It's really irritating to be put on watch like this. He goes on TV too much to say too little, and making us wait for it is... well, maybe there's a good reason.
UPDATE: Speech done. I didn't hear anything new... except that Warren Buffett would like to say we have a "quadruple A" rating if only there were such a thing. Beyond that, I hear the usual blather about how we need a "balanced" approach. In the end, he attempted to tie his economics homily to the terrible helicopter crash in Afghanistan. The 2 things aren't really connected, but he needed to give a speech on the financial markets and it would have been unseemly to appear and not say something about Afghanistan.
Drudge is going all "Persona" on Obama and Timmy:
The headline is: "Barackalypse Now."
Posts
397 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 397 of 397Dang 200 comments already about a speech that said nothing.
Of the $14.5 trillion national debt, nearly $4.8 trillion–one-third of the total–was incurred during that four-year period when the Congress was exclusively controlled by the Democrats
If you want to compare Bush policies and Obama policies, Knock yourself out.
Bush 5.07 Trillion
Obama 1.4 Trillion
McCain wouldn't have showed up until 1:46.
Man, I'm sure glad I don't waste my time anymore.
"...But hey, I think you should go on pretending that raising taxes would have prevented it (even when S&P clerly said it would not have)..."
Obama expended the Bush tax cuts but for some reason, garage won't acknowledge that.
GOP's fault!
Obama is awesome!
He's my dream boat lover boy.
Garbage:
The country's fiscal boat has a Huge gaping hole in the bottom and water is pouring in. We are sinking fast and you want to argue about who or what created the hole?
Obama expended the Bush tax cuts but for some reason, garage won't acknowledge that.
I do, it was stupid and unnecessary. Was that the first hostage? Shutting down the government if they didn't get their way.
"...If you want to compare Bush policies and Obama policies, Knock yourself out.."
$152 billion for health care reform?
Seriously?
Of course you could believe Obama goes to fund raise in Manhattan every three weeks lately because he gets his campaign funds from-
"The Little People".
Obama isn't just in over his head. He's standing at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
Is this the Democrat's revenge for George W Bush? Or, are they trying to one up us for the worst president ever? If so, they win. Hands down.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
I agree with Garage..tax the rich. They have too much stuff. I work for a poor guy, it won’t hurt me. Garage works for a poor guy, too, so it won’t hurt him/her either.
The rich only pay MOST of the income taxes, anyway, let them pay more, in fact, let them pay ALL the income taxes, I’d bet they’ll STILL be rich, after all they’re rich now, and they pay the vast majority of taxes.
The Rich need to pay their fair share…100% of Income Taxes. It’s only fair.
$152 billion for health care reform?
Seriously?
Seriously!
I do, it was stupid and unnecessary. Was that the first hostage? Shutting down the government if they didn't get their way.
"Their" way was to stop paying off the Mastercard by tapping out the Visa. I suppose you're okay with continuing that, but it will eventually and inevitably end with a much more violent and irreversible government shutdown. It's usually referred to in history as a Fall.
I'm gonna keep on doin' what I been doin' because...because I can do it and you can't stop me and....it's fun to spit in your face!
"...I do, it was stupid and unnecessary. Was that the first hostage? Shutting down the government if they didn't get their way..."
The taxes were going to expire and I believe your party was still in control.
Jesus, if a few GOP freshman can hold so much sway, why not admit you voted for a feckless rube who has zero leadership skills.
I do, it was stupid and unnecessary. Was that the first hostage? Shutting down the government if they didn't get their way.
What you blather on about? You must have your talking points mixed up.
Who extended the "Bush" tax cuts? Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congess. That's who.
"$152 billion for health care reform?"
And these guys are questioning S&P's math.
How do you suppose Michelle and Mitt feel about this?
Rick Perry intends to use a speech in South Carolina on Saturday to make clear that he's running for president, POLITICO has learned.
Obama 1.4 Trillion
First, Obama has presided over more than $1.4 trillion in debt expansion.
Anyway, I love it when you people pretend that the Democrats didn't control Congress and ramp up spending startng in Jan 2007.
For example: the Bush administration ran up deficits of $158 billion in 2002; $378 billion in 2003; and $413 billion in 2004. Then, with revenues pouring in, the deficits began to fall: $318 billion in 2005; $248 billion in 2006; and $161 billion in 2007. That 2007 deficit, with the tax cuts in effect, was one-tenth of today’s $1.6 trillion deficit.
The debt stood at $10.6 trillion when Barack Obama took office in January 2009. Now, it's about $14.4 trillion. The president has increased the national debt nearly $4 trillion in his first two and a half years in office. By the time Obama finishes his first term, he will have increased the national debt by somewhere in the $5 trillion-to-$6 trillion range -- more than Bush did in two terms
Why it as almost as if you're a shameless liar.
garage--Is this what it's come to? Six-year-out wishcasts from the NYT are all you've got?
Where on earth do those "projections" come from? Can't be the CBO, cuz they
"don't estimate speeches". You must remember that--Doug Elmendorf said it only a couple of weeks ago.
I guess the NYT employs a much more talented group of economists than the CBO.
If you want to compare Bush policies and Obama policies
Actually, I'd like to point out that the economy produced 3.7 million new jobs from January 2001 through December of 2006.
Additionally, in the 19 months from February 2009 through September 2010, the month of the the overall job decline in the private and public sectors was 2.6 million.
So yeah, let's start "comparing policies" clown.
First, Obama has presided over more than $1.4 trillion in debt expansion.
Of course he has, when you include Bush's policies. Which dishonest hacks like you have lied about for 3 yrs.
This market not falling...yet.
"I'm not trying to pick fights, here, but that is an interesting statement for a representative republic. I certainly would like better leaders from which to choose at election time, but even if we had better options, I'm not sure we'd choose them. Sometimes the people actually do get what they deserve."
yeah - I guess I disagree. I think the politicos care a lot more about winning and political power then about helping the economy & the country.
A good percentage of the population doesn't vote. I think it's due to disillusionment because they don't think anyone truly represents them in the government. Just my two cents.
Bush 5.07 Trillion
Obama 1.4 Trillion
That is one of the funniest things I've ever read.
Notably absent is Obamacare, which will cost $2 trillion. Shocking, I know.
I love seeing "tax cuts" counted as a "cost" too.
You people are not serious or sane.
garage-
That has to be one of the most dishonest charts I have ever seen.
Note that it is not a comparison of Bush policies and Obama policies, but of Bush and Obama policy changes. Thus if Bush implemented a policy that cost 100 billion over his 8 years, and Obama continued that same policy over his 8 years at the same cost, Bush would be charged 100 billion and Obama would be charged zero.
And we all know the gimmicks that were used to hide the cost of the healthcare reform.
garage mahal said...
Of course he has, when you include Bush's policies. Which dishonest hacks like you have lied about for 3 yrs
I love that, "Bush's policies"!
Why, it is almost as if you're pretending Democrats didn't have total control of Congress and couldn't change those policies.
You silly little shameless liar.
Of course he has, when you include Bush's policies. Which dishonest hacks like you have lied about for 3 yrs.
What dishonest hacks like you seem unable to grasp is that there is only one president at a time.
Dadvocate:
Libruls wouldn't know the Mariani Trench from the Maginot Line from LeeLee Valise's line.
