January 3, 2013

Paul Krugman is "feeling so despondent."

Why? "Because of the way Obama negotiated" the fiscal cliff deal.
He gave every indication of being more or less desperate to cut a deal before the year ended....
He did? Funny, Rush Limbaugh kept saying Obama wanted to go over the cliff. It was his preference. The idea was to get rid of the hated Bush tax cuts and the cliff was there as a device to make it possible to blame the GOP. Back to Krugman:
The only thing that might save this situation is the fact that Obama has to be aware just how much is now riding on his willingness to finally stand up for his side; if he doesn’t, nobody will ever trust him again, and he will go down in history as the wimp who threw it all away.
The wimp?! Hey, remember when they were calling Romney a wimp?



That was back in July. Was Romney "just too insecure to be President"? Meade and I were just talking this morning about exactly that. There were 2 crucial points when Romney failed to stand his ground. He crumpled under intimidation. One was when the 47% video leaked out. Romney went beta, instead of doubling down, getting hardcore. The other was during the second debate, when he was going big on Benghazi, and Obama and Candy Crowley performed their check-the-transcript routine, and Romney deflated into oh, am I wrong?

So, anyway... is Obama just too insecure to be President?

110 comments:

wyo sis said...

Obama is too insecure to be president, but he has many props that keep him there anyway. A weak man with a powerful support system is exactly the model for special interests.

FWBuff said...

Insecure? No. Inept? Yes.

Balfegor said...

No, Obama's just incompetent at negotiating. Also, he's probably comparatively easy prey for his advisors because he has little experience with these issues outside of what he's learned (from them) as president.

prairie wind said...

Insecure? Petulant.

Marshal said...

Krugman's just protecting the shield: always pulling left so the media can pretend Obama's a moderate or pragmatist.

rhhardin said...

Obama should put his presidency behind a pay-wall, like Krugman has at the NYT.

Meade said...

Krugman: What're ya chicken? baraaack... brawk, brawk, brawk, brawk...

Nonapod said...

I'm notoriously bad at psychoanalyzing politians I dislike and I don't have a great deal of faith in either Krugman's or Limbaugh's abilities to interpret Obama's actions either. I assume Krugman wanted to go over the cliff since more taxes are super good for the economy in his view (I can't bring myself to read his bilge)?

Salamandyr said...

Obama is many things that make him unfit to be President. Insecure isn't one of them. In fact, I'd say he could use a little insecurity.

rehajm said...

Krugman will never end up behind the paywall...

drozz said...

i don't think he's insecure.

i just don't think he likes his responsibilities as president very much.

he likes the perks, tho'

Shouting Thomas said...

Obama won because he promised to give single mothers free stuff.

The media conspired to portray Romney as a monster who would deny children of single mothers free stuff.

That's about all there is to it. Victory to the Julias. (Read Steve Sailer for the stats. You'll be amazed.)

Maybe we should be debating whether giving women the right to vote was such a good idea.

Michael K said...

Newsweak is the one that should have been insecure.

The lefties wanted more spending and more taxes. They got both. Never satisfied until the Republicans are in reeducation camps.

Rich B said...

Good comments. Obama? "Worthless and weak" comes to mind.

dbp said...

"So, anyway... is Obama just too insecure to be President?"

No. He has a lot of confidence. He is incompetent. Lately, I have come to see this as a feature rather than a bug: When you are being led in the wrong direction, you won't go as far with a poor leader.

Jay said...

is Obama just too insecure to be President?

No, that Cornball Brother is too stupid.

bagoh20 said...

People keep coming up with all these reasons why Romney lost it for himself. It's all bullshit. He was a fine candidate, and deserved to win. His campaign was the only one discussing any issues of importance. It was by far the more grown up and respectable one that stayed decent throughout. A lot of voters are just idiots and suckers, plain and simple. Deal with it.

You can't out-lie or out-promise the Democrats, you can only win by being the alternative to proven disaster, and people are getting comfortable with a low bar anyway.

Unless the Democrats put up another ManBearPig, it's gonna take four more years of recession to make them try another flavor. Even then it's not an intelligent choice, just an "I'm not happy right now, so lets try something else" decision.

Too many of our people are uneducated, uninformed, undisciplined, unwise, and selfish. Stop blaming good people for that and making excuses for the saps.

