American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Since you haven't thus far.

[QUOTE=Esten]Big businesses are posting great profits and sitting on record piles of cash. In many cases they are giving large sums to "shareholders" (ie. Mostly rich folks) through buybacks and dividends. [/QUOTE]Why use scare quotes for "shareholders?" What does it matter if the shareholders are rich folks? They own the company. The fact that companies elect to dividend the owners' ownership interests back to the owners in the form of cash is what companies do when they have excess cash on hand which cannot be reinvested by the company with a risk-adjusted return commensurate with the collective expectations of it shareholders. Most operating companies are not money management firms. Therefore, they return the cash to the shareholder who can make his / her own investment decisions. The fact that companies are returning more cash to shareholders, in this particular environment, would seem to indicate that the increased risk causes them to believe that they should return the capital to the shareholders rather than invest the money on their behalf in the face of significantly higher and unknown risks.

[quote=]So arguing more tax cuts for them is laughable.[/QUOTE]My dear Esten, it is your circular logic that is laughable. You support the administration and all of its policies which have resulted in this new environment of increased risk, and you also support increasing direct costs on these entities during a time of economic uncertainty. While erecting these massive obstacles to success, you expect them to voluntarily increase or maintain headcount, with no promise of increased revenue to offset the massive risk and cost that they must overcome. That, my friend is laughable. Reminds me of the story of a scorpion and a horse trying to cross a river.

[quote=]At the same time, these companies have laid off millions while the banks have limited credit to small business. These are major factors underlying the high unemployment rate. The "uncertainty" argument has some merit but that only goes so far. [/QUOTE]Small businesses do not borrow to increase payroll. Uncertainty, cost and risk (might be a little redundant with the first two) go all the way.

[quote=]So, the people only blaming the government are in fact helping the rich elite by diverting attention away from the problems they cause. That's right where they want you to be. [/QUOTE]The only place they would rather have us be is completely dependent upon them for survival and politically aligned with you (I think I threw up in my mouth a little just contemplating that last one)

[quote=]Small business is different and should get help.[/QUOTE]Small business, in general, doesn't want or need help. What it needs is for the government to get the f*** out of the way.

[quote=]The small business bill in Congress now (that is unfortunately getting held up) would provide funds that could be used to leverage up to $300 billion in small business loans.[/QUOTE]All legislation by this congress should be held up and / or terminated. The SBA process is a f-ing nightmare. The $300B is only going to come out of the very private sector that it is purportedly going to help. "Hello Mr. Small Business, I am from the govt may I please have $100? It's mandatory." "Oh, don't worry, I'll be back next week with a check for you in the amount of $25. Can you believe that? You sure are lucky we are here to help poor shlubs like you!"

[quote=]But since government doesn't understand business and can only make things worse, I suppose you believe this bill is a bad idea? LOL.[/QUOTE]Now you're catching on. I'll let you guess about what I think of this legislation.

[quote=]I recall the government recently stepped in and saved the country from another depression.[/QUOTE]I must have missed this. Perhaps you could cite some real economists (not political hacks) who support this statement.

[quote=]With the bailout and stimulus,[/QUOTE]Again, I must have been traveling, as I am not aware of this.

[quote=]markets have recovered significant ground,[/QUOTE]Just helping those rich f***ers you were complaining about.

[quote=]and we've gone from negative to positive GDP growth which has exceeded that seen following the previous two recessions.[/QUOTE]Please cite facts and figures to go with your fantasy. The fact that the Labor Dept places unemployment at 16.5% (and then dresses it up to 9.5% by marginalizing more than 10 million unemployed and underemployed Americans) does not seem to cast a good light on your utopia.

[quote=]Only the ignorant and foolish believe the above quoted statement.[/QUOTE]The quote you reference was El Alamo's (quotes of quotes get deleted by the software): "Every attermpt [sic] by the government to involve itself in the economy is actually another shovel of dirt digging a deeper grave for our economy."

You already think that I am ignorant and foolish, so why mess with a good thing. While the statement is presented as an absolute ("Every"), I might present the notion starting with "nearly every..."

"Stupid is as stupid does"

[QUOTE=Esten]Oh shit.

Tracking Poll Finds Health Reform Law Gaining In Popularity. [/quote]They held another type of poll in Missouri on Tuesday, and We will see more polls like this in November....... More "oh shit's" coming I suspect.

[quote] By JOHN FUND.

Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejected a key tenet of ObamaCare, as 71% supported a ballot proposition yesterday to prohibit penalizing people who fail to procure health insurance. The measure carried all but two of the state's 115 counties. It even managed to win 42% of the vote in the black-majority city of St. Louis. [/quote][url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704017904575409360128023930.html[/url]

[b]Who to believe?[/b]

[QUOTE=Punter 127]They held another type of poll in Missouri on Tuesday, and We will see more polls like this in November. More "oh shit's" coming I suspect.

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704017904575409360128023930.html[/url]

[b]Who to believe?[/b][/QUOTE]A good metaphor for that referendum would be the wood chipper in the movie Fargo. And Obama care is Carl's body.

Glad to see the posts on Prop C, I expected no less.

Prop C only asked about one part of HCR not the entire package. And its the unpleasant part that makes the whole thing work. Not too surprising this particular component isn't popular. If the question had been about insurance denials for pre-existing conditions we all know what those results would have been. Further, the results were skewed by heavy Republican turnout for Senate primaries.

In short, it means little. Unskewed polls on the entire reform package are far more meaningful.

PS. It's always entertaining to see Walleye attempt to discredit anything and anyone who disagrees with his world view. First Gini, now the Kaiser Family Foundation...

"Obamacare is gaining popularity". IALOTFLMAO!

Punter. Stop the crazyness! Do you even live in america?