Afterall, they are too busy studying about stuff like which historical figures may have been gay and the horrible shortage of gender neutral restrooms.
For you bozos who keep talking about increasing taxes, the federal income tax rates would have to be more than doubled across the income spectrum if Congress were to close the deficit in fiscal year 2010,.... Isn't hasn't gotten any better this year.
Think we might need to cut runaway spending? Huh? Huh? The socialist dream has dug itself into a hole and is still digging.
Garage: Not sure where you found that chart but I daresay you haven't noticed that there are a couple of arbitrary figures there. First of all the wars that Bush started and which Obama said he would stop are still being prosecuted. Honest charting would have some war costs on the Obama side of the policy chart. The Bush Tax cut number is, of course, a number that assumes that income would have been the same with or without the cuts and that, also of course, is a flawed assumption.
You are dogged in your support of Obama and are good at dropping in these meaningless charts to support your contention that he is doing a good job. But, again of course, he isn't. And no chart will show us otherwise.
I have to hand it to you, you don't mind boxing above your weight. But generally boxers get better over time or fight in their own class.
when you include Bush's policies. Which dishonest hacks like you have lied about for
Barry had complete control from Jan 2009 until Jan 2011, 2 years of complete control.
They are his policies garbage.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
the federal income tax rates would have to be more than doubled across the income spectrum if Congress were to close the deficit in fiscal year 2010,.... Isn't hasn't gotten any better this year.
If you make more than me, you’re rich…and the Rich need to have their Income Taxes increased, significantly. This is UNARGUABLE. How about we TRIPLE their rates, and cut mine? Also, I need some help with my mortgage and my ‘cell ‘phone bill, plus the Internet usage rate is KILLING me.
garage--Since you seem so upset about all that Bush spending, what would you say if the Repubs offered to sacrifice their beloved Medicare Part D in exchange for the repeal of Obamacare?
Sounds good to me, and according to that chart you find so enlightening the Repubs will be giving up more dollars of spending than the Dems. Compromise!
Make no mistake - this is our fault. This is what we voted for... some of us.
This President was a horrible choice for a leader, but not surprising considering he had never demonstrated any ability in that area his entire life.
More importantly is the weakness of the people we have elected to the congress for years.
Even though many people understand that we spend too much, and that's the problem, they would fight tooth and nail to prevent a reform that sufficiently cut spending to fix us.
That's our problem - some of us are just idiots, and they vote too. Democracy cannot afford stupidity.
Note that it is not a comparison of Bush policies and Obama policies, but of Bush and Obama policy changes. Thus if Bush implemented a policy that cost 100 billion over his 8 years, and Obama continued that same policy over his 8 years at the same cost, Bush would be charged 100 billion and Obama would be charged zero.
Exactly. By this logic, I blame the deficit on JFK for his tax cuts and on LBJ for enacting Medicare.
Exactly. By this logic, I blame the deficit on JFK for his tax cuts and on LBJ for enacting Medicare.
Or the French for their stupid revolution to begin with.
Debt over last four years during which time Democrats "led." These are not "policies" these are amounts of money borrowed.
FY 2008 — $460 billion
FY 2009 — $1,410 billion ($1.4 trillion)
FY 2010 — $1,300 billion ($1.3 trillion)
FY 2011 — $1,600 (estimated) ($1.6 trillion
"Ignorance is Bliss said...
garage-
That has to be one of the most dishonest charts I have ever seen."
You mean seen twice. He pulled that out last week during the debt talks.
It's now a garage mahal classic
By gawd-
garage is Krugman!
"A good percentage of the population doesn't vote."
That group definitely deserves what they get, but I suspect that if they are too lazy or helpless to vote, then they would be mostly Dem votes anyway. They just need to offer free cheese at the polls to get them out.
That was a godawful speech. I could have written it for him just by recycling parts of four or five speeches just like it that he's given in the last three weeks.
In the business and professional world---none of which this twerp has been in or belongs in--people are on time. Just as Barack has focused like a laser or turned and pivoted to jobs, jobs, jobs for 8 or 9 times now, he's set specific hours for speeches and been late--at least a dozen times.
He's just making up horse manure on the fly so to speak; and since he never says anything knew, he could recycle one of those old horse turd speeches--and be on time.
I understand from the White House press releas---er rather story by a member of the White House Press corps, that Barack was trying to "demonstrate command of the situation" by giving this speech.
Hell fire he can't even catch the 6:33 commuter train on time.
We are truly deeply screwed by this mal-Administration.
"Garage is Krugman".
That explains a lot!
It's now a garage mahal classic
The complaints so far:
Not fair, it separates Bush policies!
It's CRAZY!
Tax cuts are free!
The complaints so far:
Not fair, it separates Bush policies!
It's CRAZY!
Tax cuts are free!
You forgot "The forecasts have no basis in reality!"
Which they don't. Just like everything else from the NYT and the administration.
Tomorrow the Dems want to work their Obama magic on Wisconsin. We have a balanced budget and a projected surplus, but they are going to fix that.
You forgot "The forecasts have no basis in reality!"
Such as?
We have a balanced budget and a projected surplus, but they are going to fix that.
I'm sure garage has access to figures showing that 95% of Wisconsin households will have incomes below the median unless state employees have the right to bargain collectively over salaries and benefits.
Even if you agree with this dream, trying to pass a new entitlement of this size in the midst of the "worst economic recession since the Depression" as Obama calls it, was a dreadful mistake.
Hillary is an improvement only if she wouldn't have voted to socialize medicine, like she tried to do back in 1992.
The idea that Hillary is to the right of Obama is horseshit. Not enough to matter. Would she have tried to take over healthcare? Hell yes.
She might have gone back to the middle a lot quicker than Obama did. But morons on the left are now saying that she would go to the left of Obama, and "defeat" the Republicans. Crushing them with, I dunno, the logic of liberalism. Or her sparkling personality.
AJ
I actually should apologize to garage-calling him Krugman is kind of hitting below the belt.
*******
FDR was a pretty strong leftist. But at least he preached courage. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Obama: "If I don't get my way, you don't get your social security."
Such as?
As several commenters have pointed out, the number for health-care costs plus entitlement spending increases are a total joke based on completely dishonest accounting plus absurd assumptions such as the "doc fix" that's always just around the corner.
You can't possibly not know this.
Or else you know it, but you apply your knowledge as imperfectly as I apply my knowledge of the desirability of subject-verb agreement.
The only speech I want to hear from the President is the one where he resigns.
@Hoosier Daddy
The spice must flow.
Apparently those damned bitter, clinging Fremen zealots are sabotaging spice mining ops.
"How much gold is in Fort Knox and whose is it?"
1) a vast pile many meters deep
2) Scrooge McDuck's
If you make more than me, you’re rich…
The highest income earners in my family are gung ho progressives, but don't consider themselves rich and rant about the rich. You take any person of median income and below by their house and through their neighborhood and they'd think my family member was rich.
I tried to explain this to them once. They just refused to grasp it. When practicing their class hatred, they're teaching people to hate them.
Scrooge McDuck's
I always thought Pussy Galore took a healthy portion.
Garage and his ilk are fond of pointing out negatives Obama "inherited" from Bush...but he also inherited a AAA credit rating.
Not during the Great Depression or two world wars have we lost our AAA credit rating.
Heckuva job Bammy.
"Make no mistake - this is our fault. This is what we voted for"
Don't blame this crap on me!
