Third Party & Independents Archives

Imagining Jeb Versus Hillary

Mitt better put on his gloves and step into the ring because there’s already a Bush in the hottest hubs south of DC, in Florida and Texas. Sentences like this are what you get when the two leading GOP contenders - one who is definitely putting together or has already put together a top-notch team of donors and operatives, the other who is still deciding whether to go to bat a third time - are well-known establishment Republicans. Maybe Romney supporters would protest Mitt’s characterization as an establishment GOP but when you’re in line for a third try for the Oval Office, it’s a tag that must be anticipated and put up with. What the Jeb camp seems to want is lots of discussion over election tactics and strategy: how their team will win with or without Romney in the ring. How they have deep pockets and lots and lots of experienced players well versed in campaign trail decision-making and beltway political manouverings. And once they clean up the nomination - maybe not in a straight sweep but certainly in a fairly easy jog - then they can focus on winning the series in a tough but winnable battle against Hillary. Why nominate anyone else?


The inconvenient question of how many voters really want a Clinton vs. Bush battle in the latter half of the second decade of the 21st century, needs to be asked however. And to ask that question is to ask the substantive policy questions that voters have an obligation more than a right to ask of any candidate who will be in the White House for at least 4 years. What would a Hillary vs. Jeb debate on immigration sound like? Both trying to up each other like two long-toothed predators concealing their claws and fussing over who gets dibs on the same watering hole? Using a little theatre to mask how similar their positions actually are might work in any given debate, but policy will out in the longer run and a clear set of ideas along with the will and the skill to put them into practice is what voters seem to want. A Breitbart poll back in early November showed Hillary was third in a question asking "who is your favorite Clinton". She came it at 16% behind Bill at 37% and Neither at 34%. And when asked if they would prefer a "new generation of Republican leaders" GOP supporters said yes by a margin of 68:13.

It would seem that the underlying voter mood is not one that would stoically endure a Jeb vs. Hillary 2016 race. Perhaps this will burst to the surface during both party's nomination battles. Who might upend a Clinton or Bush? Is it Romney? Or Ted Cruz as an "upset" winner? Will Elizabeth Warren give Hillary the final push from active politics? Imagine Warren vs. Cruz in 2016. Now imagine Jeb vs. Hillary. Never mind which race is statistically more probable. Never mind who is more "presidential". Which race would you prefer?

Posted by AllardK at January 30, 2015 4:01 PM
Comments
Comment #387752

Romney dropped out today, so a Bush v Clinton match-up is not so far fetched. The GOP almost always nominates the establishment candidate, and the heir apparent appears to be Jeb. There’s just one problem. One HUGE problem. No one will vote for Jeb Bush. Not Republicans, not Democrats, not moderates, not conservatives, not liberals. The last name ‘Bush’ is radioactive, and Jeb must be delusional or utterly blinded by ambition not to recognize this. So it is highly unlikely Jeb Bush will ever make it out of the primaries.

The more realistic outcome will be a GOP dark horse v Clinton. Rand Paul might surprise people. Can’t see Rubio-too ineffectual- nor Walker, Christie, or Perry- all dogged by legal & ethical problems. Palin and Trump are jokes. I still think Cruz might be most likely. He is a modern day Joseph McCarthy, completely unscrupulous and capable of saying anything to advance his own personal ambition.

I would most enjoy Jeb Bush running and defending his actions in the Terry Schiavo debacle. That, or Scott Walker explaining how his tax cuts blew a $2 billion hole in the WI budget.

Posted by: phx8 at January 30, 2015 9:41 PM
Comment #387755

It would be interesting to see if they can convince Mitch Daniels to run in 2016. As Indiana governor turned a deficit into a surplus while cutting spending and property taxes. His success was why Mike Pence was able to get elected after Daniels hit his term limit.

The problem isn’t that there aren’t good Republicans that could run, it is that they won’t run because they don’t want to be put through the smear/lie campaign that will be run against them by the left…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 31, 2015 7:12 AM
Comment #387756

Scott Walker still sounds like the strongest GOP candidate in my view. He has been able to uniquely cater to both the establishment and the Tea Party fringe. It would be interesting to see if he’ll be the first President since Harry Truman without a college degree.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 31, 2015 8:41 AM
Comment #387759

Rhinehold,
Mitch Daniels and his wife had some personal baggage that made the prospect of running too unpleasant for him and his family to contemplate. Smears and lies are regrettable, but sometimes candidates- and their wives- do things that just don’t look good in the light of day. Personally, I’m willing to overlook that kind of thing as long as its not indicative of more serious personal issues or serious instability.

WP,
I would dearly love for Scott Walker to run. The Koch Brothers own him lock, stock, and barrel, and while big money might buy an office in a middling size state such as WI, but not even enormous amounts of Koch Brothers money would save Walker from the scrutiny his record would receive on a national level.

His biggest problem will be caused by the hole blown in the state budget. The conservative economic agenda went very badly in WI, and if he runs, Walker would be in a race against the clock to obtain the nomination before bad economic news kills his campaign hopes.

The tax cuts were not supposed to blow up the budget. They were supposed to result in job creation, and Walker promised his policies would result in 250,000 jobs created. The result? Not even close.

Here is an article detailing what happened to the economies of MN and WI:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/purple-wisconsin/280089862.html

Democrats are in charge in MN, and that state is now looking at a $1.2 billion budget surplus, which is projected to increase to $1.5 in 2015.

Meanwhile, the GOP is in charge in WI, and their policies have resulted in a $2.2 billion deficit!

It is not just one category where Democrats are succeeding and Republicans failing. The same results show up in statistic after statistic: personal income, job creation, health care, education, spending on the environment, and so on.

Posted by: phx8 at January 31, 2015 11:38 AM
Comment #387760

Please, could some leftie tell me the state budget that Hillary managed, jobs she created, peace she influenced, or any other good work she had a hand in creating?

It is hilarious to read of the liberal hand-wringing over a “possible” $2 billion Wisconsin budget deficit in the next two years while they praise obama for only producing a $492 billion national budget deficit for 2014.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 31, 2015 1:11 PM
Comment #387761

“… tell me the state budget that Hillary managed…”

She managed the budget at State She was essentially the CEO of an international organization with 24,000 employees reporting to her. During her tenure the US managed to avoid any additional foreign entanglements while overseeing the end of some of the United State’s enemies.

