6:04: Settle in. It's going to be a long night. Are you looking forward to anything other than Rubio and Romney?
6:30: A Mormon invocation, from Ken Hutchins, thanking God for "the beauty of the heavens and the earth... a lasting testament of Thy love for us."
6:43: "Once again, it's morning in America!" announces Connie Mack, gesturing exuberantly.
6:47: Another story of an immigrant who started a business. It's the American Dream, Mack tells us. "It's morning in America," he repeats, and the tribute video to Ronald Reagan begins.
6:53: "Whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone," says the voice of the departed President, "I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence, rather than your doubts. In this springtime of hope, some lights seem eternal. America's is." And so, we hear the theme of the night: hope, dreams... the very words that won the last election for the other party.
6:59: It's Callista and Newt Gingrich, here to liken Romney to Reagan and Obama to Carter. It's like 1980 again, you must understand, and it's striking how President Carter and President Obama both wrecked out hopes and dreams within only 4 years. They're speaking in this slow, methodical way. I think this would have been livelier without Callista, but she's bringing the woman... and the beauty... very crisp beauty.
7:03: Hispanics: We love you! We really, really love you. Your values are Republican Party values. Hard work. Entrepreneurship. The American Dream. The successful Hispanics have been Republican. Identify with success, o Hispanic people! [This was a video. I'll post it here when I find it.]
7:06: It's Craig Romney, the youngest Romney son. He speaks at some length in Spanish, and it sounds fluent to me. He's really handsome too, by the way.
7:12: Jeb Bush comes out and speaks his first few words in Spanish. I'm picturing the Democrats suddenly scrambling to put more Hispanic in their convention.
7:40: Grant Bennett, a friend and fellow church member of Romney's, explains the work Romney did within the LDS Church. This is beautifully stated, explaining a life of service to others. Meade says, "Community organizing!" And I say, "No, he was ministering to individuals." There was no organizing.
7:47: An array of church members testifying to Romney's religious ministry. [This is very touching, parents with children who suffered and died.]
8:37: More testimonials from businesses that were helped by Mitt Romney and from Olympians who benefited from Mitt's leadership. This section is well-done. I'm not particularizing it, but let me say I'm impressed by it.
9:03: Clint Eastwood!
9:10: Clint's talking to an empty chair representing Obama. Oh, I don't think it's possible for him to do that to himself.
9:13: We own this country... Politicians are employees of ours... When somebody does not do the job, we've got to let them go. Note the echo with Mitt Romney's famous: "I like being able to fire people."
9:14: Marco Rubio! About Obama: "Our problem is not that he's a bad person. It's that he's a bad President."
10:42: And now, Romney has given his speech. It was a Romney speech.
३० ऑगस्ट, २०१२
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६३४ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 634 पैकी 401 – 600 नवीन› नवीनतम»"Oh, I'm sure you'll think of one! That's about as much time as Republicans took in 2009 before they decided to torpedo an administration and a country's recovery efforts in order to gain political power."
Oh, bull shit Ritmo.
The Democrats passed all the stimulous crap without serious opposition. And the health care thing had nothing to do with "recovery efforts". Nothing. Obama wasn't worried about economic recovery while he had both the House and Senate.
Republicans didn't have the House until after the 2010 election cycle. They couldn't, and didn't, do squat to botch any Presidential efforts about economic recovery until the freshmen took office the next January.
Two years.
The economy wasn't on Obama's to-do list until later, when he suddenly realized that his magic bullet stimulous and recovery wasn't happening in a blessed state of nature.
Can't recall an election that presented more of a dichotomy.
Government investment vs. private investment.
The belief that America is extraordinary vs. the belief that America has a shameful history.
And, it must be said, the reassertion of the values of the great American white middle class vs. the values of diversity.
I'll take the values of the great American white middle class. No apologies. Those values are better than those of any other group.
Energy independence is not realistic if you are talking about oil. All we pump sooner or later goes onto the world oil market, which serves to slightly and temporarily satiate world demand but will do little to balance the US's energy books.
You want energy independence, you have to look to other than oil as a source.
The Democrats passed all the stimulous crap without serious opposition.
The biggest of which was signed into law by BUSH!!!
Is this how Republicans dishonor themselves nowadays? By forgetting to throw in an accurate, relevant FACT or two with every talking point?
I await Revenant's redefinition of what Synova just said as a "yapping point".
John Boehner.
Going after the chain smoking Midwestern vote.
Name those values, ST.
Boehner sounded like he's off the wagon.
Romney's speech worked for me. It was clear, concise and potent. It did the job.
As others have pointed out, I'm not looking for fancy flights of rhetoric, I'm not looking for transformation, I just want someone who can do the job.
Meade said...
Exactly right. What we need now is boring small ball competence."
Well by all appearances, you got a guy with small balls. I was actually hoping that all the non-policy fluff was just to woo the far right but I am now pretty locked into that being all he has.
Sad really.
"Energy independence is not realistic if you are talking about oil."
True. Of course "green energy" is even less realistic.
Limiting the discussion to oil is foolish and... limiting.
I don't intend to diminish other groups, Meade.
The best value of that white middle class is the tradition of fathers who are fully invested in the lives of their children.
Romney exemplifies this.
Dolan just ripped Obama.. under the radar.
I wasn't really expecting much tonight.
Zilch, really.
But I found it reassuring.
When a frail and wobbly old movie star can outgun the sitting President, you know we've been handed a 4 year shit sandwich.
Time to put that sammich down and get back to work, not just cutting a smaller pie 100 ways, and blaming Bush for it.
Republicans didn't have the House until after the 2010 election cycle. They couldn't, and didn't, do squat to botch any Presidential efforts about economic recovery until the freshmen took office the next January.
It's fun watching Synova take her time to learn to fight the good fight for her dishonorable Republicans, at least until such time as she learns of basic concepts of American government like "the filibuster".
You don't have to look at the ACA as a recovery effort (although even Paul Ryan can't decide if its deficit-reduction effects are worth endorsing or bashing. Not that it would matter to him; he voted along with every Bush spending increase). All you have to know is the strategy McConnell held his dishonorable gang to as soon as they'd lost and wondered how a Democratic president credited with recovery wouldn't get in the way of their political ambitions.
Dishonorable.
The best value of that white middle class American is precisely the notion that you are the master of your own destiny.
I was taught this by my father.
Certainly, there are limitation to this.
But, it is better to face the world armed with the belief that you can be an effective actor.
Wait a minute..
Boehner didn't ask for the no votes..
Oh... there are democrats there.
Wow, Ritmo.
I write that Obama didn't have any significant opposition from Republicans and you refute that by pointing out that the first part was passed under Bush?
No wonder you're confused.
Obama had both the Senate and House for two entire years... until 2011. You claim that was too difficult for him.
But it wasn't.
He pushed through a profoundly unpopular health care law BECAUSE THAT WAS HIS PRIORITY. So obviously he was quite able to get the votes on whatever he truly valued.
So why not the economy?
Why couldn't he do anything about the economy in 2009 and 2010?
Make excuses for him but you don't have any more idea about what his economic plan is than I do.
Other than... we don't have a solution for that, we just know we don't like yours.
Now onto the pro-redistribution Grievance Theater that will be the DNC joke party of lies, bullshit, bad faith, Obama worship, and angry drooling.
ritmo,
It's the job of the opposition in the U.S. to "oppose."