Why do you guys waste your time following garage's links?
Don't be that guy!
Perhaps Barney Frank could take a minute from blaming the military for his party's disastrous fiscal stewardship and 'splain this:
Meanwhile, S&P downgraded government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to AA+ from triple-A, with S&P citing their reliance on U.S. government.
Ten of the country's 12 Federal Home Loan Banks were also cut to AA-plus. The banks of Chicago and Seattle had already been downgraded earlier to AA+.
Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee about half of all U.S. mortgages, or nearly 31 million home loans worth more than $5 trillion. As part of a nationalized system, they account for nearly all new mortgage loans. Their downgrade might force anyone looking to buy a home to pay higher mortgage rates.
Heckuva job Barney!
I go the date mixed up Obama was fundraising in NYC on June 23rd.
Here was his schedule then:
The presidential motorcade crisscrossed Manhattan as Obama worked his way through three events that raised money for the Democratic Party and his 2012 campaign. Key Obama fundraisers have been asked to raise $60 million for that effort by the end of June.
The fundraisers included an event on a Broadway stage, where Obama spoke to supporters who bought tickets, starting at $100, to watch a performance of the musical "Sister Act."
The fundraisers were part of a two-day trip that took Obama away from Washington as Republicans pulled out of debt-reduction talks and pressed the president to take a more active role in the negotiations.
Obama opened his fundraising trip with a quick stop at the upstate New York military base Fort Drum, where he defended his freshly unveiled plans to bring 33,000 troops home from Afghanistan by September 2012.
But in New York City, his agenda was all about raising money and urging ambivalent supporters to open their wallets again, even though they may be dissatisfied with some of his policies over the past two years.
At a high-dollar dinner at the exclusive New York restaurant Daniel, Obama urged his supporters to recapture the enthusiasm from the 2008 campaign, even though he's now "old news."
"I know that it's not going to be exactly the same as when I was young and vibrant and new," he said.
Ticket prices for the dinner were $35,800 a person.
Obama also turned to some celebrities to make the case for his re-election.
At a fundraiser for gays and lesbians, actor Neil Patrick Harris touted Obama's work in overturning the military's "don't ask, don't tell" ban on openly gay service members.
Later, Obama ducked into the Broadway Theater after the conclusion of "Sister Act" so he could speak to donors. Actress Whoopi Goldberg, one of the show's producers, introduced the president and told the crowd Obama needs four more years to finish the job he has started.
With Obama's 2012 campaign kicking into high gear, advisers are telling donors privately that they hope to match or exceed the $750 million raised in 2008. Some estimates say the 2012 re-election campaign could pull in $1 billion.
NYPost
Obama’s speech certainly did nothing to slow the drop, though I suppose the White House will argue that it would have been 734 without the speech, meaning that Obama saved or created 100 Dow points
Hysterical.
As several commenters have pointed out, the number for health-care costs plus entitlement spending increases are a total joke based on completely dishonest accounting plus absurd assumptions such as the "doc fix" that's always just around the corner.
Commenters have pointed out they don't like the chart because they don't like the numbers. None have explained why they don't like the numbers.
He'll be back in Manhattan this August 11th.
******
One evening last summer, Anna Wintour outfitted her home with extra air conditioners to host a dinner for the president and a whole host of fashion people, who paid $30,400 a piece to attend and to lend their fiscal support to Obama and the Democrats. This year, she's partnered with Harvey Weinstein to host the same type of dinner for the POTUS, though it will be at Weinstein's house instead of hers, and the price per couple is $71,600.The event is said to be sold out, with $2 million raised! And the guest list includes not just the fashions, but entertainers like Gwyneth Paltrow and Alicia Keys.
From "Page Six":
"Anna calls, they come running," said a source. "The fashion people have to contribute" — which they apparently did despite the market being in free fall this week.
Yes, but why wouldn't they want some face-time with Obama? Even if it costs a year's worth of NYU tuition? Must be a real arm twist. The dinner takes place August 11.
NYMag.com
None have explained why they don't like the numbers.
Outright lie, Garage. The evidence is right here in this thread.
Hey, I learned a new word from that update, "moiety" !
Oh, I am so going to use that all over the place, moiety, moiety moiety, moiety, moiety, and I don't care who thinks I'm a stuck up word-snob.
Except you know what? I see the image as Obama behind Geithner not as the blended half, although I'll accept an argument to the contrary.
"Heckuva job Barney!"
Barney wanted "to roll the dice". Unfortunately, it wasn't his money to gamble. Why that guy is still in office may be the biggest mystery of all.
I wonder what they had to offer Geithner to get him to stay.
Or maybe it was the photos that did it.
You know they could hold a fundraiser to help the deficit.
20 bucks to bitch slap Geithner or Krugman.
"20 bucks to bitch slap Geithner or Krugman."
Put me down for $100.
Diversity Hire.
We're so doomed.
I can't dispute Krugman's math, but I just know it's wrong!
None have explained why they don't like the numbers.
Sorry. Some of us still assume that you're aware of stuff that's common knowledge. Stuff like this:
HHS Secretary Sebelius admits to double counting in obamacare budget
and this:
CBO: Obamacare Would Cost Over $2 Trillion
If you resume commenting as if you're unaware of these facts, then I'm going to start wondering if you're completely sincere.
The complaints so far:
Not fair, it separates Bush policies!
Um, policies continued by a Democratic congress and Democratic President are not "Bush policies," you abject imbecile.
garage mahal said...
Commenters have pointed out they don't like the chart because they don't like the numbers. None have explained why they don't like the numbers.
Um, the numbers are false.
For example, federal revenues increased by 44% from FY '03 - FY 06.
For example, the chart is an exercise in such intellectual dishonesty, that a normal person would be embarrassed to present it.
garage's hero is Krugman.
Do I hear $200!?
******
garage
If you can follow Krugman's logic,erh math than you should apply for a job in quantum calligraphy.
Yesterday I said there was an arc of Krugman but I'm sure that was flattery because if you plotted Krugman's talking points on a graph I'm pretty sure they'd turn in on themselves like a-
death spiral.
In fact I'm pretty sure Krugman can't follow Krugman.
Chip S
What the ACA costs is not even germane to the discussion.
It's not on the chart I linked because the law doesn't take effect until 2014.
WTF?
Fixing This Mess
It's not taxes. It has nothing to do with taxes. Republicans always want to cut taxes. Resist this urge. As a matter of fact, Republicans should be willing to raise taxes to Clinton levels. Let the Bush tax cuts expire. Fine.
In return for raising taxes, if liberals want to go back to Clinton era prosperity, then what we need to do is roll back the last 10 years, yes?
That means, repeal Obamacare.
Repeal all those damn EPA regulations.
Repeal all that Chris-Dodd malarky.
The problem with Obama and Pelosi has nothing to do with our tax rates. Forget taxes, it's not the problem.
We are over-regulated. Obamacare by itself jacked up unemployment several percentage points.
Deregulate.
And #2. Cut spending. Obamacare is a double whammy. It is a huge new entitlement, a vast expansion of government expenditure. And it is an insane group of regulations that is choking our ability to work.
Want to go back to Clinton prosperty? Then yes, raise taxes (slightly). But cut all your fucking regs from the last 10 years. And quit spending money like you're a drunk fucking Santa Claus.
And we will do our slight tax increase.