“Clinton viewed “smart power” as the strategy for asserting U.S. leadership and values – in a world of varied threats, weakened central governments, and increasingly important nongovernmental entities – by combining military hard power with diplomacy and U.S. soft power capacities in global economics, development aid, technology, creativity, and human rights advocacy.[324][349] As such, she became the first secretary of state to methodically implement the smart power approach.”

The approach worked. Thanks to her efforts on behalf of Obama, the US was viewed more favorably by every nation except Pakistan and Israel, a great improvement in international relations compared with the absolute disaster of the previous administration.

RF,
Obama has reduced the budget deficit by 2/3 while in office, and may reduce it to Zero by the end of his second term- a truly remarkable achievement. Scott Walker has a very serious problem on his hands, and it does not compare favorably with neighboring states. You might want to read up on it.

Posted by: phx8 at January 31, 2015 3:04 PM
Comment #387762

Obama brags about a $492 Billion national budget deficit for 2014 and the left is critical of a “possible” $2 Billion deficit for Wisconsin. What a laugh, what a joke, what hypocrisy.

Hillary being responsible for State Department budget management as Secretary is akin to crediting MMGW for snow.

Hillary Clinton was a cabinet secretary in an extremely insular, twenty-first-century administration. If her record doesn’t tell us much, that isn’t her fault.

The Washington consensus is that she was enormously ineffective while no one was quite sure whether she was ineffective because she wanted to avoid controversy or because she wasn’t trusted by the president to do anything.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 31, 2015 4:41 PM
Comment #387763

Diplomatic reporter Michael Hirsh judged Clinton a “highly competent secretary of state, but not a great one.”

She traveled tirelessly, promoted so-called “soft power” of US image-building and value promotion, and was a realist in an administration that has numerous foreign policy idealists, Hirsh wrote last June.

Yet “she left office without a signature doctrine, strategy, or diplomatic triumph,” wrote Hirsh.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 31, 2015 4:52 PM
Comment #387764

Royal,

A “highly competent” administrator and a realist in foreign policy perspective. If that is criticism, give me more.

The Obama administration has been criticized for its adoption of realism as its foreign policy underpinning. I don’t get the criticism. During a period of economic crisis, the last thing we needed was another “Pax Americana” adventure like that of GW Bush.

Posted by: Rich at January 31, 2015 6:39 PM
Comment #387765

Rich, that is not a soaring endorsement for a candidate for president. “she was enormously ineffective.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 31, 2015 6:46 PM
Comment #387766

I believe the 2016 presidential election will center on domestic issues in the main. Hillary has no notable experience in that area and no administrative experience with a state budget and legislature to deal with.

Her legacy as a wife, a senator, and a SecState is without any meaningful quotation marks to separate her from the herd.

Can she really win on the coattails of her husband? That’s all she really offers.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 31, 2015 6:54 PM
Comment #387767

A Hillary win IMO would actually be a 3rd term for Bill leading from behind.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 31, 2015 7:02 PM
Comment #387768

I have always found the way some people will ignore reality to take credit for things that help them politically an interesting exercise. This is what is at play here with the idea that “Obama has reduced the deficit”.

It’s like the people suggesting this forget the sequester, the ‘budget cuts’ that the Republicans forced on the Democrats through that process and the natural recovery that happens with no action by anyone in government as somehow within Obama’s power…

In fact, nearly everything that has temporarily lowered the budget deficit has been despite Obama’s efforts to not allow those things to happen.

ph8x also think that the budget deficit will be ‘nearly zero’ when Obama leaves office, yet the CBO has already stated on many occasions that the deficit will be on the rise again by 2018. This was predicted several years ago…

Despite the attempts by many on the left to have us live in a Monarchy, we aren’t there yet. The budget is the responsibility of the Congress, not the President, but when you look at the deficit and compare it to who was running Congress (specifically the House where all spending bills originate) it doesn’t look as good as who was President at the time, so a reality distortion field takes over.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said last week that spending caps are too low. “There will have to be some further discussion about how you pay for providing some kind of room under the caps,” he said.

Rep. Tom Price (R., Ga.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, sees instead the need to trim spending. “If nothing is done, we will continue down an unsustainable path,” he said.

The CBO’s report showed that discretionary spending, after excluding interest costs and major safety-net programs such as Medicare and Social Security, is set to fall by 2019 to its lowest level as a share of the overall economy since comparable data reporting began in 1940.

“The growth of federal spending is not coming from growth across the board. It’s really coming from growth of a handful of really large programs,” Mr. Elmendorf said.

What is going to cause the coming rise in the deficit? Medicaid, Medicare, SS, Obamacare and the Military budgets. Yet, we aren’t allow to discuss those things. Instead, as expected, the left wants to RAISE spending…

The reality distortion field is strong in these people.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 31, 2015 7:57 PM
Comment #387769

Rhinehold,
A budget does not just consist of spending. It also consists of revenues. Think about it real hard. What happened to generate so much tax revenue?

Posted by: phx8 at January 31, 2015 9:05 PM
Comment #387770
What happened to generate so much tax revenue?

” the natural recovery ” as I pointed out in my comment. You know, income taxes…

Again, how exactly did the President do something about that? Last time you tried you kept mentioning either failed programs or ones that Bush implemented (and were also failures).

We are creating another bubble and taking the money in taxes from that bubble. It’s not much different than what Bush did in the middle of the last decade. That didn’t turn out so well, but maybe this time will be different? Until interest rates set by the FED are raised to a reasonable rate and people start actually saving again, the recovery we are seeing is manufactured and largely imaginary… But maybe Obama will get lucky and it won’t collapse until he’s out of office when the left, who kept saying that Obama couldn’t be held accountable for Bush’s economy will do another 180 degree turn and say that as soon as he leaves office everything afterwards is someone else’s fault.

I’ve been around too long of a time not to see the hypocrisy repeated over and over again by both parties.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 31, 2015 9:56 PM
Comment #387771

What bubble?