SteveR said...

Being called a wimp by Paul Krugman? I guess its one of those "you aren't a real manly bleeding heart progressive like me" kind of wimps.

Conduct unbecoming Nobel Prize winners.

EDH said...

Paul Krugman is "feeling so despondent." So, anyway... is Obama just too insecure to be President?"

Sorry, I just had to.

Freder Frederson said...

Funny, Rush Limbaugh kept saying Obama wanted to go over the cliff.

Just goes to demonstrate, once again, that Rush has his head up his ass.

edutcher said...

Barry talks tough because he's got a gang behind him.

Take away the gang and he's a gutless little punk.

Freder Frederson said...

I assume Krugman wanted to go over the cliff since more taxes are super good for the economy in his view (I can't bring myself to read his bilge)?

You don't read his "bilge" yet you know his view on the economy? Not only are you contradicting yourself, but you are wrong on the facts.

garage mahal said...

Obama is a never before seen combination of a moms jeans wearing insecure weak pussy, and a ruthlessly efficient ball busting hard core leftist tyrant!

bagoh20 said...

It's telling that even with Conservatives totally demoralized and disgusted with the nation's fall to the left, Progressives are still just as unhappy and coveting as ever. There is no compromising with them. Progressiveness is it's own goal, and you never get there. They will never leave us alone, ever.

Freder Frederson said...

His campaign was the only one discussing any issues of importance.

If he had actually discussed issues of importance, he might of won. But his campaign was basically: "things are screwed up, we know how to fix it, but we're not going to give you details until after you elect us. Trust us!"

Shouting Thomas said...

The most incisive political commentary on the web is going on at Heariste, the pickup artist site. It's brutal, but so be it.

That's because the feminization of everything is the real story of contemporary politics.

The government as substitute Daddy and Husband is, and has been the reality for some time.

Breaking the bonds between father and child has proven to be an extremely potent political gambit by the Democrats. I don't know whether a counter play to that gambit can be created.

Shouting Thomas said...

Freder, you're wrong.

Romney was the candidate of the traditional, extended family lead by a patriarch who takes full responsibility for his family, instead of looking to the government.

Romney's pitch was clear and easy to understand.

The Julia's rejected it in favor of government as substitute Daddy and Father.

bagoh20 said...

It's not just a cliff. We are on a high mesa. There is no longer any way off but over a cliff. It's still coming, and nobody can do a thing about it. It's too late.

Hey lets get a keg, go out in the woods, build a fire, and party! Two bucks each, we can do this.

Paul said...

No Ann, Krugman is just full of it, as usual.

The guy is just so far off in left field he is in the twilight zone.

Lem said...

He came off the cliff very well for an 'insecure' lame duck.

tiger said...

Krugman is a terrible person. His lying alone precludes him from being taken seriously.

His a rabbity looking hack who denies his own 'scholarship' in order to score political points.

Case in point: Last year he wrote a column that stated that unemployment benefit do not effect how long people will go without looking for work.

Yet in the textbook he wrote 4-5 years ago he flatly states that UE benefits keep people from looking new jobs.

As for people who defend him by saying 'Well, he DID win the Nobel Prize in economics...'

Yeah, well, Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing in regard to promoting peace.

Freder Frederson said...

Romney was the candidate of the traditional, extended family lead by a patriarch who takes full responsibility for his family, instead of looking to the government

That is all well and good and very fuzzy. What were his specific plans for reducing the deficit. Which programs was he going to cut?

In fact that is the problem with the Republican party in general. They want to cut spending but are unwilling to discuss where the actual cuts will come from.

Nonapod said...

You don't read his "bilge" yet you know his view on the economy? Not only are you contradicting yourself, but you are wrong on the facts

I know that he's a devout Keynesian and a darling of the left, and Keynesians strongly favor more centralized control of the economy, in short more government and more taxes.

BDNYC said...

Obama is arrogant and thin-skinned. Not sure if that means he's insecure or delusional.

bagoh20 said...

"Last year he wrote a column that stated that unemployment benefit do not effect how long people will go without looking for work."

As you say, that's just flat out lying. Everyone knows people who don't really start looking hard for a job until the benefits are coming to an end. It's just common sense, and I'd do the same. We all want to get checks while being free to spend our time as we wish. I have offered people jobs who have told me to my face that although it's more money and they want the job, they want to wait until their benefits run out, and then I should call them.

