’s not empty, perhaps that’s something you had to convinces yourself of not to feel intimidated. But in minimizing him as an opponent, Republicans have left themselves ill-prepared to handle him as a candidate.

Just think of all the hell your party’s spewed at him over the last few years, all the efforts and sacrifices your side has made, and it’s beginning to look like it was all for nought. When somebody proves that powerful an opponent, you don’t underestimate them at any cost.

Stephen…I’m not a Republican. I left them back in 2007 over the Iraq war and Tom Delay’s demeanor. I live in Texas where I have to live with Rick Perry. I am no Republican. This being said, I am no cool aid drinker either.

Romney is lacking in many areas, but he is far more qualified than Obama is to get us out of this mess. I have a feeling that Romney would take two big giant steps toward the middle after being elected. He has shown this proclivity for compromise when he was Gov of Mass and had a Dem legislature to work with. He would do what it takes to get things rolling…unlike O who stands in one spot pointing at the bad, bad legislature and blames them for the impassse. He is worthless.

The fact that a majority of voters would vote for him again just shows me that there are way, way too many ignorant people tied to the government teat, and fearful of having to sacrifice to keep our kids and grandkids from having to bear the load for all of our mistakes. It’s called selfish; it’s called narrowminded; it’s called immoral; it’s call wrong.

Something else interesting, looks like several of the TEA Party favorites are in tossup races. Anyone remember the gloating on the right when Tom Daschle lost in 2004? Bachmann or West are two Republicans I would love to see lose.

This is hilarious!:

Samuel L. Jackson ad for Obama 2012

Death of Romney/Ryan talking point: New Jobs Numbers Put Obama In Net Job Growth Territory

Revised jobs numbers released Thursday found that 386,000 more jobs were created since 2011 than the government had previously reported — a figure that means more jobs have been created than lost on balance during President Obama’s first term.

Think this will change their rhetoric? No, me either. They’ve already proven themselves to be incapable of telling the truth. They also think they need to cheat in order to win:

GOP Hired Fraud Company to Destroy Voter Registrations of Democrats

Okay, I’ll say it. This is how Democrats get elected, and unfortunately, I think there are starting to be more people who think like this than there are people who find this kind of stage 1 thinking ridiculous.

This is Romney’s 47%.

TPM please Adrienne can’t you find a more believable link than that. Even Huff post would be better.

Adrienne,
That video IS hilarious, but not for the reasons you say.

That video IS the Democratic platform. So funny that I watched it AFTER I posted that video of the woman bragging about Obama giving her a phone.

“Romney will kill planned parenthood and then you can’t have the abortion you will obviously want, vote for Obama because”

“Romney will cut all your college funding - Obama will “save” you thousands of dollars.”

The whole video amounts to “Be afraid, Romney will tighten the golden purse strings, but a vote for Obama means dollars will fall from the skies for you.” Which is, incidentally, the Democratic platform: Vote for us, we’ll pay you.

Thanks again for the confirmation of my values.

John Johnson-
Romney might have once been able to claim that he’d take two giant steps towards the middle, but the fact is, he hasn’t, and the question is, would he have received the nomination if he had been courageous in the first place?

As far as obstruction goes, most of the bills have been specifically blocked by Republicans in the Senate. At worse, they had the help of just a few Democrats. Obama can’t really take much of the blame for obstruction if bills never reach his desk.

As for the rest? You know the funny thing is, many of the people on the right seem to be former Republicans for one reason or another. Unfortunately, rather than taking that as a cue to stop letting the talking points influence them, it seems to just give them enough room so they can continue to vote for Republicans and support their policies, even while they consume the same propaganda. So, the net effect is not a lot of change in who or what they support. I find this a bit annoying. If you’re repeating their talking points, voting for their candidates, supporting them in their controversies, what’s been the point of saying you’re no longer a party member?

You’re behaving like one in every way that matters.

Stephen

“As far as 1999 goes, I don’t care for playing symbolic games with budgets.”

You think it is a symbolic game to try to achieve what you say was a good thing. You know that government is bloated and do not want to return to what you call good times and blame Bush for ending. You guys actually hate what Clinton did. Obama is the savior from Bush AND Clinton, according to you. That is where you are wrong.

TPM please Adrienne can’t you find a more believable link than that. Even Huff post would be better.

TPM is very believable — if one is partial to facts and factchecking.

But whatever. Since you’re so fond of Huffington Post, here’s their version of the same story:
New Data Show Net Job Growth Under Barack Obama

But since I already know that won’t be considered good enough either, here’s a direct link to Bureau of Labor Statistics

Put that in your hate-filled pipes and smoke it, you American economic-doom-loving righties!