The only thing even close would be the stock market, and by traditional measures such as price/earning ratios, a bubble is not close. As of Friday, the p/e ration of the S&P is 18.83. That is above the average of@ 14, but given the expectation of increasing earnings over the next few quarters, it is hardly eye-popping. Market tops can sport S&P p/e ratios in the low 20’s and sometimes higher. As people used to be fond of pointing out, corporations used to have a lot of cash on the sidelines. Today, bonds yield low returns, and inflation is non-existent, so hard assets such as real estate hold little attraction. With its powerful growth, the US economy is nearly alone among the major economic powers, and as a result, the dollar is strong and rising. It is not at all surprising the money is flowing into equities.

Having said that, I would not be surprised if most of the Obama bull market has already run its course. We have seen one of the greatest runs in American history. Personally, would guess we are within 20% of a top. Keep in mind, a pullback of 10% is a normal correction. It might take a 20% drop to really scare everybody, and form a base or a new leg.

But if a person cannot be optimistic about what has happened these past six years with the economy, they will never, ever be optimistic about anything. That is the tough part about being a bear- never being happy unless things are going badly…

Posted by: phx8 at January 31, 2015 11:39 PM
Comment #387773

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2015/01/31/5-misconceptions-about-economic-bubbles-and-people-who-warn-about-them/

5) Strong economic growth means that there is no bubble

This one is downright laughable, but is a fallacy made frequently by so-called “sophisticated” economists, business and political leaders, and financial journalists. The idea behind this fallacy is that a booming economy that is creating jobs and corporate earnings growth is on a sustainable path and, therefore, not experiencing a bubble. This argument is being made about the current U.S. economic recovery. Here is the problem with this logic: economists were saying the exact same thing about the U.S. economy in 2005, 2006, and 2007, which were the prime housing and credit bubble years.

During the last American economic bubble, soaring housing prices and consumer borrowing helped to create an abundance of jobs and profits in related sectors such as construction, real estate broking, mortgage banking, high finance, luxury automobiles, and more. While the jobs and profits were technically “real”, they were not sustainable because they were driven by debt and artificial economic activity thanks to the housing bubble. When the bubble popped, much of the profits and jobs that it created were destroyed.

I strongly believe that the current U.S. economic recovery is following a similar unsustainable path as it was just a decade ago. There are many new economic bubbles that are creating the illusion of economic growth such as the shale energy bubble, U.S. higher education bubble, tech startup bubble, real estate bubble (in some market segments), stock and bond market bubbles, and U.S. exports to countries that are experiencing bubbles of their own (Canada, China, and emerging markets).

Just seven months ago, the majority of economists and financial journalists believed in the U.S. shale energy boom and were overjoyed by the jobs and economic activity that it was creating. At that time, I warned that oil prices and the shale energy sector were experiencing a bubble, and that its popping would lead to job losses and the failure of related companies. Sure enough, oil prices have crashed, shale energy companies are going bust, tens of thousands of energy sector workers are losing their jobs, and the situation is expected to worsen in the near future.

Few people saw the housing bubble, and few are seeing the current bubbles forming. The reason is that the bubbles are being created because the growth is not based on value or logic, but because of cheap debt. As these bubbles inflate one or more of them are likely to be very damaging to the economy since the economy isn’t growing on real things, but on debt speculation and overleveraged investing, the same thing that got everyone in trouble 8 years ago…

I would call the economy strong when it is coupled with an interest rate over 6% and a savings rate over 2%. Until then, everything being built will likely come back to earth as the gains are not based on value but on speculation.

But if a person cannot be optimistic about what has happened these past six years with the economy, they will never, ever be optimistic about anything. That is the tough part about being a bear- never being happy unless things are going badly…

Yeah, there’s lots of money being made right now, but it is borrowed money that is being used to make those gains, short term instead of long term trading, because people understand that even if a bubble is looming, you can make money on it. But it’s not REAL growth. That’s the thing you don’t seem to be getting.

The funny thing is that people who were warning of the housing bubble were told the same thing in 2004/2005… How did that turn out for everyone?

3) Bubble skeptics are “permabears”

This belief assumes that people who are aware of a bubble or warning about it cannot acknowledge or trade shorter-term bullish signals in the asset that is inflating. On the contrary, I frequently spot bullish tactical signals in stocks and other assets that I believe are experiencing a bubble that will end disastrously. Analysts and traders who use “trend-following” trading systems can capture gains during a bubble even if they are skeptical of the long-term fundamentals behind the trend. Of course, actually taking advantage of these bullish signals may present a moral dilemma for someone who is warning about a bubble.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 1, 2015 6:49 AM
Comment #387776

There will always, always, always be bears predicting the imminent collapse of the economy. Always. Oh wait. Did I mention always?

The decline of real estate prices was VERY predictable. I refinanced my house at that time, and although real estate is not an area of expertise for me, even I knew we were in a bubble and heading downward. I specifically discussed this with the agent, and he agreed. We left enough in the house to cover a downturn. I had seen a regional slump in housing before, in CA, so I very intentionally left more than enough equity in the house, and as a result, never went underwater on the mortgage.

What no one realized in 2006 was just how far housing prices would fall, because no one knew the economy would totally collapse. Financial institutions, free of oversight and regulation, created an enormous market in mortgage derivatives- almost ALL of it created during the Bush administration- and when housing prices declined, the dominos started falling in those who participated in mortgage derivatives shadow banking markets. First, Bear Stears went down in fall 2007, and was sold.

The final blow came in fall 2007. Secretary of the Treasury Paulsen & Bush did not want to risk moral hazard, and so they let Lehman Brothers collapse. The result was an absolute disaster.

Fortunately, the policies of Democrats and Obama were implemented. People like Paulsen, Bush, Summers, and Geithner- architects of the collapse- also participated in implementing successful policies like the TARP, stimulus, and others.

The GOP opposed those policies at every turn.

Royal Flush,
You write: “Obama brags about a $492 Billion national budget deficit for 2014 and the left is critical of a “possible” $2 Billion deficit for Wisconsin. What a laugh, what a joke, what hypocrisy.”

Really? You cannot distinguish the difference between increasing a deficit, and decreasing it? You cannot differentiate between the size of WI budget and the federal one?