Like Krugman, lefties are often willing to say things they know are not true. It's pretty much required to make their arguments.

CWJ said...

Feeder@10:04,

Even if what you say was true, it was still of more substance than anything the Obama campaign said. And in Romney's case he actually had a resume filled with accomplishment rather than simply job titles. So for me there was some reason to believe that he would have some success addressing our problems.

Shouting Thomas said...

Actually, it's quite cleare, Freder.

The cuts in spending will come from ceasing handing out freebies to the beloved special interest groups of the Democratic Party.

This is so transparently true that it is invisible to you.

Stop paying off the constituency groups of the Democratic Party. That is, in fact, the Republican's natural platform.

Jim said...

"Oh, was I wrong?"

Yes. Yes, he was.

RecChief said...

typical liberal re-write of history and events

Balfegor said...

Re: garage:

Obama is a never before seen combination of a moms jeans wearing insecure weak pussy, and a ruthlessly efficient ball busting hard core leftist tyrant!

His instincts and prejudices are all the latter, but he's sufficiently incompetent that he's incapable of moving the ball significantly in that direction without significant assistance from more competent and experienced politicians (e.g. Pelosi during Obamacare).

I know people who subscribe to theories that Obama is some kind of mastermind with a coherent long-term plan he's executing on -- people with this view include not only anti-Obama commenters here, but some of his more fervent supporters in the media (the ones who were devastated to learn that their god had feet of clay in the first 2012 debate). But it's difficult for me to see anything of that in his presidency. His vision seems deeply unimaginative and utterly conventional given the liberal petite-academique milieu in which he has spent most of his adult life. It's more a matter of irritable mental gestures (tax the rich!) than of rigorously considered policy. And his execution has been (thankfully) extremely weak. An apples to apples comparison is difficult because his party has generally had a stronger position in Congress overall than Bush II or Clinton enjoyed, but he seems less successful than either at getting legislation past the opposition despite those advantages.

Shouting Thomas said...

For instance, Freder...

Although it appears to you that I'm a Republican (probably), I'm a pretty unenthusiastic one.

If Republicans would aggressively seek to shut down the racial and sexual quota systems, and seek to shut down illegal immigration, I'd become a pretty enthusiastic Republican.

Because that would serve my demonic white male hetero self-interest.

Ending the freebies for blacks, illegals and women is precisely what I want to see the Republicans championing.

And they aren't doing that, are they?

bagoh20 said...

"In fact that is the problem with the Republican party in general. They want to cut spending but are unwilling to discuss where the actual cuts will come from."

No, that's not the problem. The problem is that any candidate that would be so specific would get clobbered in the election. Obama won specifically by being less specific than even the unspecific Romney.

Romney even suggesting that cuts are needed - and people believing he would do some was enough to kill him. Obama won by saying absolutely nothing. That's what people want to hear, nothing bad, nothing hard. "Don't harsh my mellow, dude". LALALALALA.

Marshal said...

Freder Frederson said...
In fact that is the problem with the Republican party in general. They want to cut spending but are unwilling to discuss where the actual cuts will come from.


This is the problem with leftist commenters in general. They assert principles which sound great but that they don't actually adhere to. In this case when their preferred candidate ran the most vacuous campaign in the history of our planet this principle had no effect on them. Yet somehow by focusing criticism only on non-leftists they create the false impression that leftists are somehow more substantive than others. It's Propoganda.

SteveR said...

What were his specific plans for reducing the deficit. Which programs was he going to cut?


Freder you are just playing dumb here. You know why he declined to be specific. I hate to think you'd crticize his position without actually knowing what it was and the rationale behind it.

Seeing Red said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

If you know anyone who has destroyed themselves through excesses with substances, spending, or credit; you always see them go though the stage where we are at right now. They try to negotiate their way out of the inevitable, to play around the edges, the trade one evil for another, jumping around looking for the next rock to jump to.

Seeing Red said...

Don't agree Balfegor. The King owns my house, student loans, and my health care/the insurance companies/health care industry. Everything he touches turns to shit, but that's the goal.

Whether The King owns the Banks or the Banks own the King we will see.