That video IS hilarious, but not for the reasons you say.

Yes, it is hilarious. And you must have problems with reading comprehension, since I didn’t actually give any “reasons.”

Vote for us, we’ll pay you.

No, vote for us and we’ll protect the existing social safety net, the environment, civil rights, etc., etc. Unlike the right who intends to destroy those things in order to conform to their excruciatingly narrow and punitive ideological agendas designed to make the rich richer.

Thanks again for the confirmation of my values.

LOL! Quit lying. People on the right don’t even have any values. You’ve made that more than clear to decent Americans everywhere.

What’s the matter Adrienne personnel responsibility to much for you?

What’s the matter Adrienne personnel responsibility to much for you?

No. But you know what is too much for me? How nasty and cruel and selfish and judgmental and racist all you rightwingers seem to be. And what’s so bizarre about that is that is that in reality you don’t have much at all to complain about or fill you with such rage and anger.
Most of you are older, and therefore you lived through some of the best economic times this nation has ever seen (thanks to FDR’s New Deal). You had a chance to prosper and save more than most Americans ever will. Rather than be grateful and honest about that fact, you rightwingers instead use how well you personally did as a yardstick to measure and look down your nose at everyone else. Rather than count your blessings for being able to take advantage of the time when our economy was booming, you instead go around using the phrase “personal responsibility” like a club with which you beat people who are younger and far poorer, or older and far less fortunate than you were.

Seems to me you do have a problem with Personnel responsibilty. Knocking those that have become wealthy through hard work wanting them to pay more because you don’t want to, I’d gladly pay more in taxes if it were spent right and not wasted on those who think the government owes them a living. One thing that I admired Clinton about was his ending welfare as way of life. Selfish, judgemental, racist I don’t think so. Wanting people to take responsibility for their own fate is neither of those. So try again Adrienne.

try again Adrienne.

There’s no point in that. I’ve already said all I needed to say.

I think some have forgotten a fairly important point: Not four years ago, we had to bail out Wall Street. Though much of that was paid for by Federal Reserve actions and Deficit financed emergency measures, it will most likely come at the average person’s expense some day, one way or another.

But Wall Street, having been treated to all that, now turns around and not only blames the government for their stupidity, but bash anybody for wanting the government to intervene to help the poor and middle class.

More than that, they want us to stop trying to prevent further abuses and further reckless behavior to minimize America and its taxpayer’s exposure to future risk.

I think what frustrates people is that after a financial crisis that was worse than every other financial crisis aside from the Great Depression, Wall Street wants to act like the party’s not over. And all too many Republicans want to help them keep pretending.

The Party is over, one way or another. the decades long attempt to have a prosperous America while externalizing one risk or expense after another to the average American consumer has failed. It turns out you can’t get really cheap on the American worker and keep America a prosperous, world class economy. And no, even with globalism, nobody else is having a nice day if we’re not having a nice day.

Now some folks have said that if we apply austerity, businesses will have confidence, and will hire again. Look at all the countries that have gone down that path.

Folks on the right want to talk about responsibility, when they talk about the people who have been responsible, who have been trying like hell to survive in the unfriendliest economy in decades. But when it comes to talking about the people making the big mistakes everybody’s still paying for, guess what? We can’t hold them responsible, because that would get in the way of them being job creators.

It’s time to stop kidding ourselves. The path back to prosperity does not go through continuing the failed experiment of making business accountable only to itself and the market. We have to realize that sometimes the market is not sufficient to ensure responsible behavior.

The GOP has no business calling itself the party of responsibility. All it asks for is for the poor and middle class to pay for what the rich and the Wall Street traders should be paying for.

What should the rich and Wall St. traders pay for Stephen? You just made the point that YOUR PEOPLE want someone else to foot the bill. YOUR PEOPLE take no responsibility for themselves, you take no responsibility for your mistakes. As long as people are dependent on government to take care of them them the more we will see of generations of dependensy on government. I guess that is what YOUR PEOPLE want is a dependent society.

Stephen…you are a camp follower…an Obama groupie. I am an independent conservative. I believe that a woman should have the right to choose, and religion should be removed from politics. I think Wall Street, the banks, utilities, Big Oil,and Big Insurance should be regulated and monitored closely.

As for you comments about Wall Street and the Repubs being in cahoots…that is what is wrong with you blind people just playing follow the leader. If you would open your eyes and actually study the situation you would find that both the Dems and the Repubs bow down to these people. Their livelyhood depends on those big contributions they receive.