You're welcome.
The Great and Omniscient Garage Mahal said:
It's not on the chart I linked because the law doesn't take effect until 2014.
WTF?
Did you happen to read the column heading on the table you yourself linked to? Because here's what the column above Obama's spending says:
FY 2009-17 (incl. projections)
WTF, indeed.
Idiot.
garage mahal said...
Chip S
What the ACA costs is not even germane to the discussion.
It's not on the chart I linked because the law doesn't take effect until 2014.
Oh, buy mysteriously the "chart" has FY09-2017 projections.
But it left a $2 trillion dollar cost out.
Shocking.
Though the "blended half" image of Liv & Bibi's faces spliced together half and half is "Persona"s most famous image, the composition given on drudge is actually quite common in Bergman, through "Persona" and elsewhere.
Also used by Woody Allen, parodistically and straight.
Boy, it's a looong waaay down here!
I don't know why people even bother explaining to Garage that water is wet.
I just ignore him these days. You see his name, just skip it. Save your time and energy for something not worthless.
t-man,
"Folks, we're 20th in line for takeoff, so it'll just be a little bit of time before we're in the air."
"Oops, we're already in the air. Folks, you better brace for a really hard landing."
i bet if he does run again, he won't even carry Kenya.
You should be careful about slapping Paul Krugman. Anyone who looks at his NYT picture, at least his old one, can see he is an obvious coprophage. He might make like John Belushi at the cafeteria in Animal House.
TW: dophapp. What Krugman might, if you slap him.
Nichevo
I don't plan on touching him when I bitch slap him-he'd have to pay me for that.
And frankly he doesn't have enough...
"Barack Obama inherits a AAA credit rating from George W. Bush, and look what he does to it. Obama is always running around complaining and whining and moaning about all that he inherited from George W. Bush. Well, he inherited a AAA credit rating, an unemployment rate of 5.7%. Does anybody doubt that this is on purpose?"-Rush Limbaugh-
Not me, if it's not on purpose what would Obama do differently?
Obama is consciously overloading our American societal systems to cause them to crash, so that they can then be rebuilt "his way".
WV: blatri- The energy source for the Government Motors Chevy Volt.
i wish he would grow a pair. i wanted to hear him nail the republicans to the wall for destroying this country. i used to like obama.
This is unfortunate for some Republicans as well.
It is quite tempting to think as certain Republican ideologues are doing - how wonderful it would be, from a pure Party standpoint, for gold to go to 2200 an oz, gas to 6.00 a gallon, joblessness to hit the rest of American like it hit the inner cities..and the stock market to drop another 3,000 points.
Then "the side of wars of Freedom!, free trade!!, low taxes, and less gummint except for the Heroes of Security" would win the next election.
Unfortunately, this isn't the case of crew in lifeboats hoping the skipper and the rest of the crew go down with the ship and most the passengers because power and promotions await the lifeboat occupants.
This is a time for each side to work things up with painful concessions - because this all didn't start with Obama and the Dems, or even "deficits don't matter because tax cuts means incredible new job and growth results as long as we keep our noses out of Banks and Wall Street's affairs" Bush and his wealthy Bushie Corpratist gang. This shit started back in the 60s.
The Great Society of the poor and lawyer parasites. Then days of trickledown Reaganomics and Clinton Globalism and Carter's preaching about our moral obligations.
But now Romney cannot remain AWOL. Perry cannot stay on the sidelines but must soon declare and have some discussions with Boehner (with Romney and the social conservatives like Bachmann) on what must be done.
Before a 2nd Civil War starts.
"i wish he would grow a pair."
If you're talking about tumors, I'm with you....
Down more than 600 pts...
Pray he doesn't decide to talk again tomorrow.
This President and the administration is a clusterfuck.
Several experienced money managers I know are telling me it will break the lows of 2008 beginning in 2012 when Obamacare spending starts to kick in.
So what was your favorite part of today's speech, Garage?
madawaskan said (on Krugman)...
Nichevo
"I don't plan on touching him when I bitch slap him-he'd have to pay me for that."
Members of the Tribe may discuss it, dishonestly, but bottom line - members of the Tribe that helped lay America low look out for one another.
We may need military to come in if things still go awfully dysfunctional and wrong in the next 3 years.
If they come in, to send all the lawyers and their sacred Rule of Law(yers) packing for the 5-10 years needed to recover America as a great country.
@vnjagvet
Didn't watch it. Obama has become like Bush for me that way. Can't really stand to listen.
300 comments and he didn't even say anything!
When I was working on a doctorate, my department was dissolved and merged into another department. All doctoral candidates were called for an interview with the new department head. He kept me waiting after my scheduled appointment for 45 minutes. I could see through the open door that he was not doing anything. He seemed to be reading a newspaper. The interview was short, desultory, and under the circumstances insulting. I decided that I really did not need the degree. I was paying my own tuition and the only benefit, except for prestige, would be a few years of increased pay before retirement. I felt the department was not really interested in seeing me complete my degree.
Along that same line, I don't think Obama is really interested in seeing America succeed. That's why he keeps us waiting. Because he can and he doesn't care what we think.
I can't listen to him either, Garage. You and I have one thing in common.
You all know that the credit downgrade is the GOP's fault, right? The fiscal policy debt deal was a Republican plan.
When you folks come back to reality and accept the fact that we need to raise revenue then maybe the rating will go back up.
Of course, if you had your way we would have defaulted. And that would not have been good for the rating either, would it?
Blogger Cedarford said...
8/8/11 5:42 PM
You fuck.
I just got through saying that you were a better, clearer writer than Carol Herman.
You just made a liar out of me! You're on my shit list now, you hump. You just burned your last fucking bridge.
What are you drinking tonight? Brake fluid?
N.B. I assume this was an anti-Semitic remark directed at me, at Krugman, at madawaskan, or all of us, but it has nothing to do with that - I expect that from you. My beef is that I literally can not tell what it was that you were trying to say!
madawaskan,
Didn't you see Animal House? Remember when Belushi puts the mashed potatoes in his mouth and says, "See if you can guess what I am now." Then he slaps his cheeks and sprays mash all over the preppies and debs or whatever they were, and proclaims, "A zit!"
You don't have to slap him. He just has to be facing you when the slap lands. You dig or do I have to find a youtube of this magic moment?
P.S. Landsman? Yay!
Saint Croix
Obamacare by itself jacked up unemployment several percentage points.
Explain this. Where do you get your facts?
Matt: When you folks come back to reality and accept the fact that we need to raise revenue then maybe the rating will go back up.
Bullshit. We need BOTH. And the Dem plan is the same old bullshit - raise taxes NOW in exchange for spending cuts 10 years from now that will NEVER happen. Thats why we're in this mess.
You want reality? Start making major cuts in government budgets and entitlements. Repeal Obamacare, remove all the EPA shackels on business, and repeal the Chris-Dodd madness.
We're not 14.5 trillion in debt. When you add in the entitlements, its more like 75 trillion.
The tide was raising. So King Canute the Great ordered him to be taken to the sea. And there he ordered the sea to stop raising
American voted for him so tough luck. We are getting just what we deserve.
Learn the lesson. I don't care if you are liberal or conservative or tea party or libertarian or what....
Next time THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE FOR SOME IDIOT WITH NO EXPERIENCE.