Suggest you pocket your crazy point of view for another 75 days or so. In novemeber you will all be banished to the "what if we'd done things differently" catagory. Just remember who told ya first!

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Esten]Prop C only asked about one part of HCR not the entire package. And its the unpleasant part that makes the whole thing work. Not too surprising this particular component isn't popular. If the question had been about insurance denials for pre-existing conditions we all know what those results would have been. Further, the results were skewed by heavy Republican turnout for Senate primaries.[/QUOTE]That's mostly speculation and smoke blowing on your part, but lets take a look at the numbers. [QUOTE]The secret inside the primary numbers is: It got lots of Democratic votes.

Here's how we know:

(And these numbers are courtesy the Missouri Secretary of State's website.

PROPOSITION-C.

Yes 667,680 No 271,102

Republicans cast a lot more primary ballots (perhaps because Prop-C). For the sake of argument, let's say [b]every[/b] GOP primary voter was a Yes.

TOTAL REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTES CAST: 577,615

Subtract the Republicans from the "yeses"...and you have 90,065 "yeses" that came from non-Republicans.

The Liberal Party primary had 3,502 ballots cast. The Constitution Party had 1,883. And if all those folks also voted "yes" (even though it seems unlikely)...and subtracted that from the non-Republican "yes" votes...that leaves...84,680 non-Republican, non-Liberal, non-Constitutional "yeses".

[b][u][red] Who's left? Democrats. Only Democrats. [/b][/u][/red]

There is a little mathematical guess work here I grant you, but it is overwhelmingly likely that tens of thousands of Democrats voted "yes" on Prop-C, joining Republicans in handing a Missouri rebuke to the healthcare law and it's Democratic champions in Washington.[/QUOTE]Now since we're speculating I suggest that these voters were not only voting against health care but more likely displaying dissatisfaction with the Obama administration as a whole. IMHO.

[QUOTE]In short, it means little. Unskewed polls on the entire reform package are far more meaningful. [/QUOTE]Personally I think the polls that have voters casting ballots are the best polls of all! (More of these coming soon.)

[quote=Toymann ]Punter. Stop the crazyness! Do you even live in america? [/quote]LOL, I still have a USA "official" address, I'm just not there very often. Oh and I have a USA birth certificate and I'm even willing to produce it!

[QUOTE=Toymann]"Obamacare is gaining popularity". IALOTFLMAO!

Punter. Stop the crazyness! Do you even live in america?[/QUOTE]Toymann is evidently confusing me with Punter, who was actually arguing [I]against[/i] this view. Right after he warned us about the effects of "smokin too much sh*t" !

LOL! Too much!

Missouri:

No matter how you cut it ObamaCare is a loser with the public. Esten, to say the Missouri Prop C outcome was a vote on an unpopular part of ObamaCare is disingenuous on your part as the "unpopular part" is the core of ObamaCare. Even Obama admits it is unworkable without the mandate for all to purchase healthcare or be fined. Sort of like saying well you can buy a $100 million life insurance policy but they rejected the "unpopular part" about having to die to collect it – can't have one without the other. Same thing with ObamaCare, you can't have all the little goodies even in theory without the "unpopular part" and it's not going to work.

Polls:

Well I would guess that anyone on this board who took a statistics course in either their undergrad or grad program can tell you polls can be made to say what you want depending on how the questions are framed and how the sample is selected. Most polling, with a few exceptions, is total BS due to those taking the poll having agendas they are looking to support. While there are some relatively reliable polling sources out there, the major media sources are not among them.

Democrats:

As the House Democrats are called back to Washington to pass "Stimulus II" yet another spending program to payoff teacher's unions since they did not get enough money from Stimulus I it begs the question will the Democrats really pass another spending bill just before the mid-term elections? You would think with the public weary of unsupportable spending, looming tax increases, and the disaffection of the independent voters from their party the Democrats might be a bit gun shy at this point regarding more spending.

With the number of Democrats either falling in the primaries or trailing in their own polls against their Republican opponents, I look for the lame duck session of Congress after the mid- terms to be a blood bath and orgy of Democratic spending before they leave office in January. I can only pray I am wrong.

Obama:

Well with Obama declaring "it could have been worse" and now trying to shape the notion our current economy is the new "normal", I would think these are both pretty flimsy arguments but it is all they have to run with. Obama is banking on the economy and unemployment to improve before 2012 as it appears he is seeing the reality of what the mid-terms are about to serve up, limiting the damage he can do in the next two years.

Jimmy Carter is probably down on his knees every night thanking God for Obama as his presidency will replace Jimmy's as the greatest failure on record.

I wish Obama well. However, it seems obvious that Obama's plan for governmental micro management of the economy is a plan that is destroying the economy.

But what do you expect from someone who has never managed even a popsicle stand and has never had to make payroll for employees.

The government is a parasite that saps vigor and strength from the economy.

The upcoming elections should be a tidal wave that repudiates governments attempts to burden the economy with bueracratic nonsense.

The private sector, which has produced the wealth we now enjoy, needs to be able to prosper without unneeded and unproductive government interference.

Of course, someone (tal vez Senor Esten) who is determined to have an economy as productive as the economy of Cuba may argue for more government interference.

For me personally, it seems like it's politics as usual. Lots of decisions are being fueled by greed and along party lines, regardless of who is president or what is best for the country.

IMO, the sooner the US get's off foreign dependence of oil and create alternative energy, the faster the economy will begin to rebound.

Also, Americans need to live within their means. I believe many of us gringos living in Argentina will agree, people here generally have a lot less and appear to be happier.

[QUOTE=PeterLong]For me personally, it seems like it's politics as usual. Lots of decisions are being fueled by greed and along party lines, regardless of who is president or what is best for the country.[/QUOTE]Politicians are human and can succumb to: avarice (Rangel, Waters, Cunningham) debauchery (Frank, Kennedy) wrath (Pelosi, Franken) lust (Kennedy, Edwards, and lots of others from both parties) gluttony (Kennedy (he was a frequent flier on this program) and acedia (almost the entire US Congress) which has resulted in sloth (in terms of our economic, moral and military conditions)

[quote=]IMO, the sooner the US get's off foreign dependence of oil and create alternative energy, the faster the economy will begin to rebound.[/QUOTE]If we were free to harvest oil from US territories, we'd already be energy independent (and the BP spill never would have taken place because Deep Horizon never would have been deployed) Blame here lies squarely with Congress (mostly passed Congresses) that as individuals and groups have succumbed to one or more of the above mentioned conditions.

[quote=]Also, Americans need to live within their means. I believe many of us gringos living in Argentina will agree, people here generally have a lot less and appear to be happier.[/QUOTE]Equilibrium is a dot on a chart that gets passed at 75mph (in both directions) The correct balance of leverage (cost:availability) has not been achieved. Blame here lies squarely with Congress (mostly passed Congresses) that as individuals and groups have succumbed to one or more of the above mentioned conditions.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Equilibrium is a dot on a chart that gets passed at 75mph (in both directions) The correct balance of leverage (cost:availability) has not been achieved. Blame here lies squarely with Congress (mostly passed Congresses) that as individuals and groups have succumbed to one or more of the above mentioned conditions.[/QUOTE]W², I have to respectfully disagree. People should be held responsible for living outside their means. No one forced them to buy big houses, SUV's and plasma screen TV's. Sure, credit was easily available, but it's is the person's responsibility to do the homework and determine if their purchase (s) are affordable.

I don't know how many billions or trillions of dollars were spent on pork barrel projects intended to stimulate the economy. However, the number of projects that actually benefited the economy can probably be written on the back of a postage stamp. The rest of the money was spent on bueracratic nonsense and unneeded government employees whose contribution the economy was less than zero.

We now have the burden of incredible debt and real unemployment approaching 20% thanks to government administered pork barrel projects which included such essential projects as building sidewalks in the middle of the Mojave Desert.

There are two competing forces in play. One is the government which is, by definition, unproductive and the other is the private sector, which is productive because it is forced to be productive.

Had those trillions of dollars been allocated to tax cuts and tax incentives to the private sector I would bet the ranch that we would not have the dismal, almost depressing, unemployment statistics we enjoy today and our national debt could be written at a single setting without your pen running out of ink

PeterLong is making the same argument I made in an earlier post regarding responsible spending by consumers. Sure credit companies were making credit easy and Fanny and Freddie were giving loans to anyone with the same address for more than three months but it is the individual who is ultimately responsible. They spent as if there were no tomorrow and now tomorrow is here and it is looking pretty ugly.

Government almost by it's definition is the most irresponsible spending entity in existence. Nearly $2 Million to study ants, millions for salmon "ladders" for streams that haven't seen a salmon in over 50 years along the California coast, millions for signs to tell the people they are driving on infrastructure improvements paid for by the "Stimulus" package. I can't even begin to list the pork spending the "Stimulus" has gone for.

Of course Obama is really setting a great example, Michelle and Sasha vacation in Spain (can't do it I the trashy old USA) with a few (30 or 40) friends. Michelle flew over on the same US Air Force aircraft used by Biden at an operational cost of $117,000/ hour according to published records but will reimburse the government for the airfare at the rate of a First Class ticket to Spain which was quoted at $7,400. Lets see that's 8 hours at $117K per hour less the two First Class tickets of $14,800 - man what a deal. The Prez also said they would reimburse the government for their individual expenses but won't disclose how much that will be. They won't even tell anyone how many or how much all the Secret Service agents cost as well as support staff ect which they are not reimbursing the government for.

Sure, everyone needs a vacation, but we elected him not her or the kids so what's up with this little junket, not to mention all the parties and mini-vacations the Prez has already taken.

Isn't this the same President who scolded the country saying that during hard times it was irresponsible for families to blow a bunch of cash in Vegas? Guess that only goes for the Little People not the Elites.

Dopple and Peter:

You both missed my point. I do not discount the roll of personal responsibility in all of this. My comment was that when "priced" correctly, the risks and rewards are properly balanced and help to dictate behavior of both the borrower and lender. There will always be bad actors and / or poor decision making, even in rational markets. However, in the absence of proper pricing and with a govt-sponsored abdication of personal responsibility, you get what we have here.

If the pain inflicted (deterrence) for racking up too much debt was commensurate with certain societal norms, people would have less debt.

After reading here over several years, it strikes me that collectively you all could apply as a group and get hired as the core economics faculty at Arizona State or some similarly disreputable institute of mis-education!

I wonder how many of you even know Alan Greenspan has admitted King Laissez-Faire Economics has no clothes. He now goes so far as to acknowledge that tax cuts for the rich cause deficits, not economic growth. But I bet half the contributors here to whom the man was once a hero now say he must be suffering from early alzheimers.

Despite your cumulative elusive handle of either macro or microeconomics, I'll give credit where its due, you do know how to practice blogging onanism with great energy! I bet you feel spent after each time you share your essence with your fellow mongers.

Esten deserves credit for trying to face down all the oh-so certain free-marketers who dominate contributors to the forum, but if all of the mercantilist commenters here were professional economists and responsible for guiding decision makers at the Fed, or Treasury or in big Corporate boardrooms, there isn't a chica in BA who would be making a living. The world economy would be on its ass and all the guru mongers would be sitting hard on the ground trying to wiggle around enough to grab their own asses. Also, having made so many bad bets, they wouldn't have much disposable income to buy any ass.

I know personally you are all great guys, but as for your opinions you are "always sure, but seldom right".

[QUOTE=El Alamo]I don't know how many billions or trillions of dollars were spent on pork barrel projects intended to stimulate the economy. However, the number of projects that actually benefited the economy can probably be written on the back of a postage stamp. The rest of the money was spent on bueracratic nonsense and unneeded government employees whose contribution the economy was less than zero.[/QUOTE]If you don't know a simple fact like whether it was billions or trillions, then you haven't been reading the news carefully, which means you probably don't know how the money was spent. You should spend some time on the website which tracks the stimulus money, recovery.gov. You'll see plenty of worthwhile projects and 3/4 million jobs directly saved or created last quarter. A report last month put the total impact of the stimulus at about 3 million jobs. That report also noted it will help encourage $280 billion of investment by private industry and local governments.

If you think Republicans wouldn't have passed a stimulus if they had won the election, you are fooling yourself. There absolutely would have been a stimulus in 2009 no matter who was in power. All sorts of Republicans actually praised the stimulus money their districts received.

[QUOTE=El Alamo]Had those trillions of dollars been allocated to tax cuts and tax incentives to the private sector I would bet the ranch that we would not have the dismal, almost depressing, unemployment statistics we enjoy today and our national debt could be written at a single setting without your pen running out of ink[/QUOTE]It was billions not trillions. And I think you would lose your ranch. It is questionable how much tax cuts would have impacted unemployment in this recession. But there's no question it would have reduced tax revenues, adding further to the debt.

Take a look at Figure 1 in the link below. The Bush tax cuts, wars, and economic downturn account for almost all the projected deficit in the next 10 years. TARP, Fannie, Freddie and stimulus account for only a small fraction.

[url]http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036[/url]

El Alamo's post demonstrates just the kind of ignorance and deception that Republicans are counting on in the fall elections. The more Dems educate the public on the facts, the better they will do.

Esten,

Thanks for your reply. I have changed my position.

The Democrats will undoubtedly increase their majorities in the upcoming election. In fact, it is highly probable that the Republicans will not elect a single candidate. It will be a Democratic landslide and, of course, long before the election the unemployment rate will return to less than 4%, and with a little more pork from Big Brother, unemployment may disappear completely.

Thanks for enligtening me. You have made my day,

I am requesting an absentee ballot from your district so I can vote early and often for Senor Esten. This should guarantee that the national debt will never be able to be written at a single setting without your pen running out of ink.

I also have seen the light as well. Please disregard all my previous posts related to November. What was I thinking?

IALOTFLMAO!

Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

[QUOTE=El Alamo]Esten.

Thanks for your reply. I have changed my position.

The Democrats will undoubtedly increase their majorities in the upcoming election. The Republicans may not elect a single candidate. It will be a Democratic landslide and, of course, long before the election the unemployment rate will return to less than 4% gracias a Big Brother.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=El Alamo]Esten,

Thanks for your reply. I have changed my position.

The Democrats will undoubtedly increase their majorities in the upcoming election. In fact, it is highly probable that the Republicans will not elect a single candidate. It will be a Democratic landslide and, of course, long before the election the unemployment rate will return to less than 4% , and with a little more pork from Big Brother, unemployment may disappear completely.

Thanks for enligtening me. You have made my day,

I am requesting an absentee ballot from your district so I can vote early and often for Senor Esten. This should guarantee that the national debt will never be able to be written at a single setting without your pen running out of ink.[/QUOTE]Praise the lord!

Happy Day have returned!

Please pass the Kool-Aid.

[size=+2]Spend Baby Spend![/size]

[QUOTE=Punter 127][size=+2]Spend Baby Spend![/size][/QUOTE]More spending on tap next week thanks to Speaker Pelosi! $26 billion in state aid. No worries, the rich will help pay for it!

[QUOTE=El Alamo]Thanks for enligtening me. You have made my day,[/QUOTE]Anytime. That's what I'm here for.

But seriously, the party in power (Dems) will lose seats consistent with history. The real question is, how many? From what we've been hearing from the right about the 'American people', the 'worst president ever', and the pendulum swinging back, it should be a total wipeout. In this context I would regard anything less than Republicans retaking both chambers as a complete failure.

[QUOTE=Toymann]I also have seen the light as well. Please disregard all my previous posts related to November. What was I thinking?[/QUOTE]Hang on you can't do that! I want to know what you are going to buy me if Republicans don't retake both the House and Senate. I mean you aren't going to lose, so, just for fun. Maybe an all expenses paid night at Madahos?

[QUOTE=Esten]Hang on you can't do that! I want to know what you are going to buy me if Republicans don't retake both the House and Senate. I mean you aren't going to lose, so, just for fun. Maybe an all expenses paid night at Madahos?[/QUOTE]I am up for a little Madahos victory dance. Here is my terms. If the House and Senate stay Democrat then I get to treat you to an evening at Madahos. If the reverse occurs and the Republicans sweep then it's on like donkey kong at Madahos on YOU. If the house and congress split then its a draw and no harm, no Madahos. A very fair bet from my perspective as both the House and Senate are currently in your camp Esten. I throw down the guantlet at your feet. Only a pussy Democrat would run away from such a fair offer. Now we'll see if ya have the stomach for it fella. The ball is now in your court dude. Fight or flight the choice is yours.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann]I am up for a little madahos victory dance. Here is my terms. If the house and senate stay democrat then I get to treat you to an evening at Madahos. If the reverse occurs and the republicans sweep then it's on like donkey kong at madahos on YOU. If the house and congress split then its a draw and no harm no madahos. A very fair bet from my perspective as both the house and senate are currently in your camp Esten. I throw down the guantlet at your feet. Only a pussy democrat would run away from such a fair offer. Now we'll see if ya have the stomach for it fella. The ball is now in your court dude. Fight or flight the choice is yours. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]As I see it, you have been crowing about a sweep, why are you straddling the line now?

[QUOTE=Esten]More spending on tap next week thanks to Speaker Pelosi! $26 billion in state aid. No worries, the rich will help pay for it! [/QUOTE]I'm not so sure that [I][b]$an Fran Nan[/i][/b] can "get'er done", but if she does it will just be another nail in the Democrats/incumbents coffin. (May all those blood sucking parasites RIP)

There's a groundswell of discontent with this administration and especially congress, and I think you're going to feel the earth move in November. If I'm right, and there's a good chance I am, [i][b]Queen Nancy[/i][/b] won't be Queen next year.

I do admit that two months of a lame duck Congress with her and Reid at the helm is very scary thought.

The left is now trying to frame the November elections in a new context. This would have anything less than the Republicans taking control of both houses as a Republican failure and an indication of how the country is behind BHO and his agenda. This is a winning argument just like the response to our disasterously high unemployment rate "it could be worse."

Control of the House has been in play for some time now. All 435 seats are up for election, of those 37 sitting members are retiring (eliminating for the most part House incumbency from those races) According to polling, there are 32 seats that are "toss ups" at the moment, with 201 and 202 "safe seats" for the Republicans and Democrats, respectively. Most of you guys can count and see that the House is clearly in play. Republican victory is not a sure thing.

The Senate is a different story altogether. Only 37 seats are up for election, of which only 8 are "toss ups." The Republicans and Democrats have 43 and 49 "safe seats," respectively. In order to regain the Senate, the Republicans need to win all 8 of those.

Even considering the national mood, Republicans winning control of both houses is a stretch. That said, the polling is likely missing a significant portion of the "Anger Vote" (my term) which I expect to be out in force, come November. This group includes Republicans that stayed home in 2008, as well as Democrats, Republicans and Independents that are truly pissed about the current state of the Nation. They are going to the polls to punish the people that they believe are responsible.

However, American voters have always been quick to criticize Congress and then reelect their local losers to both houses.

As always, winning in Washington can be a mixed bag. If the Republicans win either or both houses, in 2012, BHO will be blaming Republican-caused gridlock for all of the woes of the country. However, if the voters deliver one or both houses to the Republicans it will be a repudiation of BHO and his policies, above and beyond the usual off-year election bias against the party that controls the executive branch.

Therefore, I believe that most voters realize that regardless of whether the Republicans win one or both houses, they can't pass legislation without the signature of the Commie in Chief. Therefore, by voting for Republicans they are embracing gridlock (it was pretty good for Clinton) and a cessation of the CIC's agenda. We'll see in 2012 if the voters will remember how they felt in mid 2010.

By the way, the $26B package that Nancy is trying to get through is a give-way for local teachers and their union (or maybe it is the other way around) This is truly obscene since these people are paid by local governments and the Federal Govt payoff is clearly a bribe.

WW it is even worse than an open bribe to the teachers unions (noticed they have dropped the police and firefighters from the claim now) since there are no cuts in other spending to offset the "Stimulus II" bill it only adds to the debt.

States are prohibited from running deficits and cannot print their own money so the Obama Administration is going to do it for them. I am sure it will be "targeted" spending again, meaning the Blue States get it and the Red States get the finger again!

WW you are forgetting another important component of the upcoming mid-term elections beyond the "Angry" folks, motivation of the Republican and Democrat party bases. The Republican, Independent, and Conservative Democrat's can't wait to get to the polls to vote and are highly motivated, while the Democrat base for the most part is apathetic about the upcoming elections. Mid-term elections are usually low turnout affairs and this year the folks motivated to vote are against the current agenda pushed by Washington.

Esten, you are always hot to ask for documentation, where is the backup for all these "saved" jobs. What a BS hedge to claim "Saved Jobs", every time someone looks into these supposed "Saved" jobs they find more shenanigans than a barrel full of monkeys. I loved the one where they saved over a thousand jobs at one company – yea they didn't do anything but give a group of employees a raise and then called them "Saved" jobs. Didn't the White House take down the "Saved Jobs" web site after so many embarrassments resulted from the postings?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]WW you are forgetting another important component of the upcoming mid-term elections beyond the "Angry" folks, motivation of the Republican and Democrat party bases. The Republican, Independent, and Conservative Democrat's can't wait to get to the polls to vote and are highly motivated, while the Democrat base for the most part is apathetic about the upcoming elections. Mid-term elections are usually low turnout affairs and this year the folks motivated to vote are against the current agenda pushed by Washington.[/QUOTE]Excellent point, many will stay home because of mood and lack of presidential selection on ballot.

[quote=]Esten, you are always hot to ask for documentation, where is the backup for all these "saved" jobs. What a BS hedge to claim "Saved Jobs", every time someone looks into these supposed "Saved" jobs they find more shenanigans than a barrel full of monkeys.[/QUOTE]Thank you, I forgot to call Esten on this flatulent expulsion. Even Democrats (the normal ones not the left wing loonies) are uncomfortable with the fictitious statistic of "saved or created." So, without Obamanomics, there would be another 3-4 million unemployed? Wow, I didn't realize that the brilliance of BHO spared us form unemployment of more than 12%. Please find at least one reputable economist to back you on this one.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Thank you, I forgot to call Esten on this flatulent expulsion. Even Democrats (the normal ones not the left wing loonies) are uncomfortable with the fictitious statistic of "saved or created." So, without Obamanomics, there would be another 3-4 million unemployed? Wow, I didn't realize that the brilliance of BHO spared us form unemployment of more than 12%. Please find at least one reputable economist to back you on this one.[/QUOTE]Cut the Dems some slack. They're just taking a page out of the Kirchners' handbook on inflation -- if you don't like the numbers, fudge; if you still don't like the numbers, change the rules. So, the unemployment numbers consistently have been revised upward after the initial reports (the fudge) resulting in new rules to include jobs "created or saved." A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind, or something like that.

Always remember: It's okay for liberals to do this. Just ask Daily KOS about their polls. [url]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/dailykos_poll_fraud.html[/url]

What do you expect these folks to do? They don't have the facts on their side, and sticking to the facts makes for a rather dull discussion anyway.

WW & Stan, I almost forgot the really good example of this, in June Obama was trumpeting the creation of 63,000 jobs, but on Friday they had to revise that number down a "little" like to 35,000. Wow you only over counted by 45% surly that is within the margin of error or considered by this administration as not a material event.

I think Fox was the only one to report it and none of the main stream media. I even went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics website to check and sure enough it was true. These guys are great at "fudging" (can you really call 45% fudging?) the numbers up then quietly correcting them a month later hoping no one notices.

WW regarding your bet with Esten, hey since he has been beating the drum about "normal" losses during the mid terms I think your offer is fair. You win if the Republicans take both houses, Esten wins if they don't take both houses and it's a tie if they only take the House.

Just my 2 cents big guy.

Will be down in Oct. For a week, if you are in town let get a drink.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Excellent point, many will stay home because of mood and lack of presidential selection on ballot.

Thank you, I forgot to call Esten on this flatulent expulsion. Even Democrats (the normal ones not the left wing loonies) are uncomfortable with the fictitious statistic of "saved or created." So, without Obamanomics, there would be another 3-4 million unemployed? Wow, I didn't realize that the brilliance of BHO spared us form unemployment of more than 12%. Please find at least one reputable economist to back you on this one.[/QUOTE]I know that you like to beat up on Obama and Esten, but what makes you think that the joblessness would be any better under any administration. The world economy is a different landscape now, and the good ole USA is not competitive and dominant in many areas anymore. Most Americans are in denial, and the politicians are not willing to risk their position by telling like it is.

So while you and Esten are provoking and entertaining each other, gridlock is the name of the the game in the Capitol. Naturally, things have to get worse before it get better.

With Toymann's counter-bet terms and Walleye's admission, we see their confidence in the magnitude of Republican wins is not as strong as prior posts would have you believe.

That didn't take long!

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Even considering the national mood, Republicans winning control of both houses is a stretch.[/QUOTE]Kudos for stating that. But it begs the question, with all the rhetoric about socialism destroying the country, shouldn't Republicans be winning across the board? Dems just implemented a huge liberal agenda "against the will of the people". If that is true, why would anyone vote for them?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]By the way, the $26B package that Nancy is trying to get through is a give-way for local teachers and their union (or maybe it is the other way around) This is truly obscene since these people are paid by local governments and the Federal Govt payoff is clearly a bribe. [/QUOTE]Just distributing back the bribe that Republicans gave the rich.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Even Democrats (the normal ones not the left wing loonies) are uncomfortable with the fictitious statistic of "saved or created." So, without Obamanomics, there would be another 3-4 million unemployed? Wow, I didn't realize that the brilliance of BHO spared us form unemployment of more than 12%. Please find at least one reputable economist to back you on this one. [/QUOTE]Nigel Gault, chief U. S. Economist at IHS Global Insight.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics.

Alan Blinder, Professor of Economics, Princeton University.

Their numbers don't match exactly but are in the ballpark of those in the official CEA report (not Walleye's exaggerated numbers). Although if you add in TARP the numbers go up even more.

Zandi: Financial rescue and stimulus responsible for saving or creating 8.5 million jobs.
[url]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/zandi_financial_rescue_and_sti.html[/url]

How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End
[url]http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf[/url]

Speaking of "facts", do you guys have any to refute the CEA numbers? Do post.

[QUOTE=Toymann]I am up for a little Madahos victory dance. Here is my terms. If the House and Senate stay Democrat then I get to treat you to an evening at Madahos. If the reverse occurs and the Republicans sweep then it's on like donkey kong at Madahos on YOU. If the house and congress split then its a draw and no harm, no Madahos. A very fair bet from my perspective as both the House and Senate are currently in your camp Esten. I throw down the guantlet at your feet. Only a pussy Democrat would run away from such a fair offer. Now we'll see if ya have the stomach for it fella. The ball is now in your court dude. Fight or flight the choice is yours.[/QUOTE]LOL. There's no additional risk for me beyond what I was ready to accept - I pay if Republicans win both chambers.

But you substantially cut your risk. Instead of paying if Republicans don't win [I]both[/i] chambers, you now only pay if Republicans don't win [I]any[/i] chamber. If you had real conviction you would accept the wager I proposed. I think you wussed out.

Just for the record I have never given a sweep much thought but now am curious. I have always said that in Novemeber the Congress will switch from 60-40 to most likely 40-60, or at least the dems are history. That said, sadly we will be in a holding pattern for two years till Obomanation gets the boot and recovery has a chance to begin. Kinda sad reality really. I am being a gentleman by allowing my boy an out if the house doesn't switch. That said, if I make the double it will be an expensive night for Esten at Madahos as I have expensive tastes. LOL. As you all know, the congress change has already been conceeded by even the most crazy liberals on this board by their silence. Only time will tell, but never confuse my benelovance with weakness. I was just giving my ***** Esten a shot to gracefully retreat from an expensive evening at Madahos. That said, "lets get it on buddy". I return in October but also return in April. Right now I'm looking for a killer evening at Madahos in April 2011. Let the games begin. LOL.

Happy Mongering All,

Toymann.

PS. Majority is a majority dude. That means that if both the Senate and the House change to Republican I'm good. That said, it doesn't equate to 60-40, just 51-49 or the equivalent number in the house. You are currently sitting with both in your favour dude. If both go Republican buddy it will be quite historic indeed. Why would such a shift occur if your boy Obomanation had game with America. Lets see what transpires in Novemeber. Good luck dude. Let the better man reap the Madahos pussy!

While the rest of the world seems to be in some sort of economic recovery, the United States is faced with the double wammy of a lousy economy and no pussy.

The lousy economy doesn't bother me so much. The no pussy is a deal breaker.

We need political candidates who will stand up for what we really need - the granting of unlimited visas to all babes in Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Columbia etc. who want to live in the United States and agree to charge South American rates.

[QUOTE=Toymann]Just for the record I have never given a sweep much thought but now am curious. I have always said that in novemeber the congress will switch from 60-40 to most likely 40-60, or at least the dems are history. That said, sadly we will be in a holding pattern for two years till Obomanation gets the boot and recovery has a chance to begin. Kinda sad reality really. I am being a gentleman by allowing my boy an out if the house doesn't switch. That said, if I make the double it will be an expensive night for Esten at Madahos as I have expensive tastes. LOL. As you all know, the congress change has already been conceeded by even the most crazy liberals on this board by their silence. Only time will tell, but never confuse my benelovance with weakness. I was just giving my ***** Esten a shot to gracefully retreat from an expensive evening at Madahos. That said, "lets get it on buddy". I return in October but also return in April. Right now I'm looking for a killer evening at Madahos in April 2011. Let the games begin. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

PS. Majority is a majority dude. That means that if both house and congress change to republican I'm good. That said, it doesn't equate to 60-40, just 51-49 or the equivalent number in the house. You are currently sitting with both in your favour dude. If both go republican buddy it will be quite historic indeed. Why would such a shift occur if your boy Obomanation had game with America. Lets see what transpires in Novemeber. Good luck dude. Let the better man reap the Madahos pussy![/QUOTE]Make the trip switch from October to November. Then, you and Esten can sit and hold hands in El Alamo while the votes come through from CNN / Fox. I might come just to watch the event. Unfortunately, it's going to be a tie.

Esten, you have been stating for some time the mid- terms will be within the normal range regarding Dem's losing seats in both houses and not the water shed of 1994 or worse. So why don't you back off your criticism of WW since you are just as guilty. I think the bet is fair as I earlier outlined.

Black Shirt, you hit the nail on the head, we don't have any politicians who are willing to make the tough choices and cause the economic pain necessary to get the economy on the right track or cut back the "entitlement" and other give away programs that are bleeding us dry. What the hell are taxpayers doing financing the home loan industry (Freddie / Fannie) or in the auto business (Chrysler / GM) They all want to patch it over and let the next guy deal with the realities, I think we are quickly coming to the end of this luxury and it is going to be bad. Regan did it but it took nearly two years of pain to get us out of Jimmy Carter's "stag-flation" the Dem's left him.

El Alamo, naw you don't want to bring all those fine girls from Argentina to the States, in two years they just morph into American girls and you are right back where you started. I have known several airline pilots and a few regular Joes who have done that to their regret just a couple of years after getting them here. After that it is like the old Eddie Murphy skit where the African wife he got out of the boonies comes in and says "Eddie, I get HALF Eddie, HALF!"

Enjoy and Monger On Guys!

I don't know where the thread on the U. S. Economy is but if I could invest in anything it would be in the U. S. Government aka Big Brother. No matter what it keeps growing. Unprecendented deficits, unbelievable operational inefficiencies don't seem to bother it. A workforce which specializes in 4 hour coffee breaks, 16 weeks a year of vacation, 20 weeks a year of sick leave and a fully funded retirement at twice your last salary can not slow down this train wreck. The fact that it can't even manufacture a safety pin without losing money is of no concern. It just keeps growing.

Somebody tell me what stock exchange handles this monstosity which is able to defy every economic norm we have come to rely on. I'm ready to invest everything I have in it (whoops, probably already have with the predatory tax structures they are putting in place)

I just thought I would put this out here, a discussion a little different from the economic situation.

I was watching Glenn Beck yesterday. Yeah, I know - anyone with a liberal bent (even a small one) will most likely immediately start saying what a quack / scare monger / idiot / racist Beck is. Maybe even some conservatives would have problems with him.

However, he has some very good points (when he's not all involved about talking about his relationship with "GOD" at least - I don't like that part of him) about economy and the people with whom Obama has surrounded himself (but that's actually another discussion) One would have to actually watch him to understand, as badly as he is vilified by the "mainstream" press, and those who are openly far to the left as well.

Yesterday he had a short segment at the end of his show related to the mosque that is being proposed in Mahattan a few blocks away from "Ground Zero." He was talking to a comedian who was proposing building an Islamic-friendly gay bar next door to the mosque (I think the discussion was tongue-in-cheek, but the comedian seemed pretty serious even as he was laughing) Personally, I found the concept quite hilarious, particularly some of the names they were bandying about as to what to call the bar. Such as "Jihot" or "Grind Zero." I can't remember all of them, but they were extremely funny. I was seriously laughing out loud in my office.

At that point, my sister-in-law, who is 14 (almost 15) and from Paraguay, asked me what was so funny. So I began to explain the whole controversy related to building the mosque. The first words out of my mouth were no more than "there is a group of Muslims who want to build a mosque a few blocks from where the Twin Towers (as they call them in Spanish) fell" and she interrupted me.

"What!" she said. "Are they nuts? Can't they see how insulting that would be?"