All this Wall Street and bank dereg stuff started in the Clinton administration; the mortgage loan fiasco under Bush. A special indepdendent investigator has dug up all sorts of indictable offenses at Lehman Brothers, but nary a charge has been levied by the Obama administration. Elizabeth Warren was ready and smart enough to get Wall Street and the big banks back in line, but Obama left her hanging and withdrew her nomination to head up the new WallStreet regulatory commission because those guys were throwing a fit. Do you just ignore this stuff because you hate the Repubs so much?

I don’t like Obama because he is ineffective and doesn’t know quite what to do. He is a charlatan…and this is the nicest thing I have to say about him.

What should the rich and Wall St. traders pay for Stephen? You just made the point that YOUR PEOPLE want someone else to foot the bill.

That’s easy. They should pay for ripping this nation off royally.
A hell of a lot more Americans would right now be “footing their own bills” if the Rich and Wall Street hadn’t been so relentlessly greedy and dishonest. And let’s face facts here: You all supported Bush every step of the way while he was running up the debt and allowing Wall Street to drive our economy right off the cliff.
You rightwingers are such complete fools. Or maybe you do understand a lot more than you’re willing to let on, yet you’re all such selfish assh*les that as long as you’re personally still doing okay you think you don’t need to care about how everyone else is doing.

It’s looking likely that you will lose in November — and if that turns out to be true it will be a very positive sign. It will mean that the majority of Americans aren’t as clueless and/or as selfish and mean-sprited as Republicans generally are.

Speakin of Assh+les Adrienne, there is a difference in being responsible for yourself and being a leech. I can understand if a person who is truly handicapped and needing assistance but ablebodied people who live off the government boob a leeches. I can also understand TEMPORARY assistance with the condition of finding gainful employment in a limited time being weeks not years. Wll St. Pay for ripping the nation off, as John Johnson stated YOUR PEOPLE are just as guilty of being in their pocket as the Republicans are. Besides they aren’t the ones who got us 16T in debt, our politicians did from both parties.

Speakin of Assh+les Adrienne, there is a difference in being responsible for yourself and being a leech.

Bush and his Wall Street buddies didn’t act responsibly. The Super Rich 1% Class is full of nothing but leeches on this country and they’ve been sucking this entire nation dry for far too long.
It’s long past time to make them to give some blood back to the bank, and start saving some American lives.

Stephen

The Wall Street bailout was all paid back. In fact the government made some money on that. The bailout that was not paid back was the auto bailout.

The stimulus and the TARP were not the same. TARP was needed and probably averted a depression. The stimulus just moved economic activity and spent a lot of money.

The financial industry was an is heavily regulated. The regulations did not work as intended and may have exacerbated the problem. Government action in forcing unprofitable loans was a major contributor to the meltdown. The Holder gang is still doing that, BTW. http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/008140.html#more.

If we were talking only about regulatory changes, it would be an interesting technical discussion. But your people want to remake America into a more dependent society, as KAP says.

When Obama has everything his way, he used the opportunity to pass ObamaCare and push money into is projects such as green energy that didn’t work out. He did not work to create jobs

As I said Adrienne, you and those of the same mindset want a dependent society, that is depending on someone else for your entire exsistence.

Wall Street now owes it’s existence to the fact that it was allowed to be dependent on government. This is fine with the right — and you don’t care how what Wall Street did drained pensions, destroyed so many businesses and jobs, and caused so many Americans incredible amounts of hardship and struggle.
The idea that People might need help from the government isn’t fine with you — even if people pay the government and our entire society back in a multitude of ways — monetarily and otherwise.

This is why you agree with and support a presidential candidate who thinks “Corporations are People.” In fact, to the right, corporations are actually superior to people.

It’s a crazy, sociopathic mindset — and it’s a complete denial of the founders concept of promoting and providing for the “general welfare.”

Yes Adrienne, we know how liberals think they are better than everybody else and how much they say they care about others. Hell, you guys care sooooo much that you choose to spend your money complaining about other people not helping, instead of putting your own money where your mouth is and helping them yourselves.

Why should rich celebrities like Obama, Jackson, Soros and Moore actually pay for what they “say” they believe is right, when they can save their own money by using government to force everybody else to pay for them?

How can the average liberal drone be expected to give up their own personal luxuries in order to actually help those they “say” they care about?

I’ll take an honest person who tells me they don’t care over a person who lies and pretends to care in order to make themself feel better, anyday.

Adrienne…I am not a big fan of Wall Street, nor the Big Banks since they were allowed to become brokerage houses themselves. Banks need to go back to making money from loaning money and WS needs to be closely monitored and dealt with harshly if they get out of line.