MadisonMan said...

typical liberal re-write of history and events

You are talking about Newsweek's last issue, right, and how they dealt with things in the past and how they report about that now?

Seeing Red said...

Freder wasn't interesting when Romney was running to find out, now he's even less interested. It seems to be a pattern with the lefties around here. They toss something out, we go fetch to prove them wrong.

I'm sure old statements are on the net, not interested in spending my time.

Seeing Red said...

Hmmm, maybe the US will do with the unemployed what Britain just decided to do, monitor those on the dole thru their computer to see if they are looking for work.

Jay said...

Freder Frederson said...


That is all well and good and very fuzzy. What were his specific plans for reducing the deficit. Which programs was he going to cut?


You being an ignorant idiot does not make your "facts" that Romney did not provide details true.

You realize that, right?

Example of information widely available to the public during the campaign:

Romney also advocates the following specific cuts in spending (the amount Romney claims to save is in parentheses).
--Repeal the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare" ($95 billion)
-- Privatize Amtrak ($1.6 billion)
--Reduce subsidies for The National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation ($600 million)
---Eliminate Title X family planning funding ($300 million)
--Reduce foreign aid ($100 million)
--Convert some federal programs to block grants for states ($100 billion)
--Reduce waste and fraud ($60 billion)
---Reduce federal employee compensation ($47 billion)
--Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act ($11 billion)
--Reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition ($4 billion)


You never miss an opportunity to make an utter ass of yourself.

sparrow said...

The problem is not just that Republicans are loathe to commit on cuts. It's also that Democrats recognize no limits on spending and show no interest in reigning it in. Fiscal responsibility can't ever become a reality if it's all on the back of just one party.

Jay said...

Freder Frederson said...

In fact that is the problem with the Republican party in general. They want to cut spending but are unwilling to discuss where the actual cuts will come from.


The Republicans have been talking about reforming social security since at least 1993.

The Republicans put together a budget that slowed the growth in Medicare & Medicaid spending in 1995.

You're a fucking idiot.

Nonapod said...

Honestly I'm not sure why people even take this guy seriously as an economist anyway. We're talking about an supposed economist who is apparently unaware of the Fallacy of the Broken Window.

SteveR said...

@Seeing Red: I would generally agree with you but Freder has not normally been that way on here. Let's see. This is an easy test of intellectual honesty. He may not have liked Romney's rationale but can he tell us what it was?

Pogo said...

Obama isn't insecure, this is just a sinecure.

Hagar said...

Krugman is unhimged.

What the rest of you need to get into your heads is that what Obama wants is not what you want.
He is doing quite well getting what he wants.

machine said...

Fantasyland: intact!

Carry on...

mark said...

Obama is insecure?

I suppose being an arrogant pathological liar four years into a presidency makes the "keep all the lies dancing" look like insecurity.

What type of man is Obama?

Obama version Sept 25, 2012: "When a little boy is kidnapped, turned into a child soldier, forced to kill or be killed — that’s slavery. It is barbaric, and it is evil, and it has no place in a civilized world. Now, as a nation, we’ve long rejected such cruelty."

Obama version Sept 28, 2012: Supports the use of child soldiers in 4 of the 6 recognized countries using them. http://goo.gl/lkUID

I've learned a long time ago you don't negotiate, or even try to have discussions with, a pathological liar like President Obama. His words mean nothing in reality.

Bob Boyd said...

Marshall said: "always pulling left so the media can pretend Obama's a moderate or pragmatist."

You nailed it.
Move the center to the left. Move the center to the left.
Krugman has assigned himself to that work detail.

If Obama had Boehner arrested,dragged off Capitol Hill and sent to a prison island wrapped in heavy chains for crimes against humanity, Krugman would be writing that he is feeling despondent because Boehner hadn't been summarily shot.

Colonel Angus said...

But his campaign was basically: "things are screwed up, we know how to fix it, but we're not going to give you details until after you elect us. Trust us!"

Whereas Obamas campaign was about vaginas and how taxing the top 1% would reduce the deficit. Evidently the American electorate bought that whopper instead.

But we will raise enough tax revenue in a year to pay for what, 2 months of Federal spending? Yes that's a great job Obama did there.

Freder Frederson said...

Stop paying off the constituency groups of the Democratic Party.

Can you be a little less vague?

phx said...

Obama won because he promised to give single mothers free stuff.