My wife and I KNEW when Obama first came on the scene he was a nobody with zero experience. While we voted for McCain, we knew even Hillary was a better pick than Obama. Heck Ralph Nadar would have been better!
So we are stuck with him, just as we were with Jimmy Carter. Just next time think before you vote.
Fen
It is a fact that we have to raise revenue at some point. The idea of cutting entitlements is a start but your kind of cuts are not acceptable by anyone except the far right.
Most regular folks [many of whom are Republicans] don't want to cut entitlements when it is explained to them what it means to their lives. Then they take a step back and say "whoa, you can't cut my medicare and my social security." But even after all that many of them still go out and vote for a Republican. So odd.
I don't think Obama is really interested in seeing America succeed.
He's not. I've mentioned this several times lately. He's interested in class warfare, race warfare, gender warfare, political warfare, etc. You can't pull a country together and achieve national success when you antagonizing groups against each other. Now go pay your fair share so as to not put a burden on those paying nothing.
This President and the administration is a clusterfuck.
No. Worse.
No matter how you trace the genealogy of our financial problems, Obama's made them worse. And, the best he can do is make insipid speeches. No plans, no direction, nothing.
Guess all that making decisions that affect every American family is just too much for him.
The idea of cutting entitlements is a start but your kind of cuts are not acceptable by anyone except the far right.
The cuts will be coming one way or the other. In an orderly fashion with a plan would be preferable. But, to many idiots seem to think we can keep pushing this out forever.
Matt: Take social security. There is no way it is going to survive unless we raise the qualifying age to 70. When SS first began, the average lifespan was 65 for women and a bit less for men. See the deal that was made then? It was easy. We will collect now but will pay when you are dead, except the catch was they don't pay you after you die. The problem is that we started paying the living and the living began to think of this as an "entitlement."
Oh, and the people can whine all they want about it but when you are broke you are broke. Raise the tax rate all you want but there isn't enough "revenue" there to pay off what has been promised. This is not a difficult concept to any but liberals.
Most regular folks [many of whom are Republicans] don't want to cut entitlements when it is explained to them what it means to their lives. Then they take a step back and say "whoa, you can't cut my medicare and my social security."
Cut it or lose it entirely.
What part of "we are broke" do you not get? Your call to raise taxes without MAJOR spending cuts is just more of the same madness that got us here. And those drastic cuts need to happen NOW, not passed off to the Congress of 2020. Because the Congress of 2020 can't be held to whatever deal is cut by the current one.
Next time THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE FOR SOME IDIOT WITH NO EXPERIENCE.
"But but... he's black. It was really important that we elected the first black president. Despite his incompetence"
DHOTUS
Diversity Hire Of The United States.
The Left is throwing a temper tantrum because we cancelled the cable subscription.
Meanwhile, the sherrif is approaching the door with a foreclosure notice and a locksmith.
In 2012, we'll elect an adult as President.
"That group definitely deserves what they get, but I suspect that if they are too lazy or helpless to vote, then they would be mostly Dem votes anyway. They just need to offer free cheese at the polls to get them out."
Some people don't vote because they think all politicos are corrupt and that both parties are pretty much useless.
While I don't agree with opting out, I can understand the choice.
Nichevo
Ugh you're right Krugman is probably a self-slapper.
Matt said...
You all know that the credit downgrade is the GOP's fault, right? The fiscal policy debt deal was a Republican plan
Hysterical.
Um, you do realize that the Obama plan was to spend $37 trillion over the next ten years while adding an additional 8 trillion in new debt.
What rating do you think that would have gotten, bozo?
Matt said...
It is a fact that we have to raise revenue at some point
Actually, it is a fact we are raising $2.3 trillion in revenue every year.
You are a blathering idiot.
Of course he has, when you include Bush's policies. Which dishonest hacks like you have lied about for 3 yrs.
Even cut-rate robotrolls will occasionally benefit from reprogramming.
This one obviously needs it. The malfunctioning has become constant.
Haha, Jay, you are making the mistake of speaking English instead of Newspeak. In Matt's world, that is the euphemism for tax hikes. I think.
I'd love to raise some revenue. The way you do that is by helping America raise revenues, in other word, by promoting economic growth. More growth = more tax revenue at the same tax rate on a larger GDP.
The Laffer Curve, of course, hypothesizes that you may be able to raise revenues even farther by lowering the tax rate and disproportionately raising growth - a smaller piece of a bigger pie.
Leftists hate this because for them it's not about the money, it's about injuring anybody who is a "have" and not a "have-not."
When you folks come back to reality and accept the fact that we need to raise revenue then maybe the rating will go back up.
The unit known as "Matt" could also use some reprogramming.
Does Obama love America or is he tryin' to destroy the country? I hope he's trying to destroy the country, otherwise, why is the country getting destroyed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIK5F4zRN0Y&feature=related
The man's $hit is not together in the communication department. I was never impressed. I recall that campaign speech he gave in Berlin. All I could think of was "WTF is he doing in Berlin? Was it the only venue open on that date? An industrial trade show pulled out at the last minute and Berlin was available, so he took it?"
He's in a rough spot and only making it rougher. Word to Mitt: Stay in the weeds until this guy finishes committing political suicide.
When you folks come back to reality and accept the fact that we need to raise revenue then maybe the rating will go back up.
So cut regulation.
or roll back regulation
That will raise revenue.
Make the minimum wage 2 tier for the kids so they can actually get a job.
Fen
Who are 'we' going to elect? Seriously, the GOP field is full of clowns. The only one I would consider is Romney because he developed a good healthcare plan in MA. Other than that if you think Bachmann or Perry are electable you must be smoking something really wild.
the GOP field is full of clowns
When you say this, you automatically take yourself out of contention for serious conversation, not that your previous posts haven't already.
Obama is going to lose if he runs. Anyone can see this. The question is simply who will be president instead of Obama. The fact that you are not honest with yourself about this abjectly obvious fact says a lot. Get out of your cocoon. Assess the world around you objectively. Don't be such a tool.
Jay
Federal revenue percentage of GDP has come down alot in the last 10 years. Through the 80's and 90's revenue was much higher - about 35 to 37% of GDP. Today it is around 30%. So you can't use the excuse that federal taxes have gone up when compared to GDP. State and local taxes on the other hand have gone up - but that is not Obama's doing any more than it was Bush's.
Seven Machos
And so you never say things like "the Democrats are clowns?" Yeah, I doubt it.
That said, I simply look at the polling data the candidates get. You seem to say ANYONE who runs will beat Obama. That is nuts and not being honest. You have to know that some in the GOP field are a tad too far to the right to appeal to enough of the electorate in enough states to win the election.
I fully believe Romney could win. I've said it often. Why? Because he appeals to the independent voter. And even the far right will vote for him if there is no one else. However Bachmann and Perry do not appeal to anyone but the far right or the clueless.
If you are honest with yourself you will admit this country is moderate - not far right [you] or liberal left [me]. Even I know that.
Matt -- You don't raise taxes in a depression. Even Obama understands this.
Have a latte and leave policy to people who know what they are talking about. You are obviously clueless.
Also, revenue is lower because there is less to tax. You can't grow tax revenue when the economy is shrinking. Think, dude. For the first time.
ANYONE who runs will beat Obama
That is my contention. Even Palin at this point, which would be a disaster, as Palin is just like Obama.