She said it so quickly I was amazed. She caught the gist of the matter in just a few seconds. She doesn't have a lot of background about Muslims themselves, no prejudices against them or anything like that. She knew about the World Trade Center and all, understood that radical Muslims hijacked and flew the planes that crashed into the towers, but she understands very well that not all Muslims are terrorists who would do such a thing.

I explained that the mayor of NYC (among many others) are supporting that proposal, as painful as it is for most Americans (and how very much more dear it is for New Yorkers - I saw poll results that said 65% of New Yorkers oppose this! I think it was only 18% or so that supported it and the rest were undecided) She just couldn't understand how anyone would 1) as a Muslim want to build something so controversial so close to such a horrible disaster that would basically stick in so many people's craws and 2) how ANYONE in New York, much less anywhere in the US, would say that allowing them to build it there would be an appropriate example of "tolerance."

Just the other day, I was walking home with her from picking her up at school and we passed a magazine stand. She saw the Times picture of that beautiful woman who now lacks nose and ears because she ran away from her abusive family. I explained to her that in extremist Muslim countries this falls under normal behavior towards women.

She was shocked.

She's seen some pretty crappy stuff in Paraguay in the way "macho" men treat women, and it is pretty bad at times related to some of the things we are used to in more "civilized" countries, but this Times article "took the cake," so to speak.

Now, I'm not laying the call for tolerance directly at the feet of Obama and and his administration. I'm not even saying anyone can legally do anything to stop these idiots from going ahead and building this mosque and recreational center where they are planning on doing it.

Obama, as with most things that are uncomfortable with him (I don't know what he actually thinks about this) stated (or the statement came out of his press office at least) that basically it's a "local" issue and he shouldn't get involved.

To me, that kind of flies in the face of other things he has butted into on a local scale, from the cops (one of whom was black) who supposedly mistreated that black professor (Obama calling the cops' actions stupid) to the federal government getting so involved in Arizona making a law that allows local law enforcement to ask the immigration status of someone involved in illegal activity (which Obama comes out on and says now an Hispanic can't even take his son to have ice cream without worrying about being molested)

Legally, we do all have a right to rent and occupy buildings if we are complying with existing laws. Absolutely. However, to me, the fact that this Islamic organization is intending to go ahead with this no matter how people feel about this, and are complaining that the US is not open and tolerant enough to opposing views, just goes to show that they really don't give a shit (this particular group at least) what others think and have no intention themselves of being tolerant to others' feelings.

I understand that they were planning this before 9/11 actually occured. But what kind of excuse is that? Again, on Beck today, I learned there are 57 MILLION SQUARE FEET of open non-residencial rental space available on Manhattan.

Can they really not find a decent location in all of that space that would be far enough away from Ground Zero to make more comfortable the people who are still hurting from that cowardly, shitty attack on civilians?

That alone should tell you something about the people who are going forward with it (or trying to) and should also say something about "tolerance" American-style. Those particular Muslims are probably laughing their asses off as they watch us tear ourselves apart, still, over that national disaster that took place almost 9 years ago now.

Even a 14-year-old girl, raised in a different country, can see how harmful the actions of those particular Muslims are and how idiotic are the Americans who not only don't object to it, but actually support it as a show of "tolerance."

Count me an idiot. I don't think the question has anything to do with how many more rentable square feet exist elsewhere in New York. The question is: Why should they have to go anywhere else.

How about this question in the 1950s:

"How come them black folks have to drink out of our drinking fountain or sit in our bus seats. Can't they see how offensive that is to whites? Why don't they just use their drinking fountains and their buses?"

OK, I realize that blacks, in general, weren't responsible for perpetrating a significant act of violence on whites in any particular place, so perhaps the analogy is a bit strained.

So, how about this:

"How come all those Catholic folks have to build their churches in [pick any country in Mexico or Latin America]? Don't they realize how offensive that is to us natives, thousands of whom they made "convert to Catholicism" before executing so they would be saved?"

Is it different because the Spaniards kicked the indigenous folks' asses, so they can do what they want? Is it different because it happened a long time ago. Maybe. But it's no less offensive to them.

At any rate, I could care less what church, temple, mosque or house of worship they want to put up there. If they've got the funds and it's not illegal, let them do what they want. My only objection is that it shouldn't be tax-free.

I haven't been following the mosque debate. It really doesn't interest me much. I understand that people may object based on decorum, but what society governs itself on decorum? It's not really any different than when the Ku Klux Klan applies for a permit to hold a peaceful march. They have their First Amendment rights, too, regardless of whether some Klansmen in the past were vile, despicable and abominable people, and even if some existing Klansmen also fall into that category. What is the lawful right of assembly if it just means that the "right" except when the majority doesn't like it?

Mongers,

I've got to say I agree with Stan Da Man on this. As a native of the NY area who knew several people who didn't wake up to see the sun shine on September 12th I can tell you that I believe this religious group (or any other sanctioned and recognized religious group) should be able to put a church or associated facility wherever it is legally permitted by current law. Application of the law is supposed to be blind to religious affiliation. If the Mormons and Scientologists can get sanctioning as a legitimate religious organization (they are both cults) and put their churches wherever they want then the Muslims should be able to as well. Nobody seems to complain about Saint Patrick's Cathedral even though priests directly employed with the Catholic Church arguably ruined many more lives over the years through being child touchers and fear mongers than the 9/11 hijackers did with their bombings. In my opinion, Islam is a terrible religion that was created and maintained as a mechanism for controlling women and political power through pure brutality and savage coercion. To be even more stark, I think those people in the Middle East (and any other group that doesn't respect basic human and gender rights) are a bunch of completely brainwashed animals. However, if they are in the USA legally, and our government has recognized their religion, they have the same right to located their church where legally permitted as any other group.

Suerte,

Rock Harders