I know a lot of single mothers, a real lot. If Obama promised to give them free stuff they haven't heard of it.

Colonel Angus said...

I have no idea why the GOP even bothered negotiating. They should have given him everything he wanted and let him own it. For the first time in his miserable, narcissistic existance he would have had to taken responsibility. Not that a trillion dollar tax increaee over a decade would do anything to reduce the deficit than $600 billion over ten years but its math and we know math is hard for idiots and Democrats.

So instead the CBO is projecting another $4 trillion increase in the debt and liberals just think that's precious.

Balfegor said...

RE: Colonel Angus:

But we will raise enough tax revenue in a year to pay for what, 2 months of Federal spending? Yes that's a great job Obama did there.

Haha, no, we're raising like $600 billion over 10 years (it still irritates me that the media doesn't make that time period clear, allowing politicians to claim this is a big deal when it's really very small beer). That averages out to only $60 billion a year, which wouldn't even cover the deficit for a month of federal spending.

campy said...

I have no idea why the GOP even bothered negotiating. They should have given him everything he wanted and let him own it. For the first time in his miserable, narcissistic existance he would have had to taken responsibility.

Don't be naive. The coming disaster would still be blamed on the GOP.

Balfegor said...

Re: Colonel Angus:

I have no idea why the GOP even bothered negotiating. They should have given him everything he wanted and let him own it. For the first time in his miserable, narcissistic existance he would have had to taken responsibility. Not that a trillion dollar tax increaee over a decade would do anything to reduce the deficit than $600 billion over ten years but its math and we know math is hard for idiots and Democrats.

Other than reminding everyone in Washington how weak Obama really is, yes, negotiating accomplished nothing. It was all optics, minimal substance. And on the optics side, Republicans probably suffered more than Obama by undermining their chief negotiator. I suppose if he's reconfirmed as Speaker by a new vote, that will go some way to repairing the damage, but honestly, they should just elect a new Speaker, one who has the confidence of the party.

Shouting Thomas said...

I know a lot of single mothers, a real lot. If Obama promised to give them free stuff they haven't heard of it.

You're kidding! They didn't hear about the free birth control pills?

Were they hiding under rocks?

ambienisevil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EMD said...

No, that Cornball Brother is too stupid.

Wait. Are RGIII and Obama both cornball brothers?

I suppose they could be, but I am now reserving cornball brother as an endearing term of affection and approval.

Thus, Obama cannot be a cornball brother.

EMD said...

I have no idea why the GOP even bothered negotiating.

Well, the tax component of the deal can be seen as off the table, and the Republicans have more leverage over the spending side.

However, I'm sure Obama doesn't think he's done with the taxation aspect.

EMD said...

Haha, no, we're raising like $600 billion over 10 years (it still irritates me that the media doesn't make that time period clear, allowing politicians to claim this is a big deal when it's really very small beer). That averages out to only $60 billion a year, which wouldn't even cover the deficit for a month of federal spending.

So actually, on the 'revenue' side, fiscal conservatives got a huge win. The burden is on spending reductions now, to make any type of dent in the deficits.

The media won't tell you this, obviously.

Henry said...

Krugman deals with politics the way Victorian prudes dealt with flesh: by pretending it doesn't exist. Anything below the neck is a limb. Anything outside of Krugman's imagination is a scandal.

Henry said...

Quote: He gave every indication of being more or less desperate to cut a deal before the year ended — even though going over the fiscal cliff was not at all a drop-dead moment, since we could have gone weeks or months without much real economic damage. (my emphasis)

Wait a minute. This is exactly what fiscal conservatives were saying. Don't give in. Make the president blink.

And yet, both sides did blink. It's like they were politicians or something.

David said...

Obama IS President, right?

There's your answer.

Maguro said...

Whatever. Krugman's whole job is to harangue Obama and the Dems from the left ("Conscience of a Liberal") and all his pronouncements should be seen in that light.

Balfegor said...

Re: Henry:

I think part of the reason they focused on taxes is that if workers all saw their income tax withholding on their first paycheck of the new year jump up dramatically after the Obama revocation of the Bush tax cuts, and federal contractors started laying people off (due to the sequester), there would, at minimum, be a significant adverse political effect.

They're still going to see it because they decided not to extend the payroll tax holiday, but at least the jump will be less marked.