"I think I'm a better speech writer than my speech writers. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I'll tell you right now that I'm . . . a better political director than my political director." -- Barrack Obama, 2008.
Bring on these alleged clowns. What say you, Matt?
Seven Machos
I'm afraid you live in a small corner of the world. Or a very red state. Obama would win by a very large margin if Palin ran. It's not worth discussing because that is not an opinion; it's a fact.
Regarding taxes. If you end the tax cuts for the wealthy you begin to get somewhere. Obama actually wants to raise taxes as do many Democrats but they are too weak at bending arms. The GOP was much stronger at getting what they wanted with the budget. And note Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted. Meaning the GOP got what they wanted. I guess.... I would not call it a victory for anyone, really.
Matt -- I live in Chicago.
Democrats control the presidency. Democrats control the Senate. Republicans have tenuous control of the House -- a mere one-third of the government.
As such, it can only be that the Democrats, who control fully 67 percent of the government, are clowns.
Have a latte, dude. Seriously. Your posts are pointless. Obama is going to lose by a landslide. If you cannot see this, you are...wait for it...a clown.
When you folks come back to reality and accept the fact that we need to raise revenue then maybe the rating will go back up.
That's not reality. That's wishful thinking on your part. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
Seven Machos
I'm guessing you don't have much experience with politics? Instead you must go with gut feelings or maybe whatever Rush is saying. Don't go to Vegas anytime soon. Or do - they could use some revenue in Nevada.
First you have to get a candidate that is appealing - other than Romney. Who, again, I will admit could beat Obama. Everyone else will trip over their own sentences and far right wackiness. Also note there hasn't been a Republican landslide since Reagan ran and you don't have a Reagan running. At least not yet. They are holding out until 2016 for a reason....
We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
This!
And it's a two-part spending problem. The federal government is spending entirely too much money. Meanwhile, people and businesses aren't spending money. Look into it. Banks are contemplating adding fees for institutions that are sitting on billions of dollars. It's just sitting there, not earning interest, basically under a mattress.
And yet Matt and his silly ilk would raise taxes? On what? You can only tax income.
Meanwhile, half of Americans don't pay any taxes at all.
It's a full-blown depression, people. Thank God for the memory of the last one. You don't raise taxes. It's asinine. You don't raise tariffs. You don't gum up the works with bloated new bureaucracies. Thankfully, Obama has only done the last of these (though his ass-dragging on free trade is a severe problem).
Check that...Bush SR beat that dude from MA by a lot. I stand corrected. However I sure would take Bush SR over just about any Republican now.
Matt -- I am a former American diplomat. You?
The Obama-Narcissus thought for today:
I am their leader. Where are they now?
"..Who are 'we' going to elect? Seriously, the GOP field is full of clowns..."
Hell, fucking Bozo would be an improvement over this guy.
Matt -- Tell us about your the speeches to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee you contributed to. Tell us about the visa applications you adjudicated. Tell us the number of times you sat in the American delegation at the United Nations General Assembly.
I'll wait.
"...When you folks come back to reality and accept the fact that we need to raise revenue then maybe the rating will go back up..."
This is what I love about liberals. Just take more of my earnings because God forbid the Federal government cut spending.
Why can't we just be like Europe with confiscatory tax rates, a 20% VAT and there would be no debt crisis...oh wait....
I hope I have embarrassed our naive friend Matt away from this space forever. We'll see.
Or would you like question my credentials further, dude?
Well, 7, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a Mexican wrestler.
Oh wait...
"...Obama actually wants to raise taxes as do many Democrats but they are too weak at bending arms..."
Then why did he extend the Bush tax cuts? They were set to expire and he cheerfully extended them, saying how good it was for the middle class. And here liberals have been saying how those tax cuts were all for rich folk.
Tell ya what, how about the govt. shows it can institute fiscal responsibility before they demand more of my money. Is that ok or are you one of those liberals who think the govt should just take whatever they want?
Nichevo -- Even Eddie Guerrero knows not to mess with me, unless he's paid off some crooked ref.
Tell ya what, how about the govt. shows it can institute fiscal responsibility before they demand more of my money.
Exactly. Whats the point of raising taxes if that revenue will simply be used again to payoff Obama's Chicago cronies and union thugs?
I think we should tax Matt and his ilk at 90%.
I would also note that I don't hear any conservatives or libertarians spouting about lowering taxes. Nobody is making that argument, and it's important to think about why.
We all see the need for the government to have the means to create a balanced budget right now, in this fiscal emergency. What we are arguing is that government must be cut drastically. And it must be.
Matt thinks the government needs "alot" of money. He must be a product of government schools.
60: A hit, sir! A palpable hit!
7: Aside from my regret at your low regard for Sarah Palin, I do have to say I have always found the most disturbing thing about you to be your avatar: creepy in a serial-killer way.
But then, I feel the same way about Mexican wrestling costumes anyway. I don't like the current police trend of masking up on raids, either. Oh well, nobody cares what I think anyway :>
Nichevo -- I can't change now. It'd be like New Coke.
7 quotes "I think I'm a better speech writer than my speech writers. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I'll tell you right now that I'm . . . a better political director than my political director." -- Barrack Obama, 2008.
Beautiful. Just beautiful.
Remember? You who voted for this egotist?
If you end the tax cuts for the wealthy you begin to get somewhere.
Get where?
Closer to jacking up Federal taxes on everyone?
Closer to propping up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and ObamaReidPelosiCare in the short term, so they can collapse in the medium to long term?
That is my contention. Even Palin at this point, which would be a disaster, as Palin is just like Obama.
No, she isn't. She wouldn't be playing golf this week on the taxpayers dime, for one thing.
And for those who say she's a quitter, she resigned the Governorship when she became a problem for the effective governance of Alaska. Definite win for the Establishment-enablers there. (Seven, you're a smart guy, but pretty much by definition you're part of the establishment.)
For my part, I'll give you Obama enablers a one-term Obama debacle for a one-term Palin....
.... well, let's see. I trust her values, and I think if she's screwing the pooch, she just might quit again. And would that be a negative compared to Obama right now, who certainly won't?
The unit known as "Matt" emitted this output:
Federal revenue percentage of GDP has come down alot in the last 10 years. Through the 80's and 90's revenue was much higher - about 35 to 37% of GDP. Today it is around 30%. So you can't use the excuse that federal taxes have gone up when compared to GDP. State and local taxes on the other hand have gone up - but that is not Obama's doing any more than it was Bush's.
Again, there is visible malfunctioning, and an immediate need for reprogramming is indicated.
Apparently "Matt"'s programming is so crude as to prevent this unit from distinguishing between total Federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP and total Federal, state and local tax revenue as a percentage of GDP.
Mark said...
".... well, let's see. I trust her values, "
What are your thoughts on Palin's position regarding Family Values given her son and new daughter-in-law just had a child after only three months of marriage?
Fen said...I just ignore him these days. You see his name, just skip it. Save your time and energy for something not worthless.
Same here. He's a complete jackass and a miserable liar to boot.
36 -- Republicans will sort out our own candidate issues. Go on home now.
Seven Machos said...
"36 -- Republicans will sort out our own candidate issues. Go on home now."
Who said I'm not a Republican?
Me.
Seven Machos said...
"Me."
And how is it that you are so omniscient?
36: And how is it that you are so omniscient?
Simple - you played the "Palin has no credibility because of something her daughter did" card.