In 2010, the voters sent Republicans to Congress precisely to stop Obama's borrowing and spending. They did just that.
If Romney is elected, the Democrats will "oppose." That will be their job.
You are saying nothing, really, by repeating that the Republicans opposed Obama.
"Oh, I'm sure you'll think of one! That's about as much time as Republicans took in 2009 before they decided to torpedo an administration and a country's recovery efforts in order to gain political power."
effective too. The public doesn't pay attention to it, they just look at shit not getting done and blame the president. If Romney wins why wouldn't Democrats do the same exact thing?
"Romney exemplifies this."
Indeed. Obama also exemplifies the value of fathers fully invested in the lives of their children. And it's a value shared by Americans of every ethnic group.
Oh... there are democrats there.
Who voted in line with either their conscience, or their constituency.
But certainly not just to preserve the power of their caucus - as directed by a little Napoleon.
Dishonorable.
Ritmo calling someone ' dishonorable'?
Does Madonna decry exhibitionists?
In breaking news... the political opposition opposes.
OH MY GAWD.
I just about fainted there.
Exactly, garage.
If Romney wins, I expect the Democrats to put up a tough opposition.
That would be their job. They should do it well.
Obama had both the Senate and House for two entire years.
Not true. Try a couple months of a filibuster proof majority. 400+ filibusters later....
I agree, Meade, that Obama has done this. It's one thing that I admire about him
Unfortunately, that is not a value shared by most of the black community.
The weather must be nice on your planet, garage.
"If Romney wins why wouldn't Democrats do the same exact thing?"
What amazes me is that Clinton got anything done with those awful Republicans... Oh wait... Clinton let them do their jobs and signed what was sent to him.
Just like Bush did.
The House passes a budget, just like they're required to do, and it's their fault we don't have a budget.
Amazing.
Garage should want Romney to win... he hasn't done well carrying Obama's water.
" If Romney wins why wouldn't Democrats do the same exact thing?"
You should. But then please offer a better alternative or else button up.
So why not the economy?
Because he had no reason to assume that the Repuglicans would be so craven and treasonous as to risk tanking a recovering economy in order to smear their opposition's record.
In no other recovery did Repuglicans lay off public sector employees. Because they did in this one, unemployment is now at least a full percentage point higher than it would be.
They are shameless, dishonorable assholes.
And their "leadership" knows it, even if their henchman are confused, and their army of keyboard warriors on this blog are way too naive to know it.
Lindsey Meadows said...
Exactly right. What we need now is boring small ball competence.
Well by all appearances, you got a guy with small balls.
He made five sons. That makes him better than Zero.
Not to mention Lindsey's consumer electronics.
ritmo,
You are just gassing like a fool right now.
Except in times of an all-out declared war, it is the job of the opposition to oppose.
Do you know understand this simple concept?
You can't be this dumb.
"Unfortunately, that is not a value shared by most of the black community."
That may or may not be true. Careful though - your saying so, as Obama did, may very well cause Jesse Jackson to want to "cut your nuts out" .
So now we have Shouting Thomas saying that the cost to the country is not too high a price to pay for opposition.
Any seconds?
Ask Zell Miller what he thought of Wendell Wilkie for refusing to go along with that line of non-thought.
Thank you for admitting that hatred of a country's well-being is an acceptable political price, in your mind.
Not very honorable there.
If Romney wins, I expect the Democrats to put up a tough opposition.
fuck you, and I'll see you in four years. The RNC playbook.
I think I'm one of the few people who oppose Obama's election who doesn't bear the man any personal animosity.
I had high hopes that he would do better. Unfortunately, he didn't to the job. Much as Clint said.
We all wanted him to succeed. Romeny said that repeatedly, and I think that it was good that he did.
The "cost to the country" you are describing, Ritmo is call...
Democracy.
You don't always get your way.
And the job of an "opposition" is to criticize and question. Not to mindlessly oppose, thank you very much. Not to add turbo-power to one's own jerking knee.
Not to be this shameless in a party's ambition.
You can't fight wars without money, not that the Republicans realize this. So to cordon off the economy as an acceptable price for political ambition, as if only wars matter, is stupid.
Only Ron Paul seems to get this. No wonder you want to shut him up so badly.
You lost an election in 2010, Ritmo,
Cease the tantrum, if you can, and accept it.
The best feeling you had was the day you voted for him.
Ritmo,
Sometimes it has to be said.
You talking like a fucking idiot.
Try to cease the tantrum for a moment, and cease talking like a jackass.
I think it's just excuses.
Did other presidents and parties not manage to get the work done without fillibuster proof super-majorities?
What they didn't do, was insist on getting what they wanted. No inviting dialog with the other side and then expecting the other side not to have opinion. No "I won". No, the people who got us in this mess should shut up.
The totally pretend "compromises" didn't help either.
Nor did Obama's initial end-runs around Congress on legislative things, appealing directly to the public in a somewhat creepy way, to get citizens to pressure Congress instead of *leading* and approaching Congress like a president and adult to find out where common cause could be found.
I don't expect anyone, like so many on the left did of Bush, to act like they're working for the other party once they're elected.
I do expect them to go into it expecting to work with the other side. A person can not honestly say that President "I won" did that.
You don't always get your way.
Obama was rebuffed by the "opposition" on legislation he offered, and endorsed, that Republicans had favored.
So in this case, winning power meant that they refused to even agree to get their own way.
They are shameless cowards, man. I'm amazed how pretzel-like a contortion you'll go through to not see this.
Talk about not having limits...
You know what's behind all this shit that Ritmo and garage are talking?
Opposition was supposed to cease because Obama is black.
Moronic.
synova...
actually the fillibuster rate in the senate is at an all time high and the amount of legislation that actually gets to the floor for debate is the smallest in history.
I would think that a certain obstructionism plays into that.
I expect the democrats to call Eastwood a racist.
Ritmo,
You become more of an incoherent idiot with each posting.
Go away, take a tranquilizer and quit braying like a jackass.
That's about as much time as Republicans took in 2009 before they decided to torpedo an administration and a country's recovery efforts in order to gain political power.
I realize Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are each incompetent in their own special way.
But it takes a whole new level of incompetence to be "torpedoed" when you've got the Presidency and a filibuster-proof majority in Congress.
You lost an election in 2010, Ritmo,
Cease the tantrum, if you can, and accept it.
I didn't run for an election.
I am only pointing out the truth.
You can say the public has a short enough attention-span to let one cycle slide.
You are basically arguing that Republicans don't, and shouldn't have, any principles.
Please keep repeating that as loud as you can.
And calling me an idiot for refusing to endorse your own unprincipled immorality.
Nice.
Another idiot... this time Lindsey.
Obstructionism was what they Republicans were elected to do, you dumb twat.
actually the fillibuster rate in the senate is at an all time high and the amount of legislation that actually gets to the floor for debate is the smallest in history.
And you have Harry Reid to thank for it. The Republicans have sent plenty of legislation to the Senate... and it dies there without so much as a vote.
No, Ritmo, you keep repeating an absurdity.
Shut up for a while, go think about it and you'll see that you're just braying like a jackass.
Shut up. The things you are saying are too fucking stupid to even humor.
Oh fuck off already. When you talk like this you always lose.
You didn't like it when you got smacked down at Lawyers, Guns, and Money.