Maybe Krugman is right that even a sharp drop in real (post-tax) incomes wouldn't lead to a sharp drop in consumption and demand triggering a wider recession. But at minimum, there would be political effects and that's all politicians care about. Certainly with the low calibre of politician we have today -- Obama and his ilk.

Jay said...

we're raising like $600 billion over 10 years

I can't remember a single time a tax increased raised as much revenue as the proponents projected it would. That goes for the US and Slovakia, for example:

The forecasts of the Slovak government were too optimistic. In the next three years, the tax intake will be 0.3% of GDP lower compared to the initial estimates. This year, the public revenues will be € 230m less than estimated. Next year, the tax intake is expected to be € 250m less. The prior forecast was published in September. Above all, the VAT intake and the corporate tax intake will be substantially smaller.

At the same time, the tax rates increase. Yesterday, the Slovak Parliament decided to abolish the flat tax. In 2003, the flat tax was introduced and helped Slovakia to attract foreign direct investments. Now, company profits are taxed at a rate of 23%.

Moreover, high-income earners (monthly income of more than € 3,300) will be tax at a rate of 25%. For low-income earners, the rate of 19% will be retained. The new tax rates will come into force by January 2013. Slovakia´s tax quota is still below the EU average of 28.2%.


This will not raise anywhere near $600 billion.

Seeing Red said...

England's tax on the rich took in less last year, too.

I can't remember how Russia fared when it instituted the 13% tax.

Amartel said...

Romney should not have backed away from the 47% remark but capitalized on it. He was right and everyone, including the 47%, knew it even if it was uncomfortable to admit. I said so at the time. He backed off because he was trying to win over independents and other squishes. That was the longstanding conventional wisdom at the time.

Romney did the smart thing in the debate. The hideous "moderator" whore, who had clearly briefed with the Obama campaign in order to have that exact transript with those exact words handy at just the right time, said Romney's assertion was wrong. That's a kick in the nuts. If there's lying you fix it later but if the mod is right then you look like an idiot if you keep insisting. The transcript showed that Obama said a word that could be interpreted to mean that he said something other than what he (clearly) meant. If Romney had kept insisting in the debate that transcript would have come out and he would have been beaten to death with it.

bagoh20 said...

Read my lips - no new taxes GHW Bush signed the luxury tax back in 1990. That too was an attempt to collect taxes just from the rich. I was in the marine manufacturing business back then, and we had to lay off about half of our people withing a couple months, and cut the pay of the rest directly as a result of the tax. The layoffs were primarily at the bottom of the pay scale like they always are, so it was just another tax on the poor as they all are.

That tax was also a complete failure in every way, and was soon repealed, but not until a lot of people got hurt.

"According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million."

Amartel said...

Could we let the term "Cornball Brother" die in the cradle?
The reality is it's a term that progressives use to describe black men who frighten them. Progressives already have a term for this phenomenon but they can't say it out loud unless they're Samuel Jackson.

EMD said...

Could we let the term "Cornball Brother" die in the cradle?

Nope. It's a badge of honor now, isn't it?

garage mahal said...

Noted numbers guy, Jay, linking to the Blaze. Totes awesome.

Methadras said...

Actually republicans don't smell as bad as I was expecting them with this 'deal'. Why? Because it essentially made the Bush tax cuts permanent. I don't know why that's a bad thing to begin with. Now you can move the conversation on beyond taxing the rich since it's off the table.

bagoh20 said...

My early experience with the above described luxury tax changed my view of taxation, and was a pivotal event in my turning away from liberalism.

I remember it well. At 30 years old, the Board of Directors had just made me President of the company the year before, and this was what hit me before I even got my footing. I saw up close how people at the bottom got hurt the most by pandering politicians trying to get at the rich, and I was completely powerless about it.

It may be an easy sell, but so are a lot of scams.

Baron Zemo said...

phx said...
Obama won because he promised to give single mothers free stuff.

I know a lot of single mothers, a real lot.


Holy Unwed Mothers Batman....phx is Shawn Kemp!

phx said...

You're kidding! They didn't hear about the free birth control pills?

Maybe you're right ST.

phx said...

Had to google Shawn Kemp.

EMD said...

You're kidding! They didn't hear about the free birth control pills?