Its Libtard Logic. Hence, you can't be a Republican.
See how easy that was?
the helicopter didn't "crash", it was shot down... BIG difference.
Fen said...
"Simple - you played the "Palin has no credibility because of something her daughter did" card.
"Its Libtard Logic. Hence, you can't be a Republican."
Actually, it was her son Track this time who was involved in pre-marital sex.
So I can only be a Republican if I'm willing to accept hypocrisy in the leaders of the party?
36 -- I've argued with you here before. You are no Republican. Get over yourself.
Fen was absolutely right.
By the way, since we know you are no Republican, it's worth recalling that Bill Clinton (God love him) was and likely remains a serial philanderer. Al Gore's son is a stoner idiot. Barney Frank frequently enjoys the services of young male prostitutes.
I have long argued here that Palin is not fit for the presidency because of her inexperience. However, her children and their actions have nothing to do with her lack of fitness -- any more than Al Gore's stoner kid problem.
Anyway, you are not a conservative. You are not a libertarian. You are not a Republican. Up your game or get the fuck out of here.
Seven Machos said...
"By the way, since we know you are no Republican, it's worth recalling that Bill Clinton (God love him) was and likely remains a serial philanderer. Al Gore's son is a stoner idiot. Barney Frank frequently enjoys the services of young male prostitutes."
You're making assumptions again.
- Larry Craig trolled for gay sex in an airport bathroom.
- Mark Foley was chasing after under aged male pages.
- Vitter engaged in sex with prostitutes.
- Sanford left his family to be with his Argentine mistress.
- Schwarzenegger screwed around on his wife and fathered a child.
- Ken Mehlman came out and now supports gay marriage after running Bush's 2004 campaign which was against gay marriage.
- Ted Haggert, Roy Ashburn, George Rekers and the list goes on.
You are OK with the behavior of these Republicans, is that correct?
"I have long argued here that Palin is not fit for the presidency because of her inexperience. However, her children and their actions have nothing to do with her lack of fitness -- any more than Al Gore's stoner kid problem."
Is or is not Palin an advocate of Family Values? Did or didn't she support her daughter Bristol's position as a teen-pregnancy prevention advocate?
Do you believe Republican leaders should have integrity and be truthful in articulating their positions?
You are OK with the behavior of these Republicans, is that correct?
I am fine with it all.
But, dude, why evade the issue? You are not a Republican. Even worse, you are boring.
Seven Machos said...
"I am fine with it all."
OK
So, 36 -- Are you still claiming that you are a Republican? Or that somehow people can't tell your politics? Because the Good Lord knows nobody should go making assumptions about your trite politics...
Wait. Is Buffet considered impartial/objective?
Seven Machos said...
"So, 36 -- Are you still claiming that you are a Republican? Or that somehow people can't tell your politics? Because the Good Lord knows nobody should go making assumptions about your trite politics..."
Why is it trite to expect integrity from our political leaders?
36 -- The inferences in your post are quite striking. A politician is a person doing a job. You seem to insist on something more. You should ask yourself why. Do you insist that your plumber has never had an affair? The person who cuts your hair?
When you insist on your politicians being next to god, you end up with prissy assholes for politicians.
Anyway, you aren't a Republican or a conservative. I stand by that contention.
Seven Machos said...
"36 -- The inferences in your post are quite striking. A politician is a person doing a job. You seem to insist on something more. You should ask yourself why."
Seven Machos,
My initial post was in response to Mark's comment that he trusted Palin's values.
Again, is or is not Palin an advocate of Family Values? Did or didn't she support her daughter Bristol's position as a teen-pregnancy prevention advocate? As I understand her position, she is an advocate of Family Values and she does support her daughter Bristol. Given that, doesn't it beg the question of how much she truly believes in these positions given what has happened in her own family with her oldest son and daughter?
"Do you insist that your plumber has never had an affair? The person who cuts your hair?"
My plumber or barber are not politicians running on certain principles to get elected and are not in a position to implement legislation based on those principles.
"When you insist on your politicians being next to god, you end up with prissy assholes for politicians."
I'm not insisting that politicians be like god. I'm asking for integrity and not hypocrisy. If Palin and other politicians claim to be Christian then they should act like Christians. Christ did have some strong words about hypocrites.
I believe it was Jesus Christ Who is reported to have said:
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.
You really need to stop posting here and think about how Christianity can or should coexist with government in a democratic society. The area where Jesus preached was not a democracy, and He has nothing to say on the issue.
Also, you are not a Republican. Therefore, you shouldn't get to have any say in which candidate Republicans elect. I'm quite sure Jesus agrees with me here.
Seven Machos said...
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."
Yes, about taxes, correct?
"You really need to stop posting here and think about how Christianity can or should coexist with government in a democratic society. The area where Jesus preached was not a democracy, and He has nothing to say on the issue."
So are you are saying all Christian politicians should resign? Christians shouldn't run for public office because Jesus didn't live in a democracy?
36 -- The edict to render unto Caesar is not merely about taxes. It's so sad that you think that. I don't even know where to begin. I suppose I'll just say that you clearly don't understand the New Testament at all at any level beyond the shallowest. There are many commentaries you could read. Pick one up.
As for the rest of your post, I can only shake my head and wonder how you got to such an insane conclusion. I will ask you a question, though: do you think all adulterers should not be allowed to be in Congress? Because, if so, we won't have much of a Congress after all the current adulterers leave.
Seven Machos said...
"36 -- The edict to render unto Caesar is not merely about taxes. It's so sad that you think that. I don't even know where to begin. I suppose I'll just say that you clearly don't understand the New Testament at all at any level beyond the shallowest. There are many commentaries you could read. Pick one up."
Yes, I understand there are many interpretations of that passage.
"As for the rest of your post, I can only shake my head and wonder how you got to such an insane conclusion."
What point are you trying to make with Christianity and government? Why is desiring integrity in our political leaders such a bad thing which is what my original point is about?
"I will ask you a question, though: do you think all adulterers should not be allowed to be in Congress? Because, if so, we won't have much of a Congress after all the current adulterers leave."
Is there really that much adultery in Congress? All those Christian politicians are violating the Commandment against adultry?
It does seem that one of the strategies that the left uses against the right is that of claiming hypocrisy, as 36 is trying to do here. The assumption seems to be that since the left, Democrats, etc., have no values, then they cannot be hypocrites. Or, something like that.
I think first that the difference is overblown. Nancy Pelosi portrays herself as a devout Roman Catholic, as do any number of other politicians on the left. And, there are very few places in this country where you can be elected as an avowed atheist. Heck, the guide I got recently for lobbying Congress included the avowed religion of all 530+ members of Congress.
But, apparently, those attacking Republicans, etc. seem to believe that Republicans are the only ones who espouse religion, quote from scripture, and can be hypocrites for such (apparently, quoting scripture inaccurately, as Obama does, apparently doesn't count).
And, of course, some of the rankest hypocrisy comes from those on the left with money who claim that the tax rates are too low for the working rich (i.e. the middle class making more than, say, $200k or so). That it would only be fair for the group of taxpayers paying over half the federal income taxes already pay more, in the name of shared sacrifice, etc. (ignoring all those free riders who are exempt from shared sacrifice).
Yet, many of these liberals demanding such shared sacrifice avail themselves of those same tax loopholes, and many of them hire armies of accountants to hide or exempt their income from more taxation.