This being said, WS makes almost all of us better off if performing properly since almost everyone’s retirement funds are invested in mutual funds.

KAP-
The question you should ask is why don’t people like me believe what people like you say about them.

John Johnson-
Way to persuade me. Call me a whore. Tell me, have the Republicans made any effort to separate the issues the way you have? No, they haven’t. They’ve used your opinions on financial and fiscal issues to keep you synchronized with them on other issues. Now you have to support a lousy candidate, and your side is far from persuading people against social security or medicare.

Republicans and conservatives have sacrificed so much of their individuality, so much of their ability to depart from the support of the leaders, all for the sake of defeating my party, my political movement.

My belief is that they have sacrificed the ability to change positions in order to sharpen the contrast between them and Democrats, Sacrificed having other policy option for getting people to be fanatically committed to one and just one course of action.

For the sake of that, they’ve been casting off folks who don’t want to follow that path absolutely, people like you, not to put too fine a point on it.

The problem ultimately is that the party lost the robustness of its support, making it more vulnerable to sharper shocks, even if it could survive the small ones better.

Stephen…you don’t get it. I’m not trying to change your mind. I want others to read what we have to say to each other and determine who makes the most sense to them. You are too far gone for anyone to “get to”. You are one of them…way off on the far, far left; your counterparts are way, way over on the far, far right. Those of us in the middle, who don’t allow the abortion and gay rights social issues to muddy the water, will be the ones who work together for change (with compromises) and actually get the ball rolling.

JJ,
If you like Elizabeth Warren and what she tried to do, then you are on the same side as Obama and liberal Democrats. It’s that simple.

Obama nominated Warren for the Consumer Financial Protection position. Conservative Republicans opposed her and prevented the nomination from coming to a vote. At that point, they said the problem was Warren, and they would never let her pass. As a result, Obama withdrew her nomination and provided a solid alternative. The conservative Republicans now said they would not let anyone pass because they opposed the commission in the first place. They did NOT want to see any kind of regulaions or oversight for the financial sector. Obama used a recess appointment to pass the nominee. Conservative Republicans cried foul, and insisted it was unconstitutional, but did not push the matter further.

You’re feeling your way towards the side of the right people. You got that much right. But you’re still so brainwashed in your opposition to Obama, that you can’t get a grasp on it. Yet. The two sides, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, are NOT the same. Not by a mile. And while corporate and billionaire money will continue to corrupt some Democrats- perhaps a third- it owns the conservatives of the GOP lock, stock, and barrel. Virtually 100%. It’s no coincidence a guy like Romney is the nominee.

Should Obama and Holder have prosecuted wrongdoing at Lehman Bros? Should they have gone after S&P and Moody’s, rating agencies that routinely took fees to rate mortgage tranches AAA, when in fact they included subprime mortgages and clearly were not AAA? Perhaps. But let’s remember that happened while BUSH was president, not Obama. That happened due to a concerted effort to prevent regulations and oversight by conservative Republicans, and it has been a conservative Republican standard operating procedure. The Obama administration made a decision to approach the economic collapse pragmatically. They took legal revenge off the table, and let the Bush administration and Wall Street slide.

There’s a difference between causing a problem, and not doing enough to fix it; especially when the people who caused the problem in the first place do everything in their power to hinder, obstruct, and prevent solutions.

Stephen, You and others like you wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked you up side the head. You believe the lies of the left wingnuts that have taken over the Democratic party. You believe everything Obama says and does. The lies about what went on in Lybia is a prime example and the other Embassies in the M.E. Heck, even your own writings on this blog give you away. Obama makes a gaff and you defend it, Biden makes a gaff you defend him. Obama screwed up big time with this recent M.E. disaster. He knew, Clinton knew, and didn’t do anything about it but lie and cover their own A**’ and blame it on a You Tube trailer. Like I said it’s people like you Adrienne and others of like mindset that drove me from the Democrats.

John Johnson-
Don’t take any offense at this, this is just my general attitude, but if you’re not trying to convince anybody, why bother with the political debate? It just seems to me to be self indulgence if you’re not trying to convinced anybody of anything.

I write for a result. I want folks reading this who haven’t made up their minds to be more convinced by what I say, than by the other guy. And those who have made up their minds? I want to be able to bring reasonable doubt to their minds.

If I didn’t feel that there was value to saying these things, I would gladly be doing something else somewhere else. This is a sacrifice to me.

I feel it necessary. Folks aren’t being practical with policies because the politics, both near term and long term have come to overdominate people’s thinking.