You didn't like getting smacked down by Seven Machos as a racist.
When you start huffing and puffing and cursing mindlessly like this, well, we know you're just lost.
Both Garage and Ritmo seem to be up way past their bedtimes. Grouches.
Could be that they watched the convention on PBS tonite. Even Gwen Ifel had to mention the power of the emotional impact of the speakers; and worse, how ethnically diverse they were. Not being able to give reliable comfort to PBS's core audience must have really shook them up - to their core even.
If I were a lefty, that would make me grouchy too.
See, there you go with the tantrum.
Good night, Ritmo.
O Ritmo Segundo: "In no other recovery did Repuglicans lay off public sector employees. Because they did in this one, unemployment is now at least a full percentage point higher than it would be. They are shameless, dishonorable assholes."
Your view that public sector jobs are the self-evident key to recovery, let alone economic vitality, dominates Greece, Argentina, and many other failing economies. If you want to make that belief the litmus test for this election, go ahead.
Ritmo, sometimes you are almost human.
Other times, you just collapse into stupid thumb sucking.
You don't always get your way in this life.
Good night.
Pointing out the truth is only a "tantrum" to people who prefer lies.
So I've been switching back and forth between Fox and MSNBC, and the contrast is stunning. I wonder how we feel about that. It is relatively new that there would be such partisanship openly displayed on networks.
Tonight it's MSNBC that's really out there with the partisanship. FOX is not being critical at all when they could and should be, but MSNBC is almost comically attacking everything.
I'm gonna try and watch it this way during the Dem's convention and see how it's handled by each when the tables are turned.
I can't imagine what FOX could do that would match MSNBC cutting away specifically when minorities were speaking on the first night. That was pretty damning, and people should remember that when they attack "Faux News".
@ritmo,
The Democrats passed all the stimulous crap without serious opposition.
The biggest of which was signed into law by BUSH!!!
So you aren't holding Obama responsible for legislation he himself voted for?
You also claim that Republicans have blocked legislation that would have caused the economy to recover.
So:
1) Democrats had complete control of Congress for 2 years. GOP obstacles could only happen in year 3. So why did Democrats not do anything for the economy in two years?
2) What economic legislation has the Democrat-controlled Senate passed in the last two years that was blocked by the GOP-controlled House?
If you can't name anything, you are deliberately lying.
3) Why did no Democrat vote for Obama's budgets?
4) Why has the Democrat-controlled Congress not passed a budget in more than 3 years?
In light of these questions you won't and can't answer, why do you think people will believe your lies about GOP obstruction?
Not a key, Kent. A full-percentage point.
If you favor 8% unemployment to 7%, then just have the balls to come right out and say it.
Race has nothing to do with it. It is now perfectly clear. Anyone of any race can be incompetent. Either party can failure in leadership.
Obama and the Democratic Party-controlled senate have failed the nation for the last four years.
It's time for real change.
ritmo,
The next time you tell the truth, it will be the first time.
Well, bagoh20,
Maybe it's a good thing.
No pretense of impartiality, and each side is presenting its case.
Fox is a little more sane than MSNBC.
Too bad Romney can't start the job tomorrow.
That would be both change and hope.
@Lindsey,
actually the fillibuster rate in the senate is at an all time high and the amount of legislation that actually gets to the floor for debate is the smallest in history.
I look forward to when the GOP takes over the Senate and you suddenly praise the filibuster as the greatest patriotism since the dissent period of 2001-2008.
) Democrats had complete control of Congress for 2 years.
Man this is the zombie lie that just will not die. Facts get pointed out and zombie pops right back up completely unfazed.
9:14: Marco Rubio! About Obama: "Our problem is not that he's a bad person. It's that he's a bad President."
Nonsense. They trip all over themselves to avoid the "racist" label. The fact is that Obama is the destroyer of America, and of American sovereignty. He is a criminal Usurper. Yeah he's a very bad guy.
Maintain a certain sense of cynicism about Romney, too, Meade.
I am.
Too bad Romney can't start the job tomorrow.
I'm sure he could have (and would have) outsourced you yesterday.
Amazing what the leader-worship mindset will put up with.
Revenant said...
"And you have Harry Reid to thank for it. The Republicans have sent plenty of legislation to the Senate... and it dies there without so much as a vote."
ahhh yes. over 30 obamacare repeals and over 30 anti-abortion pieces of legislation. yup. that is some record of achievement.
A full-percentage point.
The difference between salaried public employees and laid-off public employees collecting unemployment is that the latter cost the American people a lot less.
"Meade said...
Exactly right. What we need now is boring small ball competence. Time to put obama's failed presidency behind us. Romney will be a fine president."
I was n't a huge Romney fan, but I am convinced he will be a historically great President.
Worship? Mitt Romney? You must be kidding.
We just want someone who can do the job. That's all.
Okay so look what Bush did with war funding.
Is there any real doubt that there was serious trading going on? A Democrat controlled Congress got what it wanted, signed, and Bush got his war funding?
Now maybe that's not a good thing in the end. But the only way to say so is to say that the Democrats getting what they wanted was a *bad* thing.
So the Democrats got whatever they passed out of a Democrat controlled congress after 2006. If that was bad, it was bad because Bush trusted that they weren't complete idiots.
Is Obama focused on the economy so that he'll give on other stuff because he knows his ideas on the economy are the right ones and that's his priority.
On what planet?
When Obama gets his way it's not on the economy, it's on minor social stuff... the Dream Act... suing Arizona... whatever.
But if we just hang in there and wait... suddenly he won't have to compromise so much because he won't be up for election again and he can *finally* do what he needs to do?
What? He's got no economic plan. The private sector is doing fine, he says. Jobs are growing the fastest evah, we're told... it's just not quite fast enough to keep up with new citizens entering the labor market, or being born. That's how amazing job growth is under Obama.
But he wants us to know more than ANYTHING that successful people ought to pay because they didn't build that. Oh... and Republicans hate women.
Really?
well curious, lets find him some nice company to run and he can be president of that.
The difference between salaried public employees and laid-off public employees collecting unemployment is that the latter cost the American people a lot less.
The difference between unemployment and employment is that the latter is better for economic growth and deficit reduction.
What the hell is wrong with you? Do you really think we are as ignorant about economics as you've either suddenly become or had hoped?
You guys only care about materialism, and apparently never had a clue about economics.
EMBARRASSING AND dishonorable.
"historically great" at this point in history, would be someone who can simply do the job.
Sorry, Meade, but that's a bad comment about replacing Obama immediately.
Given Obama's historical role in the black community, an impeccable adherence to the form and letter of the law is of incredible importance.
I do understand why you said it, however.
ahhh yes. over 30 obamacare repeals and over 30 anti-abortion pieces of legislation. yup. that is some record of achievement.
Repealing Obamacare *is* an economic recovery bill. :)
But aside from that, there are dozens of job-creation bills waiting for Reid to schedule a vote. He's too busy not passing a budget to schedule those, I guess.
Just watched DVR'd speeches on C-Span.: Clint, Rubio, and Romney.
Clint was doddering and looked old-John Voight next time?
Rubio was outstanding!
Romney too!
We just want someone who can do the job. That's all.
Well Meade, I have to say. If "doing the job" means "not facing an opposition hateful and resentful and envious enough to mindlessly and endlessly and ambitiously obstruct", then Mitt (or any generic Republican) is your man.