Well, that explains a lot of things…

Posted by: phx8 at February 1, 2015 4:02 PM
Comment #387777

Pull your underwear down, your voice is becoming squeaky.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 1, 2015 5:19 PM
Comment #387778

Ah, I sense weakness. No answer, eh Royal Flush? Because the thing about that $2 billion budget deficit in Walker’s Wisconsin is that is has to be covered somehow. The GOP answer? Cut education. And that is why conservative economics inevitably result in a downward spiral. It is no coincidence that 9/10 poorest states and 97/100 poorest counties in the union are Republican.

It turns into a feedback loop: cut taxes, big deficits and lots of debt, cut spending, do not invest in education and infrastructure, cut taxes, more deficits and debt… and so on.

Here is classic example of conservatives on the economy, from 2012:

“If Obama’s re-elected, it will happen. There’s no IF about this. And it’s gonna be ugly. It’s gonna be gut-wrenching, but it will happen. The country’s economy is going to collapse if Obama is re-elected. I don’t know how long: a year and a half, two years, three years.”

“California is going to declare bankruptcy and you know what Obama will do? He’ll go to states like Texas or Arizona, Florida to bail them out. That’s what he’ll do, and that’s gonna precipitate this stuff. California is showing where we’re headed in every which way.”
Rush Limbaugh, 9/10/12, as quoted on FOX

http://nation.foxnews.com/economic-collapse/2012/09/10/limbaugh-predicts-economic-collapse-if-obama-re-elected

What actually happened? Well, California is running a $4 billion budget SURPLUS because it is in the full control of Democrats. Minnesota is doing really well too, for the same reason. States like WI and KS are running huge deficits because the are run by conservative Republicans… They cut taxes, ran up deficits and debt, cut investment in education and infrastructure, cut taxes, and so on.

A feedback loop of failure.

Posted by: phx8 at February 1, 2015 5:33 PM
Comment #387780
California is running a $4 billion budget SURPLUS

LOL

Wisconsin has been showing a surplus because it is using cash based accounting methods that would send the accountants of any privately held company to jail. Using those very same methods, California is also showing a surplus…

Perhaps people should be forced to take accounting classes before discussing these things, I don’t know. It’s the same way that Clinton had a ‘surplus’. Similarly with Obama… The money is still ‘owed’, but it is just not owed right now and it is owed to us, so… let’s not count that bit…

Tell me, phx8, what are the state Democrat’s plan to fund the unfunded pension plans which, in California, are more exorbitant than most states?

And here I thought the left was supposed to be concerned with the needs of the elderly, not raiding their pensions for current political gain…

Brown is using cash-based budgeting to underreport the cost of an employee benefit — retiree health care — by $3 billion. The governor could have chosen to report the expense at its full size, but to do that under cash-based budgeting, he would have had to actually contribute $3 billion in cash to a retiree health-care trust fund.

That’s exactly what governors are supposed to do. Retiree health-care expenses, like pensions, are supposed to be pre-funded in order to protect future generations from having to pick up an earlier generation’s costs. But Brown chose not to do so, making his budget look rosier than it is. This shortchanges future generations, which will have less money for their own services because they will have to pay off the skipped costs.

Businesses aren’t permitted to use cash-based budgeting. Instead, they must accrue expenses whether paid or not. During Brown’s current term in office, his budgets will ignore more than $12 billion in retiree health-care costs. …

Brown’s budget this year also ignores more than $3 billion in required contributions to the state teacher pension fund. It’s the largest “skipped” pension contribution in the country and continues a pattern that has led the fund to build up an $80 billion deficit accruing zero-coupon interest at 7.5 percent a year.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 1, 2015 9:23 PM
Comment #387781
In fact, even though revenue, taxes and fees are higher now than they were the last time California reported a balanced budget, in 2007, state spending on most state services is lower. Spending on welfare, universities, courts and parks is down more than 20 percent because spending on employee salaries, pensions, retiree health care, debt service and Medicaid is up more than 20 percent.

In short, California is able to report a balanced budget only by ignoring more than $6 billion in costs, cutting services to the state’s most defenseless people, and imposing temporary taxes that will go away when Brown leaves office in 2018 (assuming he is re-elected). No core issue has been solved. But cash-based budgeting obscures those realities.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 1, 2015 9:53 PM
Comment #387783

Rhinehold,
CA has a surplus and can use it for a rainy day fund, paying down liabilities, or expanding spending. You are attempting to compare long term pension liabilities for the CA budget that face trouble in 30 years, with short term liabilities for WI that are happening NOW and will require budget cuts NOW, such as large cuts for education.

I remember you spent a lot of time arguing the Clinton budget surplus at the end of his second term was somehow not really a budget surplus after all. Sigh.

Posted by: phx8 at February 1, 2015 10:47 PM
Comment #387784

I agree, sigh. Worse is that people like phx8 want to put people into jail for their accounting practices leading up to the 2008 economic issues, but give their favorite state and federal governments a pass on doing worse accouting…

Yes, phx8, CA brought in more money than they REPORT that they spent… Not more money than they were required by law to spend, but more than they accounted for spening because they kicked down the road the fact that pension plans need to be funded. Again, if a company doesn’t fund their pension plans, you call for those CEOs to go to jail. Brown, you give him accolades…

As for Clinton, I didn’t argue anything, I stated facts and numbers. The only ones arguing are the ones who don’t understand accounting and how it can be manipulated to say what you want to say. Oh, and the people who won’t get getting their SS checks later because Clinton used that money to make himself look better.

You tell me, phx8, if Wisconsin had said that they had a budget surplus, yet their debt increased, would you call foul on that assertion? I imagine you would be jumping up and down in protest. Yet when Brown and Clinton screw over people’s retirement funds for personal gains, hey, that’s ok…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2015 12:24 AM
Comment #387785

Tell me, phx8…

I have a mortgage payment of 1000 per month. I bring in 2000 a month in revenue. I spend 1500 on a new TV and choose not to pay for my mortgage, did I have a 500 surplus that month?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2015 12:31 AM
Comment #387788

Thanks Rhinehold for your discussion of “creative” accounting.

I don’t understand how the left can heap accolades on obama for only having a $492 Billion budget deficit for 2014. Given their choice, the left would be happy with a $600 Billion deficit for 2015.