I would suggest that anyone demanding that the rest of us share in the sacrifice is a hypocrite if they are not paying at least, say, 1/3, or maybe even 2/5 of their income as federal income taxes, and if they inherited wealth (and so don't have to earn it and pay taxes on those earnings), that they contribute, say, 10% of their wealth over, say $10 million, to the government every year as a voluntary contribution.
Of course, none of this is going to happen, because hypocrisy is a weapon that can only be used against the right in most cases, mostly because much of the left has no shame. Rather, politics is completely about power for them, and morality has no place in what they say or do.
All those Christian politicians are violating the Commandment against adultry?
Yes. Half of them are Democrats.
Good luck trying to expose moral hypocrisy and tying it to Christianity, leftist dude. Sadly, you don't seem to know nearly enough about the Bible to pull it off.
Also, there are no laws against adultery, gay sex, or bearing children out of wedlock. Nor are there going to be. So the politicians who make laws can have gay sex out of their marriages and also children out of wedlock, and it won't violate your deep, tender sense of integrity.
Seven Machos said...
"Yes. Half of them are Democrats."
You have factual knowledge of which members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, are committing adultery? Very impressive.
"Good luck trying to expose moral hypocrisy and tying it to Christianity, leftist dude. Sadly, you don't seem to know nearly enough about the Bible to pull it off."
I can certainly listen to what a politician says and compare that to their actions. Again, is Palin an advocate of Family Values and if so, what is going on within her own family?
"Also, there are no laws against adultery, gay sex, or bearing children out of wedlock. Nor are there going to be. So the politicians who make laws can have gay sex out of their marriages and also children out of wedlock, and it won't violate your deep, tender sense of integrity."
Principles of Family Values:
- Promotion of traditional marriage and opposition to sex outside of conventional marriage, including pre-marital sex, adultery, polygamy, bestiality, and incest.
- Opposition to same-sex marriage.
- Opposition to legalization of abortion and support for policies that instead encourage abstinence and adoption.
There may not be laws regarding these principles by if someone claims to be for Family Values do you expect they will follow these principles? There's that integrity thing again.
Bruce Hayden said...
"It does seem that one of the strategies that the left uses against the right is that of claiming hypocrisy, as 36 is trying to do here. The assumption seems to be that since the left, Democrats, etc., have no values, then they cannot be hypocrites. Or, something like that."
What is wrong with demanding integrity from ones own leaders? Why should I demand integrity from Democrats if I'm not a Democrat? What purpose will that serve? Does a representative pay that much attention to someone who is not one of their constituents?
All the military services have core values along the lines of integrity first, service before self and excellence in all they do.
I guess what I'm hearing is that these values are too difficult for members of Congress to follow even though they take the same oath of office to support and defend the constitution as the members of the military services.
Anyhow, it's late. I'm out.
Cheers.
Where in the Constitution are family values? Or as you would say, Family Values?
Saint Croix: "Obamacare by itself jacked up unemployment several percentage points."
Explain this. Where do you get your facts?
Obamacare requires companies that go over 50 employees to buy more expensive health care insurance, or pay a fine.
The upshot is that it if you hire more people, and go over 50 employees (and small businesses are the engine of economic growth), your entire business will be subject to the nightmare of Obamacare.
Obamacare is so bad that lots of companies tried to get an exemption from it.
Obamacare is so bad, the members of Congress exempt themselves from it. That's the mark of real evil, by the way, when you apply rules to other people that you won't apply to yourself.
33% of businesses list Obamacare as the #1 or #2 reason for why they aren't hiring.
It's a regulatory cost, nobody knows how expensive it's ultimately going to be. Most Americans (certainly most businesses) are hoping that it's going to be repealed. Which won't happen until Obama is out, in 2012. So companies aren't hiring until 2012. It's basically a freeze on hiring caused by fear of this government.
2009 was spent talking about Obamacare and the fight for Obamacare. That was horrible for the markets. Then when 2010 came, and the bill actually passed, and businesses found out what was in it, employment died.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/20/obamacare-no-perscription-for-recovery/
Even liberals are starting to realize that Obama should have been worried about jobs, not Obamacare. He has done this.
It is a fact that we have to raise revenue at some point.
Tax increases raise revenues in the short term and hurts long-term productivity, a lot. Businesses spend a lot of money hiring attorneys in order to avoid paying taxes. Or they take their business to another country. And unemployment goes up in ours.
Don't be an idiot.
You want to raise revenues? How about economic growth? Do liberals like economic growth? I have to say, I kinda miss it.
Liberals are not serious until they admit that they have over-regulated us and need to repeal Obamacare, Chris-Dodd, Sarbanes-Oxley, and much of your EPA crap.
Let us buy fucking light bulbs. That's how we all know Washington D.C. is fucked in the head. You outlawed the light bulb, you morons.
Once you get your head out of your ass, and your government out of our economy, we will have growth again.
Capitalism works. Socialism does not.
Leave the private sector alone and quit trying to dictate a top-down economy. It's not working.
It's a full-blown depression, people. Thank God for the memory of the last one. You don't raise taxes. It's asinine. You don't raise tariffs. You don't gum up the works with bloated new bureaucracies. Thankfully, Obama has only done the last of these
Ugh.
He raised our debt levels to an insane amount. At least a tax raise would have been honest. "I'm going to tax you to death to pay for my insane spending."
Instead he tried this: "I'm going to not tax you at all and just do the insane spending."
That's not an improvement. It kills our future prosperity and ruins our country for our children and grandchildren.
Might I add that the Tea Party freak out is led by moral people who are upset with the idea that we won't pay back our debts? I think liberals are way cooler with the idea of not paying back debts.
"It's just like not paying back my school loans."
No. It's not. When you run up public debt levels too high, so that it looks like you won't pay them back, you threaten the entire society.
And Republicans have been far more honest in this debate than Democrats. I'm sorry but it's true.
Republicans have been talking about cutting spending. (Which is something they don't want to do, because they get voted out of office for cutting spending). Republicans have been making the hard arguments.
An honest Democrat would be calling for massive tax increases to pay our debts.
And he would be voted out of office. That's why there aren't any honest Democrats.
I remain curious why turbo tax cheat Timmy remains Sec Treas--this fucking idiot had the temerity to suggest Europe should get its fiscal house in order. Obama should fire him if only for the symbolism--Geithner should have the integrity to resign--but as a tax cheat his integrity is already demonstrated--Jug ears and tax cheat timmy deserve each other--the country, unfortunately, deserves neither.
OOPS!
Despite early criticism from city officials, new figures show Milwaukee will gain more than it will lose next year from the state's controversial budget and budget-repair legislation.
The city projects it will save at least $25 million a year - and potentially as much as $36 million in 2012
Garbage hardest hit...
Regarding taxes. If you end the tax cuts for the wealthy you begin to get somewhere.
Where, exactly, do you "get" ?
36, are you implying that Democrats OPPOSE families? I can't think of one who doesn't extoll the virtues of families.
Garage said: "It's not on the chart I linked because the law doesn't take effect until 2014."
Chip S replied: "Did you happen to read the column heading on the table you yourself linked to? Because here's what the column above Obama's spending says: FY 2009-17 (incl. projections)"
Perfect example of why I've stopped following garage's links.
Following garage's links: Don't Be That Guy!
Post a Comment