Good presidents are effective leaders who can work with the other side. It is not easy. Nonetheless, both Democratic and Repubican presidents have managed it. Obama is one of the few modern presidents who couldn't or wouldn't.
Bill Clinton walked straight into the buzzsaw of the 1994 Republican Congress and their Contract With America, but he charmed them and maneuvered them and got stuff done.
Leaders lead. They don't make excuses and blame others.
This notion that Obama apologists have that the whole world owed Obama special cooperation so he could accomplish his great visions is childish. Nobody gets that.
Fight on, Synova!
Lefties - we don't worship our leaders like you do. The whole worship thing is your deal.
"historically great" at this point in history, would be someone who can simply do the job.
If there is any hope for Obama it's that Wisconsin reelected Walker with the worst jobs record in the country.
The difference between unemployment and employment is that the latter is better for economic growth and deficit reduction.
Private-sector employment does. Government employees add to the deficit.
The math's simple; you should give it a try. :)
Ritmo's thesis is just plain racist.
He's essentially arguing that Obama should be given a break because he's black.
That's the entire story.
Private-sector employment does. Government employees add to the deficit.
The math's simple; you should give it a try. :)
You should give a try to the concept of a public-sector employee spending his money on non-public sector goods and services.
What's up with the winking? I keep thinking you're trying to be gracious, but when you missed a point that simple, it just comes across as gratuitous and cute.
kcom,
Looked at your Slate link. Confused by the protester with the sign "Grover-Owned Politician." Any idea who Grover is? Cleveland? Norquist? (Yeah, as if anybody outside of a few dozen pay attention to him.) The Muppet?
This place is getting as bad as Ace of Spades with all the chat-room drivel.
I'll try a little analysis though -- “I wish President Obama had succeeded."
Sigh. Really? Come on. Dumb ass.
OBAMA DID SUCCEED. He has succeeded at everything he set out to do.
If you had one ounce of political sense, Romney, you would have bellowed, "I WISH HE HAD FAILED. I wish he had failed in his purposeful plan to tear down America and attempt to build in her place a socialist utopia."
This comment thread is too predictable to bother reading. Are there any surprises here?
Looks like you had to go there, Shouting.
Remember last time?
Anyway, how difficult is it to say that you just want to label the black guy incompetent?
I don't remember that label being thrown around that gratuitously and cheaply with any other Democratic president.
Ritmo,
Are you really this stupid?
You have one economic theory that you think is correct. It's the Democratic theory. So far, well and good.
Republicans have a different economic theory that they think is correct.
Their job, as the opposition, is to fight for their economic theory, not yours.
Perhaps you need to beat your head against the wall for a while and repeat this until it begins to sink in.
"it means that we must rein in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing ObamaCare.”
Are you effing kidding me???
Don't say you weren't warned.
Now, do I have to repeat myself, Ritmo?
We know that you think your economic theory is correct.
The opposition disagrees with you.
Got it?
This comment thread is too predictable to bother reading. Are there any surprises here?
Quiet, Chicken! They're on a mission. No unapproved facts or reasoning will be tolerated!
Thomas admits it. The honor of being honestly invested in a country's well-being only applies to war. So I guess that's that.
I'm laughing my ass off at your stupidity, Ritmo.
Come on, you can't really be this dense.
Are you effing kidding me??? Don't say you weren't warned.
"Warned" to do what, dumbass? Vote for Obama instead?
Oh goody; instead of "repeal and replace Obamacare", we can just have Obamacare. And whatever else Obama feels like doing.
500
ok, full disclosure didn't watch tonight. Was catching up on "The Newsroom" last (3) episodes, but heard Eastwood really did upstage mittens lol.
Oops!
Also didn't read the last 400 posts so hopefully everyone had a good time! :)
I yield back the balance of my time to Rowdy Yates & Clyde, the orangutan ...
Another stupid remark, Ritmo.
I said that the duty of the opposition is to oppose except in the time of a declared all out war.
Got to go to bed.
Laughably stupid, incoherent, ridiculous remarks, Ritmo.
Dumb as dirt.
I got to go to bed, Ritmo.
You got anything to say that isn't patently moronic?
What's next Thomas, partisan views trumping a scientific, objective understanding of biology and physics?
I'm done with you on this. You are essentially stating that objectivity and reason are a lost cause.
So get lost. If all you have to do is to act set pieces, then go onstage somewhere.
How did this become all about you?
No matter which side you want to win, you know in your heart that the job creators (small American businesses) will be completely demoralized and remain retrenched if Obama wins. If you don't know that, then you don't know what's happened for the last 2 years, and don't understand how to fix it.
If Obama loses, I'll probably double my capital expenditures on new equipment and hires, just because I expect it will make that much difference in the medium to long run, and I'm in California, which is the least business friendly state. If I was in Texas, I'd go nuts.
Democrats had control of both the Senate and the House starting in January, 2007 until January, 2011. Obama had a unique opportunity handed to him the day of his coronation. He had complete control of 2/3 of the entire US government. He made some big bets on expanding traditional Democratic interest groups. The jury is still out on the long term success of his plans, but he's going to take some lumps here in the short term. I think he's out on the end of the plank and Nancy and Harry have sawed it off due to their intense partisanship. Obama could have compromised a bit and greatly enhanced his standing for small cost.
O
"if "doing the job" means "not facing an opposition hateful and resentful and envious enough to mindlessly and endlessly and ambitiously obstruct"
Were you out of the country or in a coma during the Bush administration?
I agree with you there, bagoh.
Businesses are sitting on the sidelines with piles of cash, hoping that Obama will be gone in January.
"This comment thread is too predictable to bother reading. Are there any surprises here?"
No, we've been here before. Goodnight.
You should give a try to the concept of a public-sector employee spending his money on non-public sector goods and services.
He's paid with tax money, taken from people who then no longer have it available to buy goods and services. If it was possible to stimulate the economy by forcibly taking other people's money and spending it on yourself, the single best stimulus bill Obama could pass would be a repeal of the laws against embezzlement, robbery, and fraud. :)
Although given the Obama administration's curious lack of interest in prosecuting Wall Street bankers, it may be that they thought of this idea already.
The public sector has to be paid for from taxes. The purchases made in the private sector help but it's like a mythical perpetual motion machine... reality is each time it goes around there is energy loss.
Pelosi was a moron when she claimed there was a *multiplying factor* involved and ever $1 of unemployment became... I think she said $1.50 in the economy.
Before money from the public sector can reach the private sector it has to be taken out of the private sector because that's where it *came* from. The public sector produces nothing at all. It's the ultimate service industry (and I will include the military in that.)
It's a *service* industry. Except unlike hair salons, it doesn't react naturally to economic fluctuations. It's just there, sucking money out of the private sector and giving a portion of that money back again to the private sector and a portion back into the public sector.
The bigger the public sector gets the heavier a load the private sector has to carry.
We could decide that everyone is happier with nice hair and all of our lives would be improved by access to government subsidized hair dressers. Explaining that the ladies paid by taxes at the hair salon spend that money in the private sector does not make this a financially sound plan.
If the public sector added to the economy it would make sense to make hair dressers public employees. If the point is the money going around, then the money may as well go around while we all have nice hair.
What's next Thomas, partisan views trumping a scientific, objective understanding of biology and physics?
