American Politics during the Obama Presidency

WW. You forgot to mention ObamaCare, which has already been passed by the Democrats, takes $500 Billion out of Medicare (which we fund via payroll taxes) to fund what will be an enhanced Medicaid (which is an unfunded mandate) program under ObamaCare. Talk about taking from the old folks which they accuse Repub's of trying to do when the Dem's have already done it!

Of course after Nov 2nd Esten and Maimipro will begin complaining about how the election was "stolen" from the Dem's by the Tea Party and Repub's and those very stupid voters! They will complain about dirty tricks and lies. What I find humorous is I am seeing campaign ads now that don't mention the candidate is a Democrat, also I don't seem to find any Democrat claiming to have voted for ObamaCare or the Stimulus now. Wonder how that got passed?

Great political cartoon in the Houston Chronicle today, first panel shows a voter watching TV and commenting on throwing out the bums who have not paid attention to what is going on in Washington, second panel shows the TV announcing the public has been voted out. Just what the liberal elite would enjoy since the poor dumb folks who pay the bills don't know what is good for them and should have no say in the governing process.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;412444]WW. You forgot to mention ObamaCare, which has already been passed by the Democrats, takes $500 Billion out of Medicare (which we fund via payroll taxes) to fund what will be an enhanced Medicaid (which is an unfunded mandate) program under ObamaCare. Talk about taking from the old folks which they accuse Repub's of trying to do when the Dem's have already done it![/quote]That is the great fallacy of liberalism, it hurts the people it claims to help, the most: minorities, the elderly, students and don't forget the unborn (had to throw that in, start grinding.

[quote=]Of course after Nov 2nd Esten and Maimipro will begin complaining about how the election was "stolen" from the Dem's by the Tea Party and Repub's and those very stupid voters! They will complain about dirty tricks and lies. What I find humorous is I am seeing campaign ads now that don't mention the candidate is a Democrat, also I don't seem to find any Democrat claiming to have voted for ObamaCare or the Stimulus now. Wonder how that got passed?[/quote]Of course, the only way republicans get elected is by stealing elections. Please don't look at Minnesota where Al Franken was 'elected' in a disgraceful example of the democrats' win-at-all-costs approach to close elections (don't forget that his 'victory' margin was exceeded by the number of votes illegally cast by convicted felons)

Since Bush / Gore have you seen a democrat gracefully concede a close loss?

[quote=]Great political cartoon in the Houston Chronicle today, first panel shows a voter watching TV and commenting on throwing out the bums who have not paid attention to what is going on in Washington, second panel shows the TV announcing the public has been voted out. Just what the liberal elite would enjoy since the poor dumb folks who pay the bills don't know what is good for them and should have no say in the governing process.[/QUOTE]The American people is just too darn stupid to know what's good for ya' all. That's why you need a permanent ruling class that keeps you addicted to the govt teet.

The funny thing is that Americans aren't too dumb, it is just that too many of the intelligent ones took our basic freedoms for granted. They were sleeping (where they would have stayed were it not for Obama, so at least he gave us something) and now they have been awoken.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;412444]WW. You forgot to mention ObamaCare, which has already been passed by the Democrats, takes $500 Billion out of Medicare (which we fund via payroll taxes) to fund what will be an enhanced Medicaid (which is an unfunded mandate) program under ObamaCare. Talk about taking from the old folks which they accuse Repub's of trying to do when the Dem's have already done it![/QUOTE]There is another Republican Fear mongering point: "Death Panels"

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;412444]Of course after Nov 2nd Esten and Maimipro will begin complaining about how the election was "stolen" from the Dem's by the Tea Party and Repub's and those very stupid voters! They will complain about dirty tricks and lies. What I find humorous is I am seeing campaign ads now that don't mention the candidate is a Democrat, also I don't seem to find any Democrat claiming to have voted for ObamaCare or the Stimulus now. Wonder how that got passed?[/QUOTE]I am not going to complain about anything Nov 2nd. Dems deserve to loose some seats for not meeting my expectations and making good on promises made a year and a half ago. Its just unfortunate that those seats will go from bad to worse.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412440]The fear mongering comes in when you combine these two things (an exaggeration / distortion) with an outright lie.[/QUOTE]This definition is exactly what FOX News is all about.

So listen up Fox News lovers. If you watch your opinionated news station daily, you will be getting a whole lotta exaggeration and distortion along with your outright lies.

JFTR. I would rather watch John Stewart or Stephen Colbert than watch any news outlet. At least they like to call it like it is regardless of party.

Wild Walleye, I think you are right for the wrong reason. I remember reading something about the convicted felon voting and most of them were eligible to vote.

However, the Democrats did steal the election through intimidation of vote counters. They sent large teams to each area where votes were being recounted. These teams wore out the vote counters until they would agree to either add in Frankin votes or throw out Coleman votes.

Relax, people! This is a site meant for fun, not arguments based on whatever. Miami, you think I´ve been sending too many pictures lately? I´m sorry about that. Thanks though for saying I´m cute. Is there a Shirley Temple for me as well?

Wild Walleye you´re always so nice to me, it´s such a pity we haven´t met yet. I´m sure we will pretty soon.

Let´s just follow the spirit of the site! Sex and fun!

Happy mongering all!

[QUOTE=Miamipro; 412439]I never said you spewed hate. You you like exaggeration don't you? . "Hater" is just a figure of speech but I am sure you already know that.

Political Debates can be fun and entertaining. And its ok if you want to try and be right. But where you fail is with your sarcastic comments and pithy insults. I am sure you have the aptitude of debating without trying to belittle people. Try it.

Cool I will have a Shirley Temple waiting for you. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Miamipro;412439]And its ok if you want to try and be right.[/quote]It is good to aspire to achieve, some do both, aspire and achieve.

[quote=]But where you fail is with your sarcastic comments and pithy insults.[/quote]My apologies, I do tend to use some big words so I can understand losing you with some of them.

[quote=] I am sure you have the aptitude of debating without trying to belittle people.

Try it. [/quote]I will try to counter your subobtuseness with less oblique references. Although that might take some of the fun out of it.

[quote=]Cool I will have a Shirley Temple waiting for you.[/QUOTE]Is she a regular at Newport?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 412460]It is good to aspire to achieve, some do both, aspire and achieve.

My apologies, I do tend to use some big words so I can understand losing you with some of them.

I will try to counter your subobtuseness with less oblique references. Although that might take some of the fun out of it.

Is she a regular at Newport? [/QUOTE]Maybe you can aspire and achieve at some point in your life, but you seem to be far from it. Also if you consider those big words, you might be in a pickle.

Double it is!

[QUOTE=Transito; 412457]Relax, people! This is a site meant for fun, not arguments based on whatever. Miami, you think I´ve been sending too many pictures lately? I´m sorry about that. Thanks though for saying I´m cute. Is there a Shirley Temple for me as well?

Wild Walleye you´re always so nice to me, it´s such a pity we haven´t met yet. I´m sure we will pretty soon.

Let´s just follow the spirit of the site! Sex and fun!

Happy mongering all! [/QUOTE]No you haven't been sending to many pictures lately. You look great keep sending. Salute!

[QUOTE=Miamipro;412461]Maybe you can aspire and achieve at some point in your life, but you seem to be far from it. [/QUOTE]I realize that I haven't forced rationed healthcare on 300 million unwilling citizens but, I'd like to think I have accomplished something.

That said, "a man has to know his own limitations. "

While my accomplishments are many, I like to count among my favoritas: eating six empenadas in one seating (dos queso, dos carne y dos jamon y queso, walking from San Telmo to Belgrano and entering a privado in darkness and exiting in the light.

Then again, I measure achievement against one's capabilities rather than against what conventional wisdom tells us achievement is. Maybe that is why I get to do what I do, and love it.

I am a legend in my own mind.

(hat tip to Harry Callahan and his friend's S&W)

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412464]While my accomplishments are many, I like to count among my favoritas: eating six empenadas in one seating (dos queso, dos carne y dos jamon y queso, walking from San Telmo to Belgrano and entering a privado in darkness and exiting in the light.[/QUOTE]Well at least you have this going for you. As for the rest. Refer below.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412464]I am a legend in my own mind.[/QUOTE]Agreed

One of those things is realizing that getting there is half the fun. Since I spend all of my time getting somewhere, that is a good thing.

Miamipro I said nothing about death panels. I just pointed out the Dems hypocrisy after cutting $500 billion from Medicaid to fund ObamaCare and you no intelligent response. Who is the fear monger here?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;412476]Miamipro I said nothing about death panels. I just pointed out the Dems hypocrisy after cutting $500 billion from Medicaid to fund ObamaCare and you no intelligent response. Who is the fear monger here?[/QUOTE]OK, partner (MP & Co, I spent well-earned navel-gazing time educating you on what fear mongering is (since you didn't know when you opened up this can of worms) , and you throw out "death panels. " That is almost as bad as your first example.

Sorry, "Death Panel" is an outdated term they are the "Independent Payment Advisory Board. " They couldn't even come up with a name that would hide what they do. This panel exists solely to deny coverage to individuals covered by the plan. There is no other purpose for this panel. This panel, whose authority is above the treating physician, "will control healthcare costs" (according to Obama and his budget director. Its decisions are essentially irrefutable.

One of the great things about pre-Obama healthcare in the US is that there was always hope.

Let me tell you a story of pre-Obmam healthcare for someone I was close to, who was living on a very fixed income in the States:

Out of the blue, the doctor says you've got a nasty glioblastoma.

FYI, A glioblastoma is an extremely aggressive and nasty malignant brain cancer that, for lack of a better description, gets into all the nooks and cranneys of the brain making total removal impossible. Its aggressiveness means that it will be back regardless of the course of treatment. That said, the nature of the cancer means that pressure from the growth (normally in the cerebrum. Brain) will effect memory, motor skills and other brain functions before the cancer takes its toll. Therefore, you typically have a 'healthy' patient (body function excellent) that will experience precipitous loss of brain function (which impacts speech, memory, physicality, etc) due to the size and pressure exerted by the tumor. The mass of the tumor can be decreased, reducing the pressure and reversing the effects.

Simply put, your loved one has been visited by the grim reaper. The prognosis for malignant astrocytoma is generally very short (say six months. While you gather family around to figure out what to do, you loved one slips into a state of "unknowing" not dissimilar form advanced Alzheimer's disease. Typically, you have unfinished business with this loved one. She or he has unfinished business with all of the progeny. Maybe you haven't said good bye, maybe she or he hasn't made a will, maybe his / her children are returning from college and haven't been in to visit (lots of different elements of the human condition. Maybe that individual is the sole care giver for a slightly, mentally challenged adult. Maybe if that individual passes away there is no one left to care for the special needs individual.

The doctor says "There are a couple of things we can try. " The effects of the cancer can be temporarily abated by reducing the mass of the tumor, through several treatment venues: surgerize the tumor to decrease mass; chemo, radiation or implanted wafers. None of these treatments will kill the cancer or cure the patient. But they all provide the hope of returning mental faculties to your loved one for some finite period of time.

In this case the combination of surgery and radiation (paid for by medicare) provided a window of 6 weeks of excellent mental acuity for this individual, six special, memorable and agonizing weeks for family and friends and six weeks to set things right and establish a program for provide for the long-term care of this individual's dependent.

If the "Independent Payment Advisory Board" will rule out Avastin. Breast cancer drug that in testing showed that by preventing blood flow to tumurs, it extended the amount of time until the disease worsened by more than five months. What is the likelihood that the IPAB will smile fondly upon my friend who might be happy with six weeks? That will be the smile of death. Thus no fear mongering here. I am thankful that this episode occurred pre-Obama.

Sure, after they have made headline-grabbing statements on death panels and pulling the plug, Republicans "explain" what they meant after the fact. But the original statements get widely circulated in the media, enough to stir up some fear and anxiety.

But the fear mongering is only a subset of what the right does. . . . . Mostly it is spin, distortion and exaggeration, all with the goal to influence public perception of the left in a negative way. Some of the more well known ones include: stimulus a failure, Dems are big government, Dems are anti-business, Obama is a Socialist / Marxist, government is the problem, heathcare reform rammed down our throats, healthcare reform a government takeover, Obama exploiting the economic crisis, out of control spending, etc and this great one from Mike Pence last week: "all that is good and great about this country could soon be gone".

[QUOTE=Toymann;412348]There may be a few more surprises left that get me to that 50 number. Time will only tell. That said, as long as there are more GOP senators that DEM senators, one might consider that as a win? Your thoughts. [/QUOTE]Sure.

[QUOTE]P. Remember I win the ties.[/QUOTE]Haha. . . . I don't remember discussing ties!

Not to count my chickens. . . . . But Delaware is a fairly safe bet. The risk would be if the Dem (Coons) sat back and assumed victory, but it's clear he is not going to take anything for granted.

Now as further evidence of GOP party unity, we have Murkowski running as a write-in candidate in the Alaska Senate race. What impact do you think this will have on the election results?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412480]OK, partner (MP & Co, I spent well-earned navel-gazing time educating you on what fear mongering is (since you didn't know when you opened up this can of worms) , and you throw out "death panels. " That is almost as bad as your first example..[/QUOTE]You don't have to like my examples. I just threw that in there since we were talking about fear mongering, healthcare and how the Republicans did nothing to contribute to the policy except highlight terms like Death Panels. Specifically Sarah Palin. And the right wing nut-o's.

Also if you want the ultimate example just go back to the reason we went to war with Iraq in the first place. OMG they have weapons of mass destruction. We have to go to war now. GWB not only lied but try to scare us to destroy them before they use the WMD on us.

Your Party USES FEAR MONGERING more than I have ever seen. Now I gave you 3 examples. You may not like those examples but oh well. To bad

For someone who likes to debate to be "right or correct". Your having a hard time getting there. Start of by admitting the Republicans Use Fear tactics and you might have some credibility.

[QUOTE=Esten;412486]But the fear mongering is only a subset of what the right does. . . . . Mostly it is spin, distortion and exaggeration, all with the goal to influence public perception of the left in a negative way. Some of the more well known ones include: stimulus a failure, Dems are big government, Dems are anti-business, Obama is a Socialist / Marxist, government is the problem, heathcare reform rammed down our throats, healthcare reform a government takeover, Obama exploiting the economic crisis, out of control spending, etc and this great one from Mike Pence last week: "all that is good and great about this country could soon be gone".[/QUOTE]Esten I agree with that.

Now we're talking. But is it fear mongering or is it politicizing a national defense issue? Well whatever it was, seemed to me that the Dems couldn't pile on that train fast enough. Look at all these war-crazed right-wing loons:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the USA Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. ". From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9,1998

"Saddam's goal. Is to achieve the lifting of you. And. Sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed. ". Madeline Albright, 1998

" (Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983". National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18,1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement. ". Barbara Boxer, November 8,2002.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. ". Bill Clinton in 1998

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11,2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. ". Hillary Clinton, October 10,2002

I point out the Democrat's hypocrisy in accusing Republican's of hurting the elderly while cutting funds from Medicare and the first thing Miamipro does is bring up "death panels" and Esten goes off on the "spin" tangent.

Let me mention another example of the Democratic hypocrisy, the Democrat's cut funds from the Food Stamp Program to help fund the Teacher's Union bailout, literally taking the food from the poor's mouths to give to the teachers unions. Now I am sure Miamipro and Esten will go Ouch! Got my dick slammed in the door AGAIN need to make accusations and change the subject.

You guys always follow Bill Clinton's mantra when faced with the truth:

Admit nothing! Deny everything! Make counter accusations!

[QUOTE=Miamipro;412490]You don't have to like my examples. I just threw that in there since we were talking about fear mongering, healthcare and how the Republicans did nothing to contribute to the policy except highlight terms like Death Panels. Specifically Sarah Palin. And the right wing nut-o's.[/quote]I think Obama, Ried and Pelosi contributed more than enough. The only contribution that Republicans should make to legislation like that is opposition. You can't not turn a flaming pile of dung into Michelangelo.

I didn't say that I didn't like your 'examples' rather I pointed out that they are not in fact examples of fear mongering, which they are not.

[quote=]Also if you want the ultimate example just go back to the reason we went to war with Iraq in the first place. OMG they have weapons of mass destruction. We have to go to war now. GWB not only lied but try to scare us to destroy them before they use the WMD on us.[/quote]Ohhhhh, the boogieman GWB is so evil and scary.

[quote=]Your Party USES FEAR MONGERING more than I have ever seen.[/quote]Thanks, but it isn't my party.

[quote=] Now I gave you 3 examples.[/quote]No you didn't (hat tip Monte Python)

[quote=] You may not like those examples but oh well. To bad [/quote]I think you mean "too bad. "

[quote=]For someone who likes to debate to be "right or correct". Your having a hard time getting there.[/quote]I must have my webcam on if you can see that I am having a "hard time" this morning. It's just a little morning wood.

[quote=] Start of by admitting the Republicans Use Fear tactics and you might have some credibility.[/QUOTE]Hmm, credibility with you and Esten. Now that is something I must save I haven't considered pursuing, at least not until you suggested it. On second thought, I'm not interested.

Where did I say that Republicans don't use them? I asked you to provide examples of what you thought was fear mongering. You offered several examples of things other than fear mongering.

Why don't we move on to some other subject with which you have a little more familiarity.

WW.

Judging from your responses your life you live is that of delusion.

But you would make a good english teacher.

Whilst the claims and counter claims are flying around, it seems like we have come to an impasse. A victory of words is very empty. Thus, a gulf that is impossible to cross, very similar to what we have in the Capitol and the reason for our present quagmire. Arrogance, righteousness, hypocrisy, what roads to they lead to. Ahh, human nature at it's very basic worse (I did not want to say, evil.

They are mirror images of each other both influenced by their own scary extreme factions. Both love to push the extreme panic button rather then have legitimate discussions about serious problems. Both name call, blow meaningless statistics out of proportion, and play on emotions of the ignorant unwilling to do their own fact finding. Where is the discussion on how we get rid of all of them and bring on a 3rd party?

[QUOTE=Sysco234;412506]They are mirror images of each other both influenced by their own scary extreme factions. Both love to push the extreme panic button rather then have legitimate discussions about serious problems. Both name call, blow meaningless statistics out of proportion, and play on emotions of the ignorant unwilling to do their own fact finding. Where is the discussion on how we get rid of all of them and bring on a 3rd party?[/QUOTE]I actually agree with that. Just as long as the 3rd party isn't the Tea Party. The way we have our government set up. Is suppose to give us checks and balances. But instead of being realistic about policy and progressing forward for the people, it always becomes party over policy. And that can cut both ways.

The rest of the real 1st world countries. Are probably just sitting back and being entertained by how this country deals with problems.

[QUOTE=Miamipro; 412507]I actually agree with that. Just as long as the 3rd party isn't the Tea Party. The way we have our government set up. Is suppose to give us checks and balances. But instead of being realistic about policy and progressing forward for the people, it always becomes party over policy. And that can cut both ways.

[/QUOTE]Then why wouldn't the 'party' that wants to reduce the size and role of government be attractive to you?

[quote=]The rest of the real 1st world countries. Are probably just sitting back and being entertained by how this country deals with problems.[/quote]They will be entertained right up until they need us to save them from something. They more likely will be impressed with the swiftness that the electorate throws Obama's agenda out the window. Germany, France and England have been moving towards capitalism while we have moved toward socialism.

Blackshirt, unfortunately the gridlock didn't come soon enough to prevent all the stimulus, Obamacare and financial reform. Gridlock is good (if gridlock means that the Congress can't pass new, overreaching legislation.

We already have too many laws. Let's just put some restraints on congress:

- For every new law passed, an archaic law should be repealed.

- make it a part time legislature, all they need to do is take up really important issues and pass budgets

- each member gets a fixed operating budget for his / her office and a limit of 5 staffers.

- Members should only get paid something on the order of 75% of the cost of living so that they have to earn something to live (with strict prohibitions on sources of income so that they really have to work. That is the ones that aren't already rich. Which is most of them)

- absolute transparency into the finances of each member's office activities.

Delaware goes for O'Donnell. Alaska is a slam dunk, Murkowski is a non-factor, side-show (a fabrication of the media trying to show the Republicans in disarray.

I for one am not a proponent of a third party, unless it is dominated by liberals. I also do not believe that the "Tea Party" is actually a party. It is a movement, indicative of the conservative (smaller govt, lower taxes, etc) ascendancy that is currently taking place. The discontent with these specific aspects of government has been there for a long time, however, it would not have coalesced into a movement, let alone one that is tipping electoral scales, without Obama.

Anyhow, time to loofah my stretch marks

As I am sure some of you already heard. The senate rejected the Don't Ask Don't tell Policy. A couple of the the Dems sided with the Rep's on this. Its to my understanding that there are provisions in this bill that Rep's don't like. Theres a fucking surprise. But really thats not what I am getting at.

Why can't we just create a bill that has nothing else attached to it for either side. And just Repeal this stupid policy. Let the gays serve. If anyone wants to serve and possibly pay the ultimate price for their country. Who gives a rats ass who they or what they like to do with their private life. Every other country (France, England and Germany) get this. Except us. For the USA to be such a "land of the free" kinda place. We sure are repressive in so many ways. Especially when it comes to sexual orientation. More pussy for me.

[QUOTE=Miamipro; 412519]As I am sure some of you already heard. The senate rejected the Don't Ask Don't tell Policy. A couple of the the Dems sided with the Rep's on this. Its to my understanding that there are provisions in this bill that Rep's don't like. Theres a fucking surprise. But really thats not what I am getting at.

Why can't we just create a bill that has nothing else attached to it for either side. And just Repeal this stupid policy. Let the gays serve. If anyone wants to serve and possibly pay the ultimate price for their country. Who gives a rats ass who they or what they like to do with their private life. Every other country (France, England and Germany) get this. Except us. For the USA to be such a "land of the free" kinda place. We sure are repressive in so many ways. Especially when it comes to sexual orientation. More pussy for me. [/QUOTE]If every piece of shit legislation (regardless of party of origin) had to pass on its own merits in the light of the day, the govt would be much smaller as would our tax burden and our national debt. The bastardization of the legislative process is all the more galling considering that congress long ago abdicated its legislative function to the judiciary.

I have often wondered why it is that conservatives are called the “right” and the liberals are called the “left”.

The Bible has all the answers right?

Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

“The heart of the wise inclines to the right,

But the heart of the fool to the left. ”

Yep, that’s it!

Food for thought.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 412526]I have often wondered why it is that conservatives are called the “right” and the liberals are called the “left”.

The Bible has all the answers right?

Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

“The heart of the wise inclines to the right,

But the heart of the fool to the left. ”

Yep, that’s it! . .

Food for thought. [/QUOTE]Thank you. I will use that once or twice, in the future.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 412526]I have often wondered why it is that conservatives are called the “right” and the liberals are called the “left”.

The Bible has all the answers right?

Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

“The heart of the wise inclines to the right,

But the heart of the fool to the left. ”


Yep, that’s it!

Food for thought. [/QUOTE]The Bible. Sounds like to me your getting your scripture from facebook. Nothing more fun than bumper sticker politics. Taking a quote from Christopher Hitchens. "God is Not great. "

[url]http:/www.facebook.com/pages/the-Niv-Bible/107420755950435[/url]

A friend sent that after a discussion about the left and the right and thought I would pass it along Should have noted it was a quote.

With enemies like this, you don't need many friends. No joke on the info below:

On Monday, [Harry] Reid was speaking at a Manhattan fundraiser thrown on his behalf by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg when he paused to offer an unusual compliment to New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who was in the audience. "Many senators are known for many things, " Reid said (according to Politico's Maggie Haberman, who heard it from sources. "We in the Senate refer to Sen. Gillibrand as the hottest member. "

Gillibrand, according to Haberman's sources, flushed red, and the comment "created a bit of a stir" among the audience. "It was pretty shocking when he said it, " one source tells Politico.

* * * * *

[T]he comment comes just a week after Reid offered an equally unusual endorsement for Democratic Senate candidate Chris Coons in Delaware, referring to Coons as "my pet. " "I'm going to be very honest with you: Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He's my pet. He's my favorite candidate, " Reid told the Hill's J. Taylor Rushing.

[url]http:/news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100921/el_yblog_upshot/reid-calls-gillibrand-the-hottest-member-of-the-senate[/url]

This is the same guy that brought you:

"Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid apologized on Saturday for saying the race of Barack Obama – whom he described as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one" – would help rather than hurt his eventual presidential bid. "

[url]http:/www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/09/harry-reid-negro-comment-_n_417406.html[/url]

This guy makes George Bush look like he has the gift of gab. Thank god he's on the Dems' team and thank goodness none of them have the sense to tell him to stay away from their campaigns.

Now, if they could just invite Pelosi and Obama out on the campaign trail a bit more. I suppose that would be a bit awkward, however, since most Dems are running attack ads either against her (Pelosi) or his policies (Obama) . Turns out, no one likes the House Speaker and no one actually voted for ObamaCare or any of the Stimulus measures. Who knew?

President Barack Obama's top economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, plans to leave the White House at the end of the year.

[url]http:/news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100921/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_economic_adviser[/url]

Obama purportedly asked him to "stay until the end of 2010". Translation: "You have until 2011 to get the heck out. And don't let the door hit your arse on the way out."

So, after Democrats blasted Republicans for suggesting that Obama's economic team resign, the only top member left now is Geithner. Orszag, Romer and now Summers have resigned. The end of their Keynesian experiment with our money can't come soon enough. As Obama's out there telling voters to 'stay the course and let his economic measures play out' his own staff are turning tail and running. It is not uncommon to have top economic staff resign, especially during a President's second term. It is uncommon, however, to have 3/4ths of your economic team fail to make it even two years.

What's the over-under on how long until Geithner announces his resignation? I'm going with November 3, the day after the mid-term election. Hopefully, he can manage to pay his taxes before then and take care of that nasty lien on his paycheck.

Stan posted a short essay on his views on stimulus, which I thought had enough academic merit to deserve a response. I'll respond to the main points not every single statement.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;412329]And the dire H1N1 warnings were all supposedly based on legitimate science.[/QUOTE]The dire warnings were not necessarily of what would happen but what could happen. It did meet the WHO criteria of a pandemic. Given the data available at the time the steps taken were prudent.

Your main point here is that so-called legitimate predictions based on science (or economic models, etc) are sometimes wrong. Well of course this is true. Sometimes wrong, sometimes right. Such as those few economists who predicted back in 2005-07 that the US was on the verge of a housing / financial meltdown and deep recession.

If you wanted to remind us that predictions aren't accurate all the time, fair enough.

[QUOTE]Now, we come to the multiple "Stimulus" efforts that have been deployed, and the new ones that are being proposed. Conventional wisdom, based on what the media feeds us, is that stimulus programs were necessary because we were in a recession. But, we've been in many other recessions and came out of them without anything that approaches the massive spending done by this administration. Yes, they claim, but this recession was [I]really[/I] bad, and desperate times call for desperate measures. Not so fast. The recession now is [I]really[/I] bad, based on its length and the unemployment rate alone, but those were the things all this stimulus spending was supposed to fix. The only response you generally get is, "well, it would have been worse without the massive spending. " There's nothing to back it up.[/QUOTE]See how quickly you segue into right wing exaggerations of "nothing to back it up".

For one, we just had the news from NBER that the recession officially ended in June 2009. Which was 4 months after the Stimulus (ARRA) was enacted. Coincidence? Doubtful.

We have reports that ARRA boosted employment by 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs and raised the nation's annual economic output by almost $400 billion. These conclusions are backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7.

[url]http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm[/url]
[url]http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1326[/url]

[QUOTE]The only "science" that suggests these programs were necessary or even worthwhile are based on economics. They call economics "the dismal science" for a reason: It got its name after Thomas Malthus projected that population growth would cause a parade of horribles, eventually leading to starvation and death for much of mankind. He was dead wrong, and the name stuck, if only as a reminder that economic models are notoriously inaccurate.[/QUOTE]A feeble attempt to discredit economics. Of course it is an imperfect science, but it still plays an important role in both the public and private sectors.

[QUOTE]So, why does anyone take it seriously when the current administration, based on so-called "expert" economists, concludes that any of the stimulus packages were necessary? To the extent that any of these "experts" provide any basis for their conclusions, it almost invariably is predicated on some Keynesian economic principle that is questionable [I]at best[/I]. Real world data debunks nearly every Keynesian theory. It's junk science, yet we're led to believe that billions in spending was and is necessary because these junk scientists tell us so.[/QUOTE]More unconvincing discreditation of economics and economists.

This whole episode we've been through of financial sector failure, followed by successful government intervention via TARP and ARRA will go down in history as one of the greatest validations of Keynesian theory.

This report from Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder analyzes the combined effect of the government's responses:

[i]"For example, we estimate that, without the government's response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8.5 million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation. "[/i]

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

[QUOTE]What proof is there that these Stimulus programs were unnecessary? Of course it's impossible to "prove" now, but the best evidence is historical. In only one recession have we even approached the record level of stimulus and deficit spending that has been happening. It's called "the Great Depression, " and it lasted longer and was deeper than any other recession. By comparison, Europe did not engage in anywhere near the government stimulus FDR rammed through (measured as a percentage of GDP), and its economies recovered more quickly and its unemployment rate stayed lower at all points than the USA. In all other recessions, we have not spent anywhere near what this team has, and we suffered less (measured in nearly any way possible) and emerged more quickly. So, you can't conclusively prove what would have happened without the massive stimulus, but the smart money bets on experience.[/QUOTE]You're free to put more weight on historical comparisons. I'll put more weight on the analysis of respected economists who factored in the unique elements of the latest recession.

[QUOTE]So, if it's not the junk scientists with their demonstrably false Keynesian models, [/QUOTE]You've established that only in your own mind.

[QUOTE]then who should we believe as to why stimulus spending is necessary? Obama and Geithner? Geithner's the same guy who either can't figure out how to pay his taxes, or was attempting to evade them. We've either got a buffoon or a crook running Treasury, yet we're supposed to trust him to spend nearly a trillion dollars wisely. This is the same pair who went to the G-20 meeting in June to trumpet the success of the USA stimulus packages and to chide Europe for even thinking about cutting spending to get their budgets in line. [url]http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-26/geithner-says-g-20-needs-focus-on-domestic-demand-not-deficits.html[/url]

They were laughed out of the room by European leaders, particularly Germany, which cut spending instead. Turns out, Germany had the first and last laugh. Their economy is healthy by all accounts, while the Obama / Geithner Stimulus has succeeded only in driving up the deficit. The Obama-led Stiimulus does feed his arguments, though: He claims we [I]can't afford[/I] tax cuts for the wealthy. Why not? Well, because he was so busy blowing our wad on worthless Stimulus projects. (He usually forgets that last part in his stump speeches) [/QUOTE]Geithner's tax issue has zero to do with the argument of whether the Stimulus was worthwhile or not.

And a comparison with Germany is possibly the poorest argument of the bunch. Germany did not have a giant housing bubble with massive financial leverage tied to it. Nor the same spike in unemployment. And yet they still had two stimulus packages worth $104B, which are credited with helping the German recovery. There is a case here that the US stimulus was in fact too small.

[QUOTE]These are the sorts of issues that are driving the Tea Party. It's one thing to raise taxes for worthwhile projects. But, taking other people's money is justified only when the government gets its house in order and cuts all the wasteful spending that is abundantly apparent. ObamaCare and cash for clunkers are but two of many examples, and they are on top of the worthless Stimulus programs. Obama's "wish list" spending proposal today is just more evidence. Dems may think that the Tea Party is driving a wedge between the Republican party. But, the truth is, the Tea Party is symptomatic of the general disgust at the misguided policies and wasteful spending that has occurred and is still being proposed by this administration. Absent this, the Tea Party wouldn't exist. Come November, thankfully, we'll be done with all of these ludicrous stimulus proposals, brought forth by a team that couldn't govern its way out of a paper bag.[/QUOTE]You sure convinced me! Great job.

BTW, the Stimulus/ARRA included $288B in tax benefits. Was that part also worthless?

If we hadn't had a stimulus and now had even higher unemployment, you can bet almost everyone in the country would be complaining that the government didn't do anything.

[QUOTE=Esten; 412559]Stan posted a short essay on his views on stimulus, which I thought had enough academic merit to deserve a response. I'll respond to the main points not every single statement.

The dire warnings were not necessarily of what would happen but what could happen. It did meet the WHO criteria of a pandemic. Given the data available at the time the steps taken were prudent.

Your main point here is that so-called legitimate predictions based on science (or economic models, etc) are sometimes wrong. Well of course this is true. Sometimes wrong, sometimes right. Such as those few economists who predicted back in 2005-07 that the US was on the verge of a housing / financial meltdown and deep recession. [/quote]You mean George W. Bush? He first rang that bell in 2001.

Don't get me wrong, other than homeland defense GWB and I don't agree on many issues. However, as the Left's boogieman (again, not the dancing kind) it is funny how in hindsight he was correct, yet they still can't bring themselves not to hate him. (please note that the use of a double negative in the preceding sentence was intentional for illustrative purposes)

[quote=]If you wanted to remind us that predictions aren't accurate all the time, fair enough.[/quote]What good does that do us when the earth is turning into a fiery ball of death due to bovine flatulation!

[quote=]For one, we just had the news from NBER that the recession officially ended in June 2009. Which was 4 months after the Stimulus (ARRA) was enacted. Coincidence? Doubtful.[/quote]Hi hip hooray! The Recession ended 15 months ago! So all you unemployed layabouts are just faking!

[quote=]We have reports that ARRA boosted employment by 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs and raised the nation's annual economic output by almost $400 billion.[/quote]I have a report that says my schlong is nearly 14" long.

[quote=] These conclusions are backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7.[/quote]Goldman, across the board in its research is pretty clear that the 'stimulus" was anything other than stimulative. If the "stimulus" was actually stimulative, when it is gone there would be continued growth coming out of those investments. To the contrary, GS clearly states that the impact of the so called "stimulus" on the economy was temporary and artificial going further to say that the end of stimulus will result in unemployment going back north of 10%. Wow, great ringing endorsement of Barrack Hoover Obama.

[quote=]A feeble attempt to discredit economics. Of course it is an imperfect science, but it still plays an important role in both the public and private sectors.[/quote]Having been trained as an economist, I can assure you that two equally competent economists can darw diametrically opposed opinions from the same data, based upon ideology and who pays their salaries.

[quote=]This whole episode we've been through of financial sector failure, followed by successful government intervention via TARP and ARRA will go down in history as one of the greatest validations of Keynesian theory.[/quote]"Yeah, sing with me, sing for the year.

Sing for the laughter, sing for the tear.

Sing with me, if it's just for today.

Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take you away "

[quote=]This report from Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder analyzes the combined effect of the government's responses:

[i]"For example, we estimate that, without the government's response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8.5 million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation. "[/i]

How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End.

[url]http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf[/url][/quote]See comment above regarding economists. Zandi was right on the ball at Moody's with this whole global economic meltdown thingy.

Binder is a pointed headed academic.

Why not make your own judgments based upon what you see in your day to day life? Looks pretty bleak in many parts of the US.

[quote=]You're free to put more weight on historical comparisons. I'll put more weight on the analysis of respected economists who factored in the unique elements of the latest recession.[/quote]Do you posses the ability to form your own opinions or do you just regurgitate what you are spoon fed?

[quote=]Geithner's tax issue has zero to do with the argument of whether the Stimulus was worthwhile or not.[/quote]Agreed. It was merely one other piece of evidence that he was not fit for this position. His performance bears it out. Had BHO's vetting been along historic practices (I. E. Disqualify known tax cheats, wife beaters, etc) perhaps we would have got a more qualified candidate.

[quote=]And a comparison with Germany is possibly the poorest argument of the bunch. Germany did not have a giant housing bubble with massive financial leverage tied to it. Nor the same spike in unemployment. And yet they still had two stimulus packages worth $104B, which are credited with helping the German recovery. There is a case here that the US stimulus was in fact too small.[/quote]There is a case that the eruption of Vesuvius was too small.

You are correct, Germany is a poor example because they are cutting taxes

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended her plan to cut taxes despite the country's soaring budget deficit as she introduced her conservative alliance's manifesto ahead of national elections in September.

Lower incomes taxes would "provide motivation" and encourage economic growth, Ms. Merkel told a conference of her party, the Christian Democratic Union, and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union.

"It would be wrong not to do what is right and necessary for growth, and so prevent ourselves emerging quickly from this crisis, " Ms. Merkel said in her conference speech. "

[quote=]BTW, the Stimulus/ARRA included $288B in tax benefits. Was that part also worthless?[/quote]Do you know the difference between a tax cut and a tax benefit?

[quote=]If we hadn't had a stimulus and now had even higher unemployment, you can bet almost everyone in the country would be complaining that the government didn't do anything.[/QUOTE]Looking at historical analogies, most economists believe that had the govt done nothing, we'd already be on the road to recovery (whether or not the Administration declares a 'summer of recovery'. Yet here we are stuck in the mud.

You are correct that many in the public would have complained about the govt doing 'nothing. ' That is why we might want to chose candidates more focused on doing the right thing rather than the political expedient or dogmatic adhesion to a radical agenda.

Not even African American, first-time-voters, on welfare, from the South Side support Obama like Esten and Miami Pro.

I obviously enjoy the back and forth and debating issues but now Esten has spoiled it by revealing himself as a fraud.

It's like being with a chica, I like being lied to a little but if she takes it too far, it kind of kills the moment. You know what I mean, the chica that says "ahhhhh siiii! " too much or the Kgirl that keeps telling you how big your noodle is. (well maybe you aren't familiar with the latter)

This spoiled the moment for me:

[QUOTE=Esten;412559]This whole episode we've been through of financial sector failure, followed by successful government intervention via TARP and ARRA will go down in history as one of the greatest validations of Keynesian theory.[/QUOTE]Liberals are not known for their senses of humor, therefore, Esten isn't trying to be funny, he ran out of thing to say, doesn't really believe this and threw it out along with the kitchen sink thinking it sounded like the expected liberal drivel.

Oh well, now that Esten has spoiled the moment, let's review some chicas.

Daily Affirmation.

September 22,2010.

This is my choice: I listen to my inner voice.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412569]Not even African American, first-time-voters, on welfare, from the South Side support Obama like Esten and Miami Pro.[/QUOTE]WW. You have a real problem reading into me. I clearly said that while I did vote for Obama, thinking I was going to get something different. Meaning a more pro progressive agenda. I have been disappointed by lack of desire to see the issues I really wanted fall to the way side. Which became abundantly clear after Rahm Manual made the comments he did regarding the progressive voters. At this point I am not prepared to vote for Barack again in 2012. Of course I will have to see what my options are at that time.

So when you make a comment like that, It clearly shows you have your head stuck in a dark place between your legs.