There was that, but moreso the idea that Romney wanted to take things away from women in general.

Baron Zemo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EMD said...

Had to google Shawn Kemp.

He's certainly no Antonio Cromartie.

Baron Zemo said...

Wikipedia is wrong.

It is well known in basketball circles that Shawn has 17 children with 17 different baby mommas.

He is an icon.

In more ways than one.

Baron Zemo said...

I was going to use Antonio but I gave up Jet bashing for the New Year.

Baron Zemo said...

A little fun list:



THE HEAVYWEIGHTS
Calvin Murphy - 14 illegitimate kids by 9 women. You sir are our current champion.
Travis Henry - 9 kids by 9 women. All of this by 28. Impressive. He is on pace to catch Calvin. The fact that he's broke from paying child support may slow him down though.
Ex-San Antonio Spur Willie Anderson - 9 illegitimate kids. If only his field goal percentage had been as high as his impregnation rate.
Evander Holyfield - 9 illegitimate kids. Has more kids than brain cells left.
Jason Caffey - 8 kids by 7 women.
UPDATE - Shawn Kemp - 7 illegitimate kids by 6 women last time. Supposedly up to 11 kids by 9 women now. Gives his nickname of the Reign Man new meaning. Might also explain why he nearly played with an Italian team late in 2008.
Derrick Thomas - 7 illegitimate kids by 5 women. He died at 33. Let's just leave it at that.
UNCONFIRMED - Dominique Wilkins - reportedly played so long in the NBA because, according to a Magic front office employee, he was paying money on 20 paternity suits. Any further confirmation would be awesome.

(from FanIQ.com)

ricpic said...

Obama the Great. Of course when you have no opposition it's pretty easy to be great. It was duck soup to make the argument that you don't raise taxes on anybody in a moribund economy and then walk away if the marxist continues to demand higher taxes. The Republicans did neither. It's third party time.

Baron Zemo said...

That's why these guys are role models.

phx said...

He's with the NBA? That's like a sprot, right?

phx said...

I don't really do sprots.

Baron Zemo said...

If only Obama had been around then to hand out that free birth control.

Seeing Red said...

Ohhh, didn't Disney build 1 of its vessels in Italy and when Congress was trying to bring boat building back with carrots to the US they didn't want to build here so they lobbied against it?

EMD said...

Ohhh, didn't Disney build 1 of its vessels in Italy

Yes. The Disney Magic. We were on that last April.

Jay said...

l said...
Could we let the term "Cornball Brother" die in the cradle?


Hell no, I'm just getting warmed up!

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
Noted numbers guy, Jay, linking to the Blaze.


Hey stupid shit: please name the last time a tax increase raised as much revenue as was claimed by those suppporting it.

Go ahead dummy, prove how smart you are.

Come on, you fat POS, do it

Seeing Red said...

Heck, you could link to The Guardian and it woudn't dent GM's bubble.

Or other times in history.

This time is different, don'tcha know.

Seeing Red said...

Remember how Insty used to say pick 2 out of the 3?

You can have your IRS refund, Obamaphone, free birth control.

Pick 2 out of 3.

I wonder if the IRs refunds will be delayed? The trial balloon may have already been floated because of the fiscal cliff.

I wonder if that's going to be the official excuse?

I Callahan said...

It is well known in basketball circles that Shawn has 17 children with 17 different baby mommas.

Just waiting for Shouting Thomas to come along and ask "what's wrong with that?"

rehajm said...

Jay said...

I can't remember a single time a tax increased raised as much revenue as the proponents projected it would.


This is because most of these estimates are made using antiquated Keynesian style static estimates. They fail to consider the incentive effects of the tax imposed. Real world economies are dynamic, and people respond to incentives. So while static analysis is 'convenient' for politicians justifying a tax, they aren't accurate measures of real world activity.

Shouting Thomas said...

Just waiting for Shouting Thomas to come along and ask "what's wrong with that?"

Why's that? You see some doofus connection between that and Hugh Hefner?

What bullshit!

دردشة ومنتديات عراقنا said...

thanks
شات عراقنا
جات عراقنا
شلة عراقنا
عراقنا
شات العراق
دردشة عراقية
شات كيكه
دردشة عبدالله
جات
دردشة
منتدى دردشة عراقنا
منتدى عراقنا

دردشة العراق