Partisan views will always trump politics. We don't have the Reason Party or the Science Party. Criminitaly, Ritmo, pick up an issue of Science, any given week, and find me an editorial that doesn't scream for more funding to fend off imminent collapse. And don't tell me the Democratic Party is more reasonable.
If it was possible to stimulate the economy by forcibly taking other people's money and spending it on yourself, the single best stimulus bill Obama could pass would be a repeal of the laws against embezzlement, robbery, and fraud. :)
If every tax cut stimulated the economy then Arthur Laffer would be able to find a single economist who agreed with him.
Thanks for saying that public-sector employees should be volunteers. That's a great reason for Republican office-holders forgoing bribes and a salary.
Not that they ever would. ;-)
We don't have the Reason Party or the Science Party.
Well, not when it comes to people lacking the balls to thoroughly and objectively vet a Republican viewpoint. That's for certain.
Well, I will say this--at least Romney's speech lacked the massive and bizarre number of lies/factual inaccuracies of Ryan's.
I'm just amazed that Mitt Romney has managed to flip on EVERY single issue in the past 10 years. That really is incredible. Governor Romney was solid, 1994 Senate Romney was great. This Romney, though? He's nuts.
Neither candidate (Ryan or Romney) want to be examined on their record. Why don't any of you mention the massive government expansion and spending Ryan voted for during the Bush Administration? Do you just pretend it never happened?
Democrats never declared war on the academy.
Was the church that opposed Galileo a liberal institution? You tell me.
Someone's not learning his history. Do you actually know any?
Democrats never declared war on the academy.
Leftists guillotined Lavoisier.
But that was an aberration, right?
He's paid with tax money, taken from people who then no longer have it available to buy goods and services
Taxpayers will pay for that service by paying public workers or paying someone from the private sector to do it.
john said...
Energy independence is not realistic if you are talking about oil. All we pump sooner or later goes onto the world oil market, which serves to slightly and temporarily satiate world demand but will do little to balance the US's energy books.
You want energy independence, you have to look to other than oil as a source.
====================
This is the classic line greens and anti-energy except wind and solar democrats always use.
That there is this no consequence to importing energy is a complete fallacy of theirs.
1. Commodity markets only work in peacetime. IN crises, the 1st impact is great disruption as speculation drives prices up anticipating a war or an embargo cutoff. Food and energy have been cutoff, the commodity markets stopped working..and the impact is never pretty.
2. Importing energy helps kill our balance of trade as much as China's inexaustible cheap labor pool does. And the effect is the same - it costs us millions of jobs.
3. It's not just oil we need to produce domestically - we are subsituting abundant natural gas for transportation uses instead of oil...because drilling technology has resulted in us gaining 400 years new reserves of that. We need coal and nuclear being done domestically. We even can use solar and wind where it is affordable or rich people want to pay a premium for it without the rest of us subsidizing it.
“Obama also exemplifies the value of fathers fully invested in the lives of their children.”
Now let’s watch the Dems’ convention to see if there is any hint of that value.
"Was the church that opposed Galileo a liberal institution? You tell me."
The church supported and promoted most science of the time. Others were saying what Galileo was saying *about science* and didn't get in trouble. Galileo was an asshole who got in political trouble with the pope who... put him on house arrest... for being an asshole.
After the American Revolution, Benjamin Thompson left the country as a Royalist and Ben Franklin stayed. Each were men of Science and Reason.
I say Thompson did more for Science, and Franklin did more for Reason.
"Lindsey Meadows said...
I think I'll just have casual sex tonight. After Romney, I couldn't possibly feel more violated (or bored).
Make sure the batteries are good."
Don't forget the K-Y. You sound dry.
****
And sour. And very very bitter.
But that was an aberration, right?
Yes. I think it's safe to say it was.
Listen, you can go on about Soviets and Lysenkoism, if you want. The problem is, those would be just about the only examples.
How does that apply to non-Republicans in modern America? Which Democrats said that basic research in the sciences should come with strings attached as to their conclusions?
Oh, but you're the guy who resents even being reminded of the richest political funders in America and their oil and gas interests.
How are science and reason separable?
For the record, liberalism originated with the idea that reason could be used to solve human problems.
And conservatism, naturally, dissented.
So it sounds like conservatism's got the tougher row to hoe. I'd say they've got more to prove when it comes to their priorities.
Ritmo wrote (11:20pm): "Thanks for saying that public-sector employees should be volunteers. That's a great reason for Republican office-holders forgoing bribes and a salary.
"Not that they ever would." [stupid emoticon omitted]
Laugh away, sucker: that's exactly what Romney did as governor of Massachusetts. Does John Kerrey collect his Senate salary? He's worth 4-5 times as much as Romney, but I think he does.
Does John Kerrey collect his Senate salary? He's worth 4-5 times as much as Romney, but I think he does.
He never claimed to want to go into government so that it could do less for YOU, though.
Any Republican who does, should start with cutting his own salary.
But that would be non-hypocritical. So it's a non-starter.
You see, it's about the dishonor.
Listen, you can go on about Soviets and Lysenkoism, if you want. The problem is, those would be just about the only examples.
Soviet Chemistry was pretty backwards. Mendeleev was last great Russian chemist.
The Soviet innovation of lithium deuteride as fusion source in weapons was ingenious though.
So, I'll take it that's a yes on the whole "We don't want to discuss the massive government spending and expansion Ryan voted for under Bush" thing?
You people forget so easily. You pretend Romney hasn't flipped on every single issue out there. You ignore Ryan voting for TARP, the bank bailout, and the crazy deficit spending under Bush. It really is amazing.
What a couple of chump candidates. Ryan's speech last night was so full of lies and factual blunders that even Fox News slammed him this morning.
Sometimes you don't need to be a great storyteller and poet when deeds count more than words.
No doubt Obama would have woven the story of how his father left a rose for his mother into a half hour drama in his soaring preacherspeak that somehow elevated him above the rose-giver in the process.
But we know that Obama's father did no such thing.
Romney just did a few lines. Parents married 64 years. Dad showed his love daily with a flower. When one day the flower wasn't there, she knew something was wrong...and found him dead.
No need to embellish it. The deed speaks more powerfully than any words.
How are science and reason separable?
As separable as philosophy and physics.
The Soviets were totalitarians. I think that's what that comes down to. Psychological fascism doesn't discriminate. If it's monarchical, clerical, ideological, bureaucratic... it's all the same. Conservatives went for it as much as leftists did. The effects are similarly backward either way.
So, government should always do more?
I guess that's a clear choice between parties then.
I should vote for who will do more for me. And I should keep on voting for more until there is no more to vote for.
My name *is* Julie, you know. It might not be Julia, but it's close.
Is this the worst comment thread in Althouse history? Based on quality times volume, without doubt.
There's a reason that the Age of Reason and the Scientific Revolution coincided.
Stop being cute.
@Ceadarford: But Obama didn't have a dad to leave his mom a rose, and that's suppose to resonate with so many because so many are essentially the same. And when that same becomes the majority then suddenly single parenthood is the norm and then it's vaunted as the norm...as the ideal.
“No need to embellish it. The deed speaks more powerfully than any words.”
The core of the coming Romney presidency.
Looking forward to it.
Synova, that's the perfect reason for why you should vote for Mittens Romney. He will do more, for HIMSELF!
What a great guy.
That's his reason for running. To enhance his own well-being and self-aggrandizement.
Very honorable reason.