Creative accounting (commonly referred to as obfuscation) is readily apparent in obama proposed budget. He calls for much more spending in real dollars while paying for it in Monopoly money.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2015 1:33 PM
Comment #387794

RF,
So when Bush and the conservative Republicans took a budget surplus, and eight years later turned it into a $1 trillion dollar deficit, you approved? They even carried the Iraq war off-budget each year so it would not look as bad. You still support those people to this day without a word of criticism!

And yet, when Obama and the Democrats cut the deficit from $1 trillion to $483 billion, the rapidest drop in the history of our country, you cannot bring yourself to approve. You still support the people who racked up the deficits, and oppose the people who brought it down.

What that tells me is that you couldn’t care less about debt or deficits. You make up stuff out of thin air, like this, to justify your unjustifiable opposition:

“Given their choice, the left would be happy with a $600 Billion deficit for 2015.”

Really? That’s pretty bad. That’s sinking to a new low.

Posted by: phx8 at February 3, 2015 4:23 PM
Comment #387795

phx8 again shows his lack of understanding of how our government works…

It was Obama and the Democrats that cut the deficit, ignoring of course that they wanted to spend more (ie, more deficit) but were stopped and forced to comply with the sequester and live with the spending cuts (meaning the cuts in planned increases by the Democrats before them) the Republicans demanded. Even then, we still increased spending more than at any time in history, imagine had we spent more like the Democrats wanted…

Apparently it’s the president who holds the pursestrings, who sets tax policy, who writes and passes the budget… Why do we even have a congress these days?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 3, 2015 4:49 PM
Comment #387796

Some lefties can walk and chew gum at the same time. Lefties on WB can’t read and comprehend at the same time when it comes to spending deficits and national debt.

Bragging about slowing the speed of our approaching bankruptcy is cause celeb for them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2015 5:51 PM
Comment #387798

RF,
You support those that speed our approach to bankruptcy, and condemn those who slow it. That is fundamentally dishonest.

Rhinehold,
You ignore the importance of growth to tax revenues, and pretend it is only a matter of one side of the equation, spending. That is also dishonest.

Posted by: phx8 at February 3, 2015 10:15 PM
Comment #387800
You ignore the importance of growth to tax revenues, and pretend it is only a matter of one side of the equation, spending. That is also dishonest.

The only one being dishonest is you, phx8. First, you ignore my comment talking about increased revenues and then claim that I ‘ignore the importance’. It’s like you are arguing with someone else and aren’t really reading what I write…

Then you make two false claims:

a) You claim that the smaller deficit is only due to Obama and the Democrats, yet ignore the fact that the Democrats gotten their way the deficit would have been higher. The sequester, which the Republicans pushed on, is what prevented that from happening

b) You also claim that the deficit will shrink to nearly or at zero by 2018, which the CFO would disagree with completely. This lower deficit was predicted by them because of a temporary congruence of events. The deficit will start to increase again and be on an upward track before Obama leaves office.

You can’t accept that Republicans had a role to play in this at all. You also try to push all of the deficit increases onto Bush, ignoring the years when the Democrats were the ones creating and passing budgets and tax policy. You decry Bush putting the Iraq war ‘off budget’ but when Clinton and Obama leave things ‘off budget’ you are just fine with that and even defend it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 4, 2015 7:34 AM
Comment #387824

phx8, well when the stock market is up, unemployment down, more people covered by healthcare insurance than ever before, economy slowly recovering and a foreign policy playing out that strengthens our country rather than spreading our troops out in places they don’t really belong, what is a gloom and doom naysayer supposed to do? It is not a perfect world and never will be but those that invested heavily in the failure of President Obama can’t really be honest about what he and this country have been able to accomplish. I expect we will hear this from them over and over but it is a lot easier for me to ignore their protestations then it was 6 years ago. I’ll take the results that President Obama has had success with and hope that the country as a whole will continue to succeed. Naysayers be damned.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 4, 2015 8:30 AM
Comment #387825

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed.

Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed.

Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%

If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find — in other words, you are severely underemployed — the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6%

Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America’s middle class.

So, the middle class is screwed for jobs, getting the increased tax burden of putting millions of people on Medicaid and paying subsidies for their healthcare, we are sticking our noses in areas we don’t below (How is ISIS a danger to the US again? Why are we engineering coups in Eastern Europe?), going back to Iraq and staying in Afghanistan while allowing the Taliban to take the country back over.

That you don’t see these as real issues that are not being address by this administration is not very comforting to me, to be honest.

And now, the FCC is engineering a takeover of the internet that they’ve longed for for years… It just keeps getting better.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 4, 2015 1:04 PM
Comment #387826

Rhinehold.
There is nothing sinister about the way unemployment rates are calculated. The population is ageing, so there will be more people no longer working. In addition, the economy only recently replaced the huge number of jobs lost in the Great Recession. We are growing fast. Watch out for Friday’s newest employment numbers. They will probably be good, and good news will ruin your whole day.

And yes, the FCC will regulate the internet so that it will be equally available for everyone, just like water.

Better check those internet tubes for fluoridation!

Posted by: phx8 at February 4, 2015 2:20 PM
Comment #387827

Earlier I stated “It is not a perfect world and never will be”. You can look at that statement and see opportunity or you can look at that statement and dwell on the imperfections. I try to do the former however some are only able to do the latter. Understandable as the world is a difficult place to exist in for some. They have my sympathy but that will not replace my optimism.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 4, 2015 2:32 PM
Comment #387828
There is nothing sinister about the way unemployment rates are calculated.

Never said anything about them being sinister, just that they are woefully inaccurate. Much like how other statistics the government uses are modified in ways that originally were changed because of good intentions but ended up being a problem, like the inflation statistics that Gingrich and Clinton agreed to in the mid 1990s. Because of those changes the FED didn’t see the inflation in housing prices that pointed to a dangerous bubble until it was too late.

And yes, the FCC will regulate the internet so that it will be equally available for everyone, just like water.

LOL, that’s adorable. You realize I (and many other people) don’t have a water utility that we buy water from yet we have clean water to drink… This idea that everyone is the same and have the same needs is ridiculous.

Who doesn’t have access now? And equally available? I can get 15M downloads, I know people can get 60m in some places, is the government going to force my coop that I partially own to provide 60M speeds to me too? Do you think I *need* that much bandwidth?