Let me tell you a little something about what I’ve observed. There are a lot of nice people out there that I’ve met that hold political beliefs like yours. Folks I don’t think of as particularly malicious. If you keep the subject off politics, you’d never know they feared Obama so much, or thought things were as bad in Washington.

It’s almost like folks are two people, compartmentalized, almost like Werewolves. But I don’t say this thinking that Democrats would be any different to most Republicans. I think most Republicans, if they went out there amongst liberals would find nice people, find folks who, aside from holding values they would protest against at the top of their voices, aren’t really bad by most criteria.

Let me offer you my theory: that sometimes politics can be a little parasitic, a little bit of a derangement of people’s character, and that if we want Washington and America to get back in better shape, we’ve got to stop letting the partisan politics possess us like that. Politics has to be subservient to who we are as ordinary people.

I’m pretty middle of the road. I hate pointless conflict. I’ve always been the one advocating for the need of compromise. I was of a generation that grew up during the Clinton years, and thought it normal to negotiate. But the problem has been, for the last decade, is that the Right in this country, despite serious failures of policies, has jealously insisted on getting its way.

America doesn’t so much need conservatives gone, as a conservatives willing to admit mistakes and let other folk’s ideas have their chance. We can’t maintain a viable democracy for too long if one side refuses to acknowledge any law, any interests, any sense of the world but its own. American cannot belong to one small group, it has to be shared between us all, both for practical and political reasons.

Phx8… you want to defend the indefensible. Obama caved to WS and Big Banks. He could have used the bully pulpit to push Warren’s appointment…he could have appointed her during the congressional recess…he didn’t. He caved in. You don’t need to post umpteen hundred words to muster a counter attack. It puts people to sleep. Journalism 101.

Stephen…I am trying to convince readers…just not you. You are lost to me. You are too far gone.

JJ,
How do you figure Obama caved to WS & Big Banks? Obama NOMINATED Warren in the first place. When the GOP indicated Warren was absolutely unacceptable to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Obama attempted to be conciliatory, and he nominated Richard Cordray; again, the GOP opposed him, and this time- as described by Senator Shelby in a WSJ op-ed- this time, the objection was not to the person, but to the very existence of the CFPB. Obama not only did NOT cave to WS and the Big Banks- he did an end run around the filibuster by resorting to an extreme measure, a recess appointment. Because the Senate was technically still in pro-forma session, there was an argument by Repubicans that the appointment was unconstitutional. After having attempted to be conciliatory, Obama ignored the lattest objections and stood his ground. Cordray now runs the CFTB, despite the best efforts of conservatives to hinder and obstruct.

And what about Elizabeth Warren?

Obama has continued to support Elizabeth Warren, even going so far as to give her a valuable spot speaking for him as well as the rest of the party at the convention. Both Obama and the Democratic party support Warren in her run for the MA Senate seat.

Both the GOP Senate candidate, Brown, and the GOP presidential nominee, Romney, have made it abundantly clear that they are in the pocket of WS and the Big Banks.

There are two sides, and they are NOT the same; in fact, they are opposites, especially on this issue.

He caved. Warren was vocale on the subject long before it was a mainstream topic; she had received a bunch of tv airtime where she pounded on the lack of oversight; she would have continued to receive mucho airtime had O not succumbed to pressure and held his ground. How often have you seen this guy Cordray on a major network? I don’t even have a clue what he looks like. I don’t know what new restrictions are being imposed. The entire subject has gone underground again. Just what WS wanted. Pull your head out, phx8. Quit being an apologist.

So, JJ, Obama should have ignored the objections of GOP Senators and forced Warren into the Director position by using a recess appointment? In hindsight, that might have been the best move. However, politics does not work that way. Obama attempted to work with the GOP Senators. He took them at their word, that the problem was Warren, and in a spirit of compromise, Obama offered a different yet highly qualified candidate. At this point, the GOP Senators shifted their position. They weren’t interested in compromise. Their goal was to prevent the functioning of the CFPB by refusing to fill the position of Director.

Please note: Obama wanted the Bureau to function. Conservatives did NOT want it to function. See the difference?

Politics isn’t always pretty and it isn’t always pure. It requires pragmatism and compromise. It means working with the opposition. For ideologues, that rankles.

If you’re looking for some sort of ideological purity, then politics isn’t for you. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and really, if you’re getting 51%, you’re ahead.

I’d like to see Obama and the Democratic Party break up the Big Banks and re-institute Glass Steagall. From your previous comments, I gather you’d like to see the same. Given the influence of money on politics due to Citizens United, it is especially hard to keep the financial sector from purchasing the government outright. While conservatives and Romney support Citizens United, and Romney epitomizes the financial sector, Obama has made it clear he opposes Citizens United, and he has supported the creation of the CFTB.

The choice is clear. Not perfect. But clear.

Phx8

CFTB would add another layer of needless complexity. I am with you on creating distance between banks etc so that one failure does not destroy the system, but adding a CFTB is not helpful. It would tend to “protect” consumers by forcing banks and institutions to offer product and services that are not profitable, much like government regulation forced and often continues to force lenders to lend money to bad risks.

Warren has also shown herself to be radical. I would oppose her too.

OK… I’ll go along with you and take the O was a chump route. You’re still being an apologist, phx8. Why not just admit that the best person (Warren) is not on the job, and that the buck stops at O’s desk?

With regards to Citizens United, both parties feed from the same trough. They both love the unfettered money. Remember when O said that lobbyists were going to be persona non grata? What happened to that campaign promise? How about the Lehman Bros. crooks not being indicted by O’s AG? Have anything to do with threats of no more money going into super PAC’s? Me thinks yes.

Wake up, phx8. They’re all stinky.

C&J…are you saying that Warren is a radical because she thinks that banks should go back to being banks and not brokerage houses gambling depositors’ money for their own profit gain? They take our bailout money and instead of loaning it to small businesses they hedge and deal in derivatives driving up higher the cost of fuel and food. Do you understand how this all works?

JJ & C&J,
I’m an apologist for Obama in the true sense of the word; I’m defending him because I am realistic and pragmatic about achieving something worthwhile through our government, and Obama offers the best hope. Obama does a good job of representing “we the people.” Not perfect. Good. And “the people” does NOT include corporations.

It’s easy enough to criticize Obama for shortcomings, such as bringing lobbyists into government, or not prosecuting crimes committed during the Bush Administration. It’s easy to be cynical, or to give up. No doubt. If this were a just world, there would be a conga line of people from the finanical sector heading to jail, rather than lobbying to repeal Dodd-Frank. But it’s a far cry from the ideal. So what do we do?

If we could repeal Citizens United, perhaps the CFPB would be unnecessary. In terms of the big picture, the best hope for all of us would be to see its repeal. That would be the first step in taking money out of politics (if such a thing were ever possible), and restoring our politicians to serving the interests of “the people” rather than corporations and a small plutocracy. Because no portion of that corporate sector is more influential than Wall Street.

The only way to repeal Citizens United is through the Supreme Court, and that will require more justices like Kagan & Sotomayor. So really, short of the Democrats achieving 60 votes in the Senate AND control of the House, the realistic and pragmatic way to restore a proper sense of balance and representation through government for ALL of us is through SCOTUS nominations. And the only candidaate likely to make those nominations is Obama, and the party likey to approve of those nominations is the Democratic one. That is the key.

You just don’t get it. They both like the money. They’re both on the teat. Wise up.

BTW, the Supreme Court is not the only means of curbing campaign contributions by corporations.

And “the people” does NOT include corporations.

Actually, a ‘corporation’ is just a legal construct that we created, the people involved in operating and running the corporation are actual ‘people’ and are indeed included in ‘the people’. Those people should not lose their rights just because they are operating within the defined regulated rules of the government in a way to protect their assets and sign contracts.

Your hatred gets the better of you by preventing you from seeing this…

Rhinehold, corps are not people. They are businesses created by people’s money.

JOhn

I think she is a radical because she want to expand the “rights” of borrowers so that prudent people would end up paying for the mistakes of deadbeats. I think she is a radical because she really believes the system is “rigged” and want government to step on the scale. We saw such things in the past. They end badly and don’t even start off very well.

phx8

Obama broke the spending caps BEFORE Citizens United. He was not responding to aggression; he was aggression. Soros was pouring millions into lobbying machines before Citizens United, as were labor unions.

Personally I think it would be a good thing if ALL organizations, including corporations, labor unions, associations etc had to get permission from all their members before they put a dime into any political ads. But I know that smart money will find away around any laws.

SD wrote; “If I didn’t feel that there was value to saying these things, I would gladly be doing something else somewhere else. This is a sacrifice to me.”

Awww…we so appreciate your sacrifice. We’ll understand if you take a second job and not write as much. Sorry we are such a burden.

c&j…I would expect better from you. Your first paragraph does nothing to refute the points in my 12:39am post. Examples of her wanting to expand the rights of borrowers? What does that mean? What such things have we seen in the past? You mean Teddy R’s Square Deal where he busted up the Big’s who were putting the screws to commonbreds?
Furthermore, the system is rigged and Warren , for instance, doesn’t want someone who is not using their own money…entities that don’t have any skin in the game ….to be able to hedge on crude or deal in derivatives. Bart Chilton, appointed by Bush and retained by Obama to study the issue says that legalized gambling in crude oil futures adds as much as $14 to a tank of gas. Your turn. Specifics, please.

John Johnson-
You know, the sad part is, I had to be convinced to be a discouraging voice on attempting bipartisanship with Republicans. First, Republicans had to manage to let the economy go to hell, the deficit skyrocket, and fail to properly win two wars. Then they had to wage a campaign of obstruction so complete that even now, dozens of Obama Administration positions remain unfilled, and eighty percent of the legislation, even during Democratic Majorities, was killed by procedural methods.

Republican didn’t negotiate, didn’t even try to extract concessions, they just didn’t let things past. After a couple years of that, I couldn’t reasonably conclude that there was much of any common ground that Republicans would allow.

I was once even closer to the GOP, being a child of the Bush and Reagan Era. Problem was, I couldn’t stomach the anti-science turn, nor the fact they were ignoring the lessons of generations worth of American history.

Very often, people let, even demanded that government step in because something failed so spectacularly that people simple could not tolerate letting things remain like that.

My principle is that those seeking a minimum of government intervention in the markets have to be responsible enough to reduce the demand for that intervention. My observation, though, is that when it’s good to be bad, when competition almost demands that people abuse folk’s trust, and the market doesn’t intervene to do anything until disproportionate damage has been done, government is necessary. Folks just sometimes can’t help themselves, or resist the competitive forces reinforcing the bad behavior.

I’m really sick of the absolutist bull**** some people peddle about folks like me. What I want is a system that works without constant intervention, that doesn’t impoverish the many to enrich the few. I don’t mind folks getting rich, I mind them wrecking the fortunes of the rest of the country to do so, or worse doing that just to keep a little more of their already prodigious income.

But why do people distort that reasonable point of view? Because otherwise, my kind of view is more than competitive with theirs. People want things back under control. They want the system healed. They’re tired of people in Washington waiting to do something about it, or deciding not to do a single thing.

John Johnson-
You know, the sad part is, I had to be convinced to be a discouraging voice on attempting bipartisanship with Republicans. First, Republicans had to manage to let the economy go to hell, the deficit skyrocket, and fail to properly win two wars. Then they had to wage a campaign of obstruction so complete that even now, dozens of Obama Administration positions remain unfilled, and eighty percent of the legislation, even during Democratic Majorities, was killed by procedural methods.

Republican didn’t negotiate, didn’t even try to extract concessions, they just didn’t let things past. After a couple years of that, I couldn’t reasonably conclude that there was much of any common ground that Republicans would allow.

I was once even closer to the GOP, being a child of the Bush and Reagan Era. Problem was, I couldn’t stomach the anti-science turn, nor the fact they were ignoring the lessons of generations worth of American history.

Very often, people let, even demanded that government step in because something failed so spectacularly that people simple could not tolerate letting things remain like that.

My principle is that those seeking a minimum of government intervention in the markets have to be responsible enough to reduce the demand for that intervention. My observation, though, is that when it’s good to be bad, when competition almost demands that people abuse folk’s trust, and the market doesn’t intervene to do anything until disproportionate damage has been done, government is necessary. Folks just sometimes can’t help themselves, or resist the competitive forces reinforcing the bad behavior.

I’m really sick of the absolutist bull**** some people peddle about folks like me. What I want is a system that works without constant intervention, that doesn’t impoverish the many to enrich the few. I don’t mind folks getting rich, I mind them wrecking the fortunes of the rest of the country to do so, or worse doing that just to keep a little more of their already prodigious income.

But why do people distort that reasonable point of view? Because otherwise, my kind of view is more than competitive with theirs. People want things back under control. They want the system healed. They’re tired of people in Washington waiting to do something about it, or deciding not to do a single thing.

Royal Flush-
I’ve never been one not to argue politics, but I was content to make comments. It took the Bush Administration, and the unfortunate Republicans that have followed to make me think that speaking out politically, telling people about things they might not know, etc was a necessary thing to do.

Consider that. How many people, reflecting over the politics of the last decade, felt where they otherwise would not, that becoming more active in politics was necessary? And it wasn’t even the politics, because as we all know, parties wax and wane in their political influence. No, it was that so many things were getting screwed up, allowed to fall apart, allowed to be lost, simple so a few people in Washington didn’t have to own up to it. The Tea party’s no better, it’s basically the same people trying to hide behind conspiracy theory and ideology. We need people, who even if they’re not in a rush to grow government, even if they aren’t doves or anti-austerity, at least are competent and flexible enough to know the limits of the value of their preferences.

We need people who can be creatively constructively conservative, not simply so blindly dedicated to opposing Democrats or Democratic policies, or even moderate Republican ones, that they don’t change their minds, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Stephen…you write lengthy dissertations about the sorry actions of the big, bad Repubs…how they hold up this and block that. I feel for you because you just can’t seem to make yourself back up a bit and view things from a more objective position.

Dems held up Bush appointments. Dems used the nuclear option on the Repubs during the Obamacare negotiations. No budget has ever been put on the table by the Dems. Clinton had Newt and a host of new gungho freshman reps to content with yet he moved things forward, and O had two years when the Dems had control of Both the house and senate yet accomplished little other than Ocare. What can I say? You are oblivious to the obvious.

Repubs are guilty,as charged, but so is the party that you hold so dear. I feel it is my duty to point this out to you. I guess it could be called “blind love”.

John Johnson-
Objectively, Democrats never obstructed as much as the Republicans did, even at their worst during the Bush Adminsitration. I mean, objectively, 58 vs. 112?

As for the Nuclear Option, I’m afraid you’re objectively wrong on that one. Nobody’s used it. The Republicans threatened to use it, after five judges were blocked. They carried on about how horrible, unamerican, and undemocratic that was.

Fast forward not two years later, and they’re basically attempting wholesale demolition of the Dem’s agenda, first under Bush, I guess so he wouldn’t have to make a show of vetoing so much, and then under Obama so they wouldn’t have to suffer the political consequences of having lost an election. Yet neither party took the option of destroying the filibuster altogether.

Additionally, while we’re being objective, the method used to pass Healthcare, reconciliation, was used by your party to pass the Bush Tax Cuts. This, by the way, is why those tax cuts aren’t permanent.

Additionally, objectively, we did pass a budget, before the Republicans started filibustering the budget. Also, the debt ceiling agreement functioned as that year’s budget legislation.

Here’s the thing, and I don’t think you realize this: the reasons why I write “dissertations” is that I’m often citing multiple facts in order to make my claim.

A number of things need to be cleared up. The GOP left around eighty percent of the Democrat’s bills dead on account of procedural holds and filibusters. This is not an idle claim. Additionally, there was only a six month window when Democrats, united, could by themselves end a filibuster. The stimulus, by the way, was not passed in that period, and only got to a vote because three Republicans stepped over to vote for cloture. In fact, negotiating that is part of the Reason Obama ended up with a weaker stimulus.

Then we had to deal with six months worth of stalling on the part of Republicans in terms of the election in Minnesota. When Al Franken was finally seated, long after everybody was convinced he was in there, we had 59. But that only became sixty after the GOP drove Arlen Specter out of the party. Then, in order to get stuff through, we had to get every Democrat to agree. Even one could hold up the parade. That’s your “filibuster-proof” majority. Now, under ordinary circumstances, that might be a proper term, but with every Republican, time and time again voting against cloture, no exceptions, not even among the Maine Republicans, that became a problem.

And then, of course, Teddy Kennedy died, and Scott Brown took his place.

Legislation has to pass both houses in order to reach the President. That the Democrats worked as hard as they did, and got what they did done is admirable under the circumstances. They had five day weeks, where the GOP has had two. They were one of the most productive Congresses, despite everything. Under the GOP, practically nothing’s gotten done.

Long story short, you are oblivious to the obvious, because your politics requires you to be. You have to ignore the unprecedented behavior coming from the Republicans in Senate, so you can accuse Democrats of being the reason nothing got done. You have to ignore all the noise they made about how undemocratic and shameful the filibuster was in 2005, so their behavior after 2007 doesn’t seem like the rankest of hypocrisy.

And you have to accuse me of being unobjective about things, so you don’t have to face the fact that I start from objective facts much of the time, or at least things I believe can be easily derived from objective fact.

That’s it, Stephen. You are lost. I can’t save you…nor can I read anymore of your long dissertations. It’s all the big, bad Republicans’ fault. Your poor Democrats are terribly mistreated and abused, and don’t get credit for all the good they impart. Is that better , Stephen?

Rhinehold, corps are not people. They are businesses created by people’s money.

Sooo, the ACLU, NAACP, Sierra Club, they aren’t made up and ran by people? Are there sentient robots running those corporations? I didn’t realize we had that technology…

seo , | ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ar,ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ! ! ! seo fuck http://google.com.br | http://google.com.br http://google.com.br ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | , , , , http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php , , - ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, seo fuck ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | , , , , , ,seo fuck ,