Great guy, that Mitt.
How are Science and reason separable?
I think it reasonable to expect equal outcomes in an economics experiment. It garners sympathy because things "should" be fair. I think it's unscientific though, based on the fallacy that outcomes should be equal. Equally probable, but not equal.
That's amazing.
So, what, Democrats are good people. Good motivations.
Mitt Romney is a selfish bastard. Bad motivations.
Anyone who wants smaller government has to either demand absolute perfection or give up on it.
It's not that people have different ideas on how to improve the economy or what will benefit people... it's that Republicans are in it for the glory and Democrats are in it for the people.
Are you drinking?
Synova...you realize that the government underwent an incredible expansion under Bush, right? And that expansion was something Paul Ryan voted for--consistently.
You aren't particularly bright, are you?
Well Chickie, I'm not getting how you leapt from reason to fairness, or even from science (which you know a bit about) to econ. But whatever suits you. I take it you're just trying to make sense of things in your own way.
But at least it's good to run across someone not too full of piss and vinegar to attempt a reasonable discussion every now and then. It's been too long, Dude.
Take average incomes being equal in a given population. It's reasonable that everybody have the same, based on leftist ideology; it's unscientific though. There should be an unequal distribution of income because it frees all players to become rich or, conversely, poor, or just "average." Dynamic, unequal distribution is a tremendous driver or material wealth.
Of course, we need to recognize more that material wealth--as I try to do in life.
"How are science and reason separable?"
"As separable as philosophy and physics."
Ugh, philosophy. Substitutes "reason" for objective fact. Very annoying.
But not quite as annoying as the social "sciences" that deliberately view the world through a proclaimed ideology, call it a "theory of" and refuse to check for negative returns.
Cford - I wasn't talking about wind or solar.
Domestically producing all the oil we need internally is a chimera. Oil is fungible, and it is produced, transported and refined by international oil companies to supply a world market that the US has to compete in. If we want to nationalize it, ala Venezuela, we might achieve this goal of independence. But I doubt we want to go down that road.
Natural gas is a bit different but it is also currently nowhere near able to supply our energy needs.
Shorter Synova:
Why can't Republicans be selfish, unprincipled, hypocritical bastards and still win the trust of the people? Oh whyyyyyy?
Synova - this is called "whining".
Good night, ma'am.
" driver of material wealth."
That's potential in a nutshell, in a physical sense and an economic sense. Inequality drives much chemical reactivity. Even stable "stationary" systems--equilibria--can be dynamic.
If leftist ideology were reasonable and scientific, it should survive experiment.
"Synova...you realize that the government underwent an incredible expansion under Bush, right? And that expansion was something Paul Ryan voted for--consistently.
You aren't particularly bright, are you?"
So tell me why I should vote for Obama?
See... you're not very smart either. You think that I don't know that Bush gave Congress anything he wanted and the whole government acted like pigs at a trough. You think that I don't know that Ryan is moderate and that his plan or plans have always been moderate and corrective only over many years.
But I don't get to chose between the Republican ticket and Perfect.
I get to chose between the Republican ticket and Obama.
So tell me something I don't know.
What is Obama's plan to bring government growth under control and to increase financial responsibility?
I don't want stuff from the government.
I want a job.
As should pure capitalism. But we don't have pure either (thankfully).
Take average incomes being equal in a given population. It's reasonable that everybody have the same, based on leftist ideology;
This is bull, Dude. If you want to talk about economics, realize that most politically motivated people are conversant enough in econ to understand what the Gini coefficient is. Perfect inequality (closer to the problem in the U.S.) is as undesirable as perfect equality. Unfortunately, though, if not unpredictably, you only see the problem with one. Not very balanced.
it's unscientific though.
No one ever said it was. You fantasized that it was an ideal for half the country, for some, clearly unscientific reason.
There should be an unequal distribution of income because it frees all players to become rich or, conversely, poor, or just "average." Dynamic, unequal distribution is a tremendous driver or material wealth.
Cite?
You are confusing cause with effect.
Of course, we need to recognize more that material wealth--as I try to do in life.
As we should in our politics.
In no other recovery did Repuglicans lay off public sector employees
There was the time a President inherited a huge debt caused by a big war and took office as unemployment spiked from 5.2 to 8.7%. Sound familiar? I'm speaking of course of Warren Harding. He responded by cutting federal spending in half (and as he did so before the New Deal and after World War I, that cut likely happened at the payroll).
The recovery was so swift, and the solution so conservative, that nobody knows that recession ever happened.
That's potential in a nutshell, in a physical sense and an economic sense. Inequality drives much chemical reactivity. Even stable "stationary" systems--equilibria--can be dynamic.
I'm starting to wonder if Chickie has been having something to drink, with the effect of free-associating legitimate concepts in chemistry with fictional/imagined analogies in economics.
"You aren't particularly bright, are you?"
If I ever say that about Synova, just ignore everything I say after it. I'm probably stoned.
Mexicans must think Republicans are the stupidest people in the world. We spend all day every day bashing illegal aliens and declaring English as our official language only to to have our new presidential candidate decide that legal Mexicans really want illegals storming our borders.
I wonder if he knows that not all immigrants are eligible to vote. No, I guess that primary is over and Mitt is back to flip-flopping.
Domestically producing all the oil we need internally is a chimera. Oil is fungible, and it is produced, transported and refined by international oil companies to supply a world market that the US has to compete in. If we want to nationalize it, ala Venezuela, we might achieve this goal of independence. But I doubt we want to go down that road.
Natural gas is a bit different but it is also currently nowhere near able to supply our energy needs.
===============
Fracking has made huge reserves of Nat gas and soon, oil, available. Along with present levels of coal, nuke, hydro - and supplies from stable, non-Muslim neighbor nationss - it really is enough to supply our energy needs.
There is no reason to want to be independent of Canada and even Mexico.
You keep insisting that any oil we get really wouldn't be kept here in a crisis because of the almighty Commodities market. Which can only be circumvented and the "internationals" supplying the commodity to the highest bidder if we go all socialist and nationalize it.
But that is not the case.
We can shut off exports by Executive order, depriving the almighty Commodities market, in an instant.
We did that to the Japs with strategic minerals and oil (back when we were an oil exporter). And told any that we were still exporting to that they would be shutoff if they tried reselling it to the Japs under the almighty Commodities market.
Then we did it with wheat in the 50s (drought made us reserve it for Americans 1st at a decent profit to US farmers...while India got screwed), we had an executive order to block exports of soybeans in the 60s when an Asian drought threatened to sextuple soy prices and screw the US consumer (Nixon shut down exports).
"Cford - I wasn't talking about wind or solar.
Domestically producing all the oil we need internally is a chimera. Oil is fungible, and it is produced, transported and refined by international oil companies to supply a world market that the US has to compete in. If we want to nationalize it, ala Venezuela, we might achieve this goal of independence. But I doubt we want to go down that road."
And Cedarford, it seemed to me, essentially said that it was worth producing oil domestically because of the effect on our international trade balance.
I don't think he made a claim about "independence" did he?
And I wasn't talking primarily about oil either, when I said energy independence was possible and almost technologically trivial. With a six or seven year lead time we could build the nuclear plants to do it. If we wanted to. If the obstructionists give up their utopic fantasies about living in a state of nature.
You don't have a job Synova? I think that is sincerely sad. I hate any American not having a job.