People don’t realize that the interwebs isn’t configured in the way they think it is. The problems that you don’t see with this are many, far too many to go into here. But, people want unlimited high speed data downloads for free[1] so… *shrug*

Everyone would be better served if the government would take away the monopoly status they have given the cable companies over the years, allowing competition. But that would of course mean less government control and totalitarians aren’t going to let that happen.

Internet is as important to people as water is, that’s classic… Next you’ll tell me that the government should subsidize that everyone have a new smartphone every 2 years…

[1]There is no such thing as free

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 4, 2015 3:52 PM
Comment #387829

Good Grief, what a jaundiced view of our Constitution some lefties hold. A competent reader of our constitution would understand “created equal” doesn’t entitle anyone to any material stuff. Freedom and liberty is what makes us equal, not government regulations and decrees.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 4, 2015 4:34 PM
Comment #387830

Question for my leftie friends.

Should city police be barred from responding to a crime on church property? Should firefighters refuse to use public hoses on church fires?

If not, in keeping with your position on separation of church and state…why not?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 4, 2015 6:27 PM
Comment #387831

RF,
The separation of church and state is an institutional separation, not a physical or ideological one. Religion and state are present in all of our lives in many forms, and some of their ideas overlap. It is impossible to literally separate them. Furthermore, in the case of fireman and a burning church, public services are made equally available to all, regardless of religious preference, just as voting is made available to all. A “reasonable man” test obligates a local government to prevent a church from burning, as a matter of safety to people inside as well as neighboring properties and the lives of those neighbors.

Institutional separation means the government cannot establish an official religion, nor interfere with the practice of religion… Unless a religion practices arson as part of its true faith!

Posted by: phx8 at February 4, 2015 6:58 PM
Comment #387832

BTW, this is a perfect example of why I am not looking forward to FCC regulations of the internet. The idea of free speech just keeps getting less and less important to those who want to increase the power of the state.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 5, 2015 6:27 AM
Comment #387833

Oh and for the idea that asset forfeiture was going away somehow with a recent decision? Guess again…

“Mrs. Lynch has a track-record of violating the individual freedoms granted to us by our Constitution. She considers civil asset forfeiture to be a ‘useful tool,’ while I consider it to be an infringement on the Fifth Amendment. She remains non-committal on the legality of drone strikes against American citizens, while I believe such strikes unequivocally violate rights granted to us by the Sixth Amendment.
Posted by: Rhinehold at February 5, 2015 7:00 AM
Comment #387834

“The idea of free speech just keeps getting less and less important to those who want to increase the power of the state.”

The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. This, from a person who believes money is free speech, and that corporations are people.

Posted by: phx8 at February 5, 2015 9:31 AM
Comment #387840

Money is access to free speech and corporations are not people, no one says that they are. Well, other than progressives who have a hard time understanding nuance.

The reality is that no one should lose their free speech rights just because they incorporate. Something that he left wants to do.

The only one attacking free speech right now are Democrats, which is strange that you support such a thing and then say you are defending people’s rights…

Defending a right means defending people who use that right even if you don’t like them or disagree with them. For some, apparently, rights should only be for people they agree with.

But hey, that’s what you believe and more power to you. That you don’t get your misunderstanding of the issue because you believe the lies you are told is on you, not me.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 5, 2015 10:14 AM
Comment #387845

Oh, and don’t forget the real irony here…

Corporations like the NY Times, NAACP, Sierra Club, etc can have all of the free speech they want (because they are supposedly liberal causes) but other corporations can’t… That’s what the left is pushing for. Hilarious hypocrisy, really.

Ignore the 25 million that the Koch brothers gave to the NAACP though, that doesn’t mean anything… Or the fact that the DCC recently reached out to the Koch brothers for donations, that’s just not something that should be mentioned… Don’t want to pierce the echo chambers.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 5, 2015 10:18 AM
Comment #387848

Why is it that our conservative friends here at WB like to argue what they say we say but not what we say?

If anyone advocates for better opportunities for poor all we get is the shouting “nothing is free!”.

If anyone advocates for separation of church and state we get nonsense like “you mean let churches burn!”.

If anyone advocates for preventing large corporations from buying our politicians we get “corporations are not people if you understand the nuance we use to define them but should get all of the rights guaranteed to a person besides you guys do it too!”.

Why are you only able to see the argument through your terms and not try to understand what is being said. Does it give you come kind of jolly to use what is typed in ways that you know are not what is meant? Or do you truly believe that you have a better understanding of what we try to say and just need to point out our misunderstanding?

Either way it seems dishonest or demeaning and just doesn’t make much sense.

Now I guess I will be accused of fomenting mistrust or some other such nonsense. Just to be clear I support the advocacy politics of this country, I support every individuals right to be heard and express their opinion and I support anyone’s right to disagree with what I say. I do not support the right to turn someone’s words into something they don’t really mean as a method of gaining an advantage in a discussion.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 5, 2015 10:58 AM
Comment #387850

First, it seems like you are including me in ‘conservative’, and that seems a bit contrary to your complaints, doesn’t it? Just an observation.

Second, I work very hard for bettering opportunities for the poor, but the methods that progressives have been using have been an unmitigated disaster in doing so. Instead, they end up taking money from other people by force, giving some of it to government and some of it to people as only a temporary solution, creating a dependency on it. The notion of getting off of assistance once on is lost on the left.

Third, no one ever said that corporations should have the same rights as people. Can corporations donate directly to candidates? No. Can corporations vote? No. HOWEVER, just because someone has incorporated means that they, individually, did not lose their rights. You still have to have a warrant to search a corporation because the PEOPLE in that corporation still have rights. You can’t force a corporation to belong to a specific religion because the PEOPLE in the corporation still have rights.

The issue comes out of people collectively using money to pay for advertising to have their say. Much like groups like NAACP and unions do, and should be able to do. Remember, this all came about because of a group of people wanting to make a documentary about Hillary Clinton. The rules said that they couldn’t air that documentary just because they had incorporated to make contract negotiations easier and protect the individual’s assets if the venture lost money.

I don’t get the corporate hate. If you don’t want the corporations to have power, don’t give it to the government where they attempt to get it from. Just like if you don’t want the teacher’s union to have that power, don’t give the government the power that they then go and lobby for. The problem isn’t that we have groups speaking their views, the problem is that we have a government with too much power that the people we disagree with might obtain some day.

Or you could try to eliminate corporations as an entity. They only can exist because government has provided the ability for them to do so. But if you do, make sure you understand what the net result of that would be…

Why are you only able to see the argument through your terms and not try to understand what is being said.

Again, it’s about seeing parts of the argument that you are missing. A perfect example is Obama’s ‘let’s just make college free’. Really? You don’t see all of the problems with this, most notably the fact that they aren’t free. Our primary schools aren’t free to run either. They take money… ignoring that basic part of the argument is just a blind argument, an appeal to emotion that doesn’t match up with reality and facts.

I support every individuals right to be heard and express their opinion

Unless, of course, they form a corporation, then screw ‘em?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 5, 2015 4:02 PM
Comment #387851

Thanks for the reasoned but somewhat accusatory response. Better opportunities for the poor are and can be obtainable. The idea that everything we are doing is bad is not true. I would advocate a better system of helping someone realize their value in life and the values that their life can bring to them and the people around them. Now that might seem like a pie in the sky thought but then a lot of what you speak of about libertarians seems to me to be pie in the sky thought. To make the statement “The notion of getting off of assistance once on is lost on the left.” is not only attempting to pigeon hole any idea from a liberal progressive democrat it also seems untrue when held to a real examination. This may happen but it is not the outcome that most liberals would believe that they would want.

Corporations are not people. A group of people is not a person. I would like to see all financial incentive removed from the election process except for individuals by themselves. That would include all unions, corporations, environmental groups, political action committees, religious organizations or social organizations and their donations and especially “K” street types. DC would do well to call in fleet of bulldozers and start a cleanup process. Their is no corporate hate here just an understanding that corporations obey a bottom line and will use any method to obtain that whether it is legal, ethical or moral.

Look, I would not want to live in your world. As near as I can understand you would not want to live in my world. We do both however have to live in the same world. There has to be a way for us to make comments about what we would like without turning each others words into what we want them to say rather than what they are meant to say. And if that is not anything that can actually happen I still would work for that to happen no matter the eventual outcome.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 5, 2015 4:22 PM
Comment #387852
This may happen but it is not the outcome that most liberals would believe that they would want.

And there is the problem. Trying to make progressives understand where their policies fail is a hard thing to do because they don’t want to hear it. It’s about emotion. If they really understood how destructive those policies were, they might try to fix them, but instead they hold on to them and see any attempt to change them as an attack on the poor…

I work with charities where we mentor those who are in that cycle of despair. Showing them that they have the power, within themselves, to change their lives. Most of them don’t realize this, they think that they are being held down or incapable of making their lives better. Attempts have been made to make these programs available to those receiving help, but it is seen by the defenders of the programs as ‘attaching conditions’ onto the assistance they receive. So we have to go about it as best we can, but it makes it much harder to do.

We need to have an honest to goodness discussion about how the programs are helpful in the short term but very destructive in the long term, but the left simply does not want to have that conversation…

Corporations are not people. A group of people is not a person.

It’s like you have a mental block… No one is saying they are. But the individuals don’t lose their rights just because they act in accordance with each other. The right of free association is still a right that individuals have, a right you want to strip away…

I would like to see all financial incentive removed from the election process except for individuals by themselves. That would include all unions, corporations, environmental groups, political action committees, religious organizations or social organizations and their donations and especially “K” street types.

Now, let’s logically play this out and see what that would get us…

The net result is that people who don’t have a lot of money would be unable to get their message out through any kind of advertising, campaigning, etc. The rich people, like the Soros’, the Koch’s and the Steyer’s, would have even more power in having their opinions heard. The NY Times and other press organizations would no longer be allowed to endorse candidates. Greenpeace wouldn’t be able to run ads telling people about how a candidate is against the environmental needs of the country.

In effect, you would make the rich even more powerful… The ability to pool money with like minded individuals to affect political change would be gone.

For the life of me I don’t understand why anyone would think this is a good idea… But, as you say, you have a right to your opinion. All I’ve ever wanted was that when people have their opinions that they understand the ramifications of their opinions and be willing to accept them. Not get upset when someone challenges their opinions and view it as ‘an attack’. Blindly making emotive prognostications because it feels right doesn’t mean that it’s the most prudent or even the most logical position to have…

Yes, we both live in the same world. The issue is the filter being used. I work hard to see things as they are, not as I want them to be or as I think they are. Which is why I have spent a lot of time dealing with and trying to understand people who aren’t in my position. I work with the poor a great deal, not just as a high handed here let me help you but really trying to understand their situations. Before I develop an opinion I look at what others say about it, at what the opposition says, etc. It’s part of the debate techniques I learned early on. I can debate for or against just about any side of any topic. It’s how I keep my opinions from being torn apart so easily, I’ve already torn them apart myself time and time again. I wish everyone did that, but it’s not something we encourage in our school system, unfortunately. It used to be…

My wish is that instead of teaching approved opinions, as is done in schools today, we gave our children the tools to use critical thought against everything they are taught. Let them ask questions that are difficult and admit that our teachers don’t necessarily have all of those answers. Encourage children to voice opinions that are against those of the curriculum provided that they can reason it out logically. This is still done in college to a degree (though not as much as I would like to see) but it really needs to start sooner before we have our kids brainwashed.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 5, 2015 5:24 PM
Comment #387853

Good for your work with poor people. I would not want it if I were poor (easy to say because I am not) however but thanks for what you try to do. I would rather have an homogenous source of the help given to the poor. Not a church or organization that holds approval of someone’s behavior as the litmus test if they deserve help. But see that’s just me and lot of people like me. I still think there is an ability to have government involved but respect your opinion that it shouldn’t be. I still would not agree with you though.

I do have a mental block. It is called believing in the person. Not a group who then wants to act like a person but a person. Simple limitations on the amount that can be donated would take care of your fear that only the wealthy could control the electoral outcome. It’s really not that difficult to understand.

I do not have the time, energy or the inclination to personally involve myself in the implementation of the aforementioned. You might see that as something that you wouldn’t want to aspire to. I simply say then don’t. Do what you will and I will do what I will. Just don’t try to tell me that what I think is right is not as right as what you think is right. We each have our definition of right.

Sure policies fail, we all understand that. I would think you could understand that if you didn’t blame everything that is wrong in the world on liberal progressive thought. You should know better but you don’t seem to apply that.

Thanks for trying to discuss this but I do believe that we are from different planes of existence on this. I think we as a society will continue to polarize but hope the manifestation of our polarization process changes for the better of all of us. I am glad your filter works for you, my filter works for me too.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 5, 2015 5:44 PM
Comment #387856
I would rather have an homogenous source of the help given to the poor. Not a church or organization that holds approval of someone’s behavior as the litmus test if they deserve help

See, you just made my point for me. No one is saying that anyone is or should be required to use the services we provide. They shouldn’t, because if someone isn’t willing to try and better themselves, forcing them to do it isn’t going to work.

It’s a service offered to people if they want it. But we aren’t allowed to even do that in these cases… because someone comes along and says ‘no litmus test’, without even asking the questions or trying to understand something they spent 15 seconds reading… just because it violates their view of the world or is opposed by their approved party spokesmen or something…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 5, 2015 5:59 PM
Comment #387857

BTW, the unemployment numbers come out tomorrow. The unemployment rate from the previous month of 5.6% is really not the best number to follow. The best one is non-farm payrolls. That is what economists and markets watch the most closely. However, the unemployment rate does confirm the overall trend, and does provide one other useful piece of information: since it measures people who have lost their jobs during the past six months and are actively seeking work, the low number shows not many people have been losing their jobs recently. And that is good news.

Posted by: phx8 at February 5, 2015 6:19 PM
Comment #387858

There should be multiple ways that better opportunities can be presented to people. Private organizations is something some people would like and others would rather not. Just because there is more government involvement today doesn’t mean that is written in stone as the only way forward. There should be more options available and less restrictions on how to provide that to people from both private and public sources. I get your point and that is unfortunate that it interferes with your ability to accomplish what you set out to do however I hope you understand that I don’t personally oppose your want to help people and support your efforts. I just don’t think it should be the only option.

With the great bounty this country provides there has to be a way to accept that we can help people realize value in their lives, in my estimation that shouldn’t be just directed to people in need monetarily. There a lot of people that could be helped by using common sense approaches to solving that problem and not just one tried and true way. The diversity of our country would belie the need to structure that in such a monolithic approach. Good luck and best wishes in your endeavors to accomplish what you see as necessary. And thanks again for providing an opportunity to not just talk past each other. It is encouraging.

The job numbers do look good today but there always seems to be a time when an 8 year President leaves office that there is a panic in the economy. Markets drop, employment suffers, politics become polarized and no one benefits. Let’s hope we see a better outcome in 2016. I am hopeful.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 6, 2015 9:26 AM
Comment #387859

Non-farm payroll numbers through the roof! Latest month 267,000, with huge upward revisions for previous two months: 329,000 and 414,000, the most in 17 years.

Wages jumped too, the biggest upward move since September 2008.

Terrible news for conservatives. Yesterday I caught a few minutes of Limbaugh for the first time in a long time. He was preparing his listeners for the bad news, namely that unemployment numbers would be great. Let’s see. It was something along these lines- the numbers are misleading- the numbers are inaccurate- look at this bad number over here that no one has ever heard of, not those good ones that everyone heeds- and, it took too long for these great numbers to happen…

It’s funny, because he would say completely contradictory things within the same minute.

Posted by: phx8 at February 6, 2015 2:56 PM
Comment #387860

Limbaugh is indeed a strange fellow. He would seem to thrive on the failure of President Obama even if it meant a terrible outcome for the country that he calls home. I understand why some pundits are considered insightful whether they are serious or comedic. I am just not sure why Limbaugh could ever be considered insightful, he is neither serious nor comedic but does exhibit the propensity of a malcontent very very well. Maybe that is his attraction, I have tried listening to him more than one time but only find great pleasure in turning the radio off while mumbling some language not suitable for children or gentle people. To each his own I guess but what a terrible person to seek insight from not to mention he is devoid of any meaningful insight.

The employment numbers have been looking a lot better. I believe this country is close to some record breaking territory in the number of new jobs created however we still have a lot or work to do to see the economy in full recovery.

And now we have an Israeli minister throwing John Boehner under the bus. He claims they weren’t told the Whitehouse wasn’t consulted about the joint meeting of Congress. Biden has backed out of the meeting too, traveling on undisclosed business. Democrats are threatening to boycott, I hope they hold their water and pull that off. Then maybe Pope Francis can come to the same type of meeting and start talking about the need to help the poor and down trodden of this world. It’s beginning to look like there will be a whole lot of egg on Boehner’s face because of this nonsense he started but I can’t think of anyone more deserving of that.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 6, 2015 3:34 PM
Comment #387861

Sorry, senior Israeli Official not a minister

Posted by: Speak4all at February 6, 2015 3:41 PM
Comment #387862

Speak,
Limbaugh sells hate entertainment. He pretends it is all just a joke, but what he markets is hate.

Boehner brought this on himself. He should have known better than to let himself be manipulated by the Israeli ambassador and Netanyahu. Of course, Boehner thought he would show up Obama, but all he has managed to do is embarrass himself, and remind everyone once again why it is a good idea for the Executive Branch to be primarily responsible for foreign policy and diplomacy.

Israeli right wingers would like it to be the US and Israel against the world. The Israeli right wingers would like to prevent the US from developing close relations with Arab countries, or better yet, attack countries such as Iraq and Iran. That Israeli agenda is not in our best interest.

Posted by: phx8 at February 6, 2015 5:27 PM
Comment #387863

Yes Limbaugh is a malcontent with and audience of malcontents. It would almost seem comical if the hatred he peddled was so dangerous.

I haven’t felt good about the Israeli agenda since the USS Liberty. Johnathan Pollack sold them the secrets that I was debriefed on when I left the Navy and to this day won’t talk about them.

I just wonder why we don’t hear more from the other Israeli agendas in that country. I know that they and the Arabs are intent on keeping to their eye for an eye mentality. Even if it means everyone could be blind if taken to the worst outcome.

You have a good weekend. Signing off for now.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 6, 2015 5:46 PM
Post a comment