A job gives you value, a paycheck and an ability to pay your bills and feel good about making those commitments.
But I digress, I think Clint Eastwood should be the president of the U.S. I thought he was totally Dada and amazing tonight. Others may not agree but I just loved his thang.
These convention/infomercials need more Clint Eastwood and less Mitch McConnell and Debbie Wasserman what's her last name.
They would be more interesting, less scripted and most importantly FUN!
Let's have fun.
Now show us your tits women!
Well, maybe I was wrong. Though "in a crisis" might be a different story. Certainly "in a crisis" isn't normal day to day stuff, sort of by definition.
But whatever... Canada is going to sell it's oil to China so that our greenies don't have to get their hands dirty.
Do any of you remember when Hilary mocked Obama for “the celestial lights coming down and the seas parting” in her last leg of her ill-fated primary campaign against him?
I sure remember.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pPV1yd7sQg
I swear I have spent the last three and a half years wondering who would be worse in the White House – Obama or Hilary…..
But let’s give the Romney folks a nod for the great meme they captured from the 2008 campaign…..
LOL and – then again – not so much…..this Obama worship from the 4th Estate Palace Guard has got to stop.
Chris Matthews must immediately resign as he hands his job off to a person of color. End of story.
And does Newt always have to have Candy by his side?
She is not a plus. Just look at the faces of the women at the convention responding to her.
They know she is a home wrecker and concerned there is a Candy around the corner taking her fat white republican husband...who can't dance.
And I wasn't talking primarily about oil either, when I said energy independence was possible and almost technologically trivial. With a six or seven year lead time we could build the nuclear plants to do it. If we wanted to. If the obstructionists give up their utopic fantasies about living in a state of nature.
Then we would all have to drive Volts!
Chicklit - "The Soviet innovation of lithium deuteride as fusion source in weapons was ingenious though."
It was ingenuity born of necessity because the Soviets lacked the technology we had. We had used our lead in computers to shape and validate the Teller-Ulum radiation implosion design. That design allowed a simple liquid container at the center, and was also about at the limit of what ENAIC could calculate.
The Soviets came up with a less efficient wedding cake design. The problem they had, on top of it being far less efficient and high likelihood of fizzles..was the difficulty of constructing concentric spheres with alternating ones filled with deuterium/tritium gas or liquid.
The Soviets solution was to make lithium deuteride layers. Easier to build, though not as good as dueterium/tritium in liquid or gas form.
The US had already considered the solid compound for boosted fission bombs in the late 40s...but passed because it was heavier and less efficient than a tube of lithium/deuterium gas.
Later, though, the US had more powerful computers and did the radiation pressure transfer calcs for a lithium deuteride secondary. And shifted to it..far easier on SAC crews and techs than dealing with nasty tritium leaks.
"Chris Matthews must immediately resign as he hands his job off to a person of color."
Oh, that would be beautiful. "We're sorry Chris, but we've been thinking about what you've been saying, and although it's just mad dog crazy, we think you're right, so we need to replace you with a more "colorful" personality. Good luck, and here's a box for your things."
Typo - Meant tube of tritium/deuterium gas.
My first try was a typo I fixed before it went out..before the 2nd one.
See, my computer had word-suggested negro/deuterium gas.
"Then we would all have to drive Volts!"
I've got nothing against a Volt that's not plugged into a coal plant.
:)
Titus - Me and my folks all agreed that we wanted the real Newt - that guy who assigned Americans a book list the very day he became Speaker of the House on January 4, 1995.
We were - and probably still are to a degree - huge Newt fans. We ran to Borders and bought his entire book list. Sadly - there is one goofy book on the list about South American politics that none of us has ever cracked as it resides still in the bookshelves aside our fireplace....
But come on. Newt. Why have you become all about your 'brand' - and we don't really acre about the drama behind your marriage to Callista but.....come on Newt - Say it isn't so. Are you that whipped?
The duo performance tonight - to more than me and a few in the room - was the saddest thing we saw from the whole GOP Convention.
Say it ain't so Newt. Silence. It just is so with him now. Thank goodness he never got that far in the primaries.
Nothing has made me feel more confident in Romney's chances than reading Ritmo's fulminations here. If that kind of garbled impotent rage is all he's up against, Romney really might win this!
I've got nothing against a Volt that's not plugged into a coal plant.
Maybe in NM you dont need as long an extension cord as someone further west.
Practically, however, if you are going to replace >70% of the total electrical generation in this country (from coal to nuclear), you might find that finding fuel for all these new plants is problematic, and might put you back in a similar precarious situation you were trying to get out of.
"You don't have a job Synova? I think that is sincerely sad. I hate any American not having a job."
Thank you, Titus. That was a nice thing to say.
I'm one of those that has "given up" so I don't get counted as "unemployed". I decided to go back to university, which is a financial gamble. Truthfully, I'd have rather just gotten an entry level job someplace and worked.
"En este pais, ustedes van a poder lograr todas las cosas que nosotros no pudimos"
Does that look like a sentence straight out of OAS magazine or what? Textbookish. You can always tell when a sentence starts from English, as this does, and when it starts from Spanish.
These second generation kids, I just don't know. The Cubans I heard speak Spanish remarkably staccato, like a machine gun. Brrrrrrrrrrrrap. When I hear it I go, what? what? ¿como? Oh. Whoa, it's all there! To me it's a blur and then zoink comprehension like a text. Rubio (blond, ha!) sounded authentic, he has the phonemes, but he faltered over that very basic sentence that is actually kind of trite.
It is interesting that Ritmo is as ignorant about real economics, given that he obviously reads a lot of what might be considered mainstream economics - which, in reality, translates into wishful thinking economics.
As was pointed out, government spending is not a perpetual motion machine. We cannot work our way out of a recession by paying one group of people to dig holes, and another to fill them up, despite protestations by Nancy Pelosi to the contrary.
As with perpetual motion machines, the problem is the equivalent of friction. Every time the money cycles around, more wealth is lost/wasted, etc. And, eventually, the machine winds down, and the wealth disappears. The series may be infinite, but it rapidly converges, and the difference between the sum and the limit rapidly approaches zero.
Someone above pointed out that governments do, indeed, build things. Which, I think all will agree. But, they don't build much, for the amount of money involved. Most of the money doesn't go to roads and bridges, but rather, as transfer payments and to pay bureaucrats. Money is taken out of the productive sector, whether through taxes, borrowing, or just printing money, and sent to people who do not create wealth, but rather, merely consume it. So, next time someone tries to argue with you that the government made your success possible through building roads, etc., ask them how much of the federal budget goes to building roads, etc., and how much of it goes to transfer payments and bureaucrats. The reality is that the road building is a red herring, due to its negligible impact on the entire federal budget.
It is inevitable that as long as much, if not most (in our case) of the federal budget goes to non-productive uses, that increasing borrowing and spending during a recession is just going to drive us deeper into the recession. Borrowing some 40% of the money being spent by the federal government over the last 4 years is a road to disaster, even ignoring the long run effects, esp. since almost all of that 40% is going to non-productive uses.
I just have to repost part of Methadras' description of the Dem convention because it is too awesome to get buried on the first page:
"DNC is gonna be a show stopper. Vaginas everywhere, ugly code pink vermin throwing aborted babies into the crowds and proclaiming reproductive rights. A myriad of union bosses will be trotted out to pay collectivist tribute to their dear leader for all the kick-backs he's given to them. There will be a mock play onstage showing rich, white, christian, homophobe, xenophobe, bigoted, prejudiced CEO's in chains being pulled by a Sandra Fluke dressed up in pleather (because meat is murder) dragging them across the stage with a sign attached to them saying, "Occupy Wall Street, Not my Georgetown Vagina!!!""
I don't really have anything against coal, either, john. Or natural gas or oil or wind or solar beamed with microwaves from orbit.
But I think that the energy cost of manufacturing some of these CO2-morality vehicles, all of which energy cost is CO2 energy, sort of make them a lie, and then the "electricity" they run on comes from burning fuels and creating more CO2.
Why not just cut out the middle man and drive a car that uses gas?
Economically, though, more and cheaper energy is better. Always.
We should do it all. And if we build enough nuke plants to run out of fuel... well, good then. That would be good.
The possibility of running out of uranium is slight. Trying to get energy independence in 6-7 years as you proposed would be a real issue, as it would take 2-3 times that long to open up a new mine (which Salazar has administrativley stopped anyway), and at least that long to reopen an old mine. When uranium prices go up enough to justify it, breeder reactors might keep us in an essentially limitless supply, but uranium is so comparatively cheap now that that wont happen for a long time.
We just bought a hybrid (a Camry, not a Pius). I love it. It's got everything except the Obama bumper sticker.
Why would it be good if we were able to attain energy independence as Romney is pushing?
Yes, money is a veil, and the world, to some extent, is a world energy market, and that is even more true for oil. But, producing oil and gas is creation of wealth. We can either use it here, or sell it to others, who trade their wealth for our energy sources. Money (in one guise) is merely a way of counting the wealth, but isn't the wealth itself. If we essentially trade our oil, etc. for flat screen TVs from China and cars from Japan, then great. Much better than if we are trading our cars and intellectual property for oil from the middle east. And, yes, it also doesn't matter a whole lot if we ship oil from Alaska to Japan, and essentially take the proceeds to buy oil from Venezuela and Mexico that is shipped to our Gulf Coast (ignoring friction again).
BTW - getting back to my previous post - the problem with government spending is that wealth is being diverted from the productive sector to the net very unproductive sector, and the diversion has a very real and substantial cost, in terms of not being able to reinvest the wealth into more wealth creation. And, also keep in mind that the government is abymally bad at allocating resources (i.e. wealth), with most of those "green" investments being little different from paying one group of people dig holes, and the other filling them up. At the end of the day, the national store of wealth is significantly reduced as a result of this "investment". You can throw in most of what the Obama Administration has done to combat the recession, from "Cash for Clunkers" (intentionally destroying wealth) to bailing out GM and Chrysler. Almost all of these strategies have resulted in less, not greater, national wealth.
And it's so quiet I can't wait to nail my first pedestrian or cyclist
The biggest of which was signed into law by BUSH!!!
And as punishment for that, I am absolutely refusing to vote for Bush in 2012.
The lead times are mostly artificially imposed, aren't they?
The time necessary to build a plant and the infrastructure connecting it to the power grid (or whatever) might have a hard time limit of a number of years but the long long times? 12 or 18 years? Nothing actually takes that long unless the process is artificially obstructed.
How long did it take to put Armstrong on the moon from absolutely nothing to his small step? It can't take longer than that to open a mine.
The difference is will.
Which is why I keep saying we can do this IF WE WANT TO. Of course a whole lot of people don't want to and will do everything they can to prevent it.
"It's got everything except the Obama bumper sticker."
;-)
I drive a Subaru. A Forester and not an Outback so Obama stickers don't leap off other cars to try to stick to mine, but it's a near thing.
Obama also exemplifies the value of fathers fully invested in the lives of their children
We hope so, but when he was elected to the US Senate, his family stayed in Chicago for that brief time before the 2008 campaign. I don't know about his time in Springfield.
Likewise, Ryan's family is in Janesville.
The lead times are mostly artificially imposed, aren't they?
For mines: do you own the land? do you own the mineral rights? How long will it take to get $200 million financing? That won't happen until you have financed and conducted an exploration program, and gone through several layers of auditing of your reserve calculations. Many promising ventures never get past this step. If it's on or will cross federal lands (almost a given) the NEPA process is going to be a grind.
Not too many of these lead times (except of course the last one) are artificially imposed.
I'll take your word for it.
And I'll take my grandfather's lesson about trees.
Grandpa never planted any trees. They take too long to grow.
And thirty years later there's no point in planting trees because they still take too long to grow. And a lifetime later there's no point because trees still take too long to grow.
So he died.
And people finally started planting trees.
It takes too long, and it is too hard to build stuff, so let's just sit in the dark and cry. Bunch of whiny little girls.
Of course, Shana, you can circumvent all these whiny girls and go dig your mine in Peru.
My husband is doing his part on deepwater rigs, thank you very much. Not in the Gulf of Mexico, though,since most of those rigs got shut down.Just like domestic coal.And Keystone.
We've been procrastinating more than a year on planting 2 trees in our backyard. Similar reason.
I wasn't impressed by Rubio. His speech suffered from the same problems that plague many contemporary speeches: it sounded like a collection of disjointed lines without a coherent center, with too many applause lines, dipping into too many personal anecdotes, giving the overall impression that it was engineered to hit certain buttons.
Ryan was much better. He and Susanna Martinez were the standouts.
Wasn't Romneycare Romney's greatest accomplishment in gov.
He failed at creating jobs (relative to other states) in his state. He is a failed leader.
It's illogical to go back to Bush policies (now Romney's policies), which resulted in the loss of nearly 800,000 jobs per month. Makes more sense to stick w/ the guy who turned 800,000 jobs lost per month into hundreds of thousands gained--net creation of around a million jobs per month is better than the MA failure.
But, our con friends tell us that the MA failure was awesome, that going back to the policies that caused the Great Recession would be awesome, and reversing the fallout from the Great Recession is failure.
Duh.
Ritmo:
"The Democrats passed all the stimulous crap without serious opposition."
The biggest of which was signed into law by BUSH!!!
Is this how Republicans dishonor themselves nowadays? By forgetting to throw in an accurate, relevant FACT or two with every talking point?
I await Revenant's redefinition of what Synova just said as a "yapping point".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, it was sighned by Bush, that's why he lost his standing with Republicans and had such low approval rating. However, if you think he was wrong, why would not you hold Obama and Dems, who had a total control of both houses as well as the presidency for 2 years afterward, resposible for not repealing it? And, if you think it was right, why would not you give Bush the credit for it?
Regardless, what Bush did was a known and the given when Obama became a president. So what idiot would go through with massive half baked and overblown Obamacare when both Medicare and Medcaid were in the hole and give away even bigger stimulus package?
Why block energy independence initiatives in the overpriced oil market while throwing money at alternative energy technologies that have not been proven to be efficient and lag far behind oil and gas in efficiency (a tax credit to the companies that reduce polution, while encouraging scientific research into alternative technologies until viable solutions come up, would be saving environment better). It's not that hard to see that in totally energy dependent times we live in this alone equals to economic suicide.
Obama have been so cavalier in his approach to economy, that there are only two options: either he is absolutely and totally incompetent, or he's deliberatly destroying the country.
Watching Mitt Romney's speech... he's brilliant.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा