Would hate to be stuck in a foxhole with some of these spineless democratic Senators. Turning on my man Obama left and right: Bernenke confirmation. To use a phrase coined by a member "cocksuckers."
Printable View
Would hate to be stuck in a foxhole with some of these spineless democratic Senators. Turning on my man Obama left and right: Bernenke confirmation. To use a phrase coined by a member "cocksuckers."
[QUOTE=Esten]I was listening to the Fair and Balanced network this evening, and heard a segment on how Democrats are in "turmoil". There was an audioclip about 2-3 minutes long composed of individual clips of various Democrats speaking on current events. In the middle of this I hear a 10 second clip of some obvious kook calling conservatives vulgar names and claiming certain FOX commentators were involved in 9-11. This short clip did not sound like the others, and did not have any reference to current events. It sounded like it had been spliced in from an audio archive. When I heard it I thought "what the hell was THAT?". BTW this was on O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone".
So what was that? An attempt to make Dems sound kooky by splicing in a kooky clip? A form of psychological programming or association?[/QUOTE]Esten,
Your complaint is that the montage of sound bites was lacking "balance" in that it was inaccurately slanted to make the Leftist / Liberal / Democrats look bad.
In fact, your complaint in itself represents the same type of bias that you are complaining about.
I saw the segment. The montage was a setup for the immediately subsequent interviews Bill O'Reilly did with two avowed liberals, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill and another prominent Dem who's name I do not recall at this time. The interviews were entirely dedicated to allowing said avowed liberals to espouse their reaction to the montage. In fact, there were no Conservative / Republicans participating in the discussion.
The subsequent interviews provided the balance that you are claiming was not provided.
Next time, please relay the full and balanced story yourself.
Thanks,
Jackson
Most americans have been raised (with the exception of the third, fourth and fifth generation welfare recipients) to have big dreams, and big plans and big ideas. With hard work, a lot of luck and an understanding of the concept of delayed gratification accumulating wealth has been an attainable goal.
I would hate to be the person trying to accumulate wealth under Obama's vision of America. After the tax burden passes 50% , 60% , 70% or 80% surviving becomes questionable and accumulating wealth an impossibility.
Of course the sixth generation welfare recipients are oblivious to the ever increasing tax burden. Paying taxes is a concept they have never had to deal with.
Maragaret Thatcher said it best with her observation that the problem with liberals is that sooner or later they run out of other peoples money to spend.
P.S. I forgot. Accumulating wealth is a selfish concept. Much better that we work 80 hours a week to provide welfare checks for those who choose not to work.
[QUOTE=Esten]Much of the post-election news coverage has cited multiple reasons people voted for Brown. And if you had to thread together a common denominator, it would not be healthcare. It would be discontent with government. I think Obama got it just about right. Republicans have attempted to frame the MA election as a referendum on healthcare, declaring Brown's 52% win means "The American People do not want this bill". That's an exaggeration and you guys know it. And even though it was not a referendum, Obama and Dems have already signalled they could change course. I call that reacting not denying.[/QUOTE]With all due respect, Esten, if you don't think this was a referendum on health care, it's only wishful thinking on your part. Democrats in the House and Senate already have concluded that, in fact, it was. That's why they're trying to reunite around a stripped down health care bill where they can at least engage in a charade that they tried to get bipartisan support -- something they didn't do with the last version.
In the immediate aftermath of Massachusetts, there was talk of having the House pass the Senate version unamended, and then having the Senate just give them back some of what they hoped for via amendments that would only require majority (51-vote) support. They have since abandoned that discussion. Why? Because too many House Democrats concluded that it would be political suicide, and they now know that they are quite far down the plank already. If they truly believed that this wasn't about health care, they would pursue that tack. As matters stand, enough House Democrats have come out and publicly stated that they understand it was about health care, so any effort to pass an unamended Senate bill is a non-starter for them.
I said this six months ago on this board: If they don't pass health care by Thanksgiving, it's dead in the water. They got close, but with elections around the corner, they simply can't pass something that: (a) the majority of Americans don't want; and (b) will cause high numbers of opponents to go to the polls to oust them from office. That's what all this is about now: Massachusetts demonstrated that health care will greatly increase voter turnout of its opponents, particularly among independents. When something like this happens in Massachusetts, every Democrat who expected to have even a mildly difficult re-election became nervous.
The trick now will be for Obama to pivot away from health care (without looking like he's abandoning it or licking his wounds) and focus on other things, while convincing enough people that he can genuinely bring change in the post-partisan way he promised. That last bit will be tough, and it's his own fault. He's shown Republicans that they can succeed simply by resolutely standing against his left-leaning agenda, especially when the Administration's response was "*&!*% them, we'll do it without them." He's going to have to modify that approach to have any hope of succeeding, and he's going to need some small victories to convince Republicans that their strategy will not always pay off. It can be done. His "tough" talk on banks is a good first step, but it's going to take some time.
Republicans predicted that health care would be his Waterloo. Obama did more than anyone else to prove them right. When all's said and done, it will be acknowledged that Waterloo was in Massachusetts.
Obama is already making the pivot to the economy and jobs but has already shot himself in the foot with investors with his "tough talk" on the banking and investment industry.
Check the market lately? Worst week since Nov. '08, market dropped 400 points, the start of the reaction to Obama's anti-business "tough talk" and the uncertainty in the Federal Reserve.
What happens when investors and corporations get nervous, they pull back, ie banks don't make loans, companies don't buy capital equipment or invest in new technology, the job market continues to shrink since no one is hiring.
Obama is not leading he is jumping from one issue to another trying to please everyone and pleasing no one. He just does not have a "vision" he only has campaign slogans which is short term and produces nothing.
I agree some of the Democrats are getting the picture and many will just bail out rather than face being turned out by the voters.
Employment is not going to get better before the midterm elections regardless of what the Democrats do now, the crushing debt burden is coming into play (see earlier post on Dems raising the debt ceiling another $1.9 Trillion) and now the market is tanking again on Obama's "tough talk" to those bad old business people. Can anyone say Titanic come November?
[QUOTE=El Alamo]Most americans have been raised (with the exception of the third, fourth and fifth generation welfare recipients) to have big dreams, and big plans and big ideas. With hard work, a lot of luck and an understanding of the concept of delayed gratification accumulating wealth has been an attainable goal.
I would hate to be the person trying to accumulate wealth under Obama's vision of America. After the tax burden passes 50% , 60% , 70% or 80% surviving becomes questionable and accumulating wealth an impossibility.
Of course the sixth generation welfare recipients are oblivious to the ever increasing tax burden. Paying taxes is a concept they have never had to deal with.
Maragaret Thatcher said it best with her observation that the problem with liberals is that sooner or later they run out of other peoples money to spend.
P. S. I forgot. Accumulating wealth is a selfish concept. Much better that we work 80 hours a week to provide welfare checks for those who choose not to work.[/QUOTE]I whole heartedly agree with your narrative and agree we are in over our heads with debt. However, blaming Obama for the 10 - 15 trillion dollar deficit is a stretch for this Gomer. The numbers are mind boggling. Since Obama has taken office, about two trillion has been added to the sickening debt. The primary culprit for Obama's two trillion is the country is in a deep rescession. Revenue loses are the primary culprit for the debt incurred during his time in office. Furthermore, this recession was in the works long before Obama took office. This does not let him off the hook, but the deficit spending for this physical year was in the pipe before he was even elected. Obama has not even submitted his first budget proposal yet.
For reigning in deficit spending: today. The bank bailout money ($700,000,000,000) was approved by the prior idiot's Congress (Republican) and for the most part shall be paid back, I hope. And the stimulus package money, which is Obama's deal ($800,000,000,000) is largely un-spent. Think there is about five hundred billion remaining. Whatever. I will give you the cash for clunkers BS gimmick as a waste, and some of the other BS. However, it is chump change in the scheme of things when considering the national debt. The deficit, real time, now, today, this very moment, is not the present administration's excesses. Please point the finger where it belongs: Republicans.
Being labeled a Liberal with connotations of irresponsibility pisses me off. How in the hell can I / anyone vote, support a bunch of irresponsible fucks that got us in the fix we are in today. Lying, cheating Republican bastards.
Thanks
Jackson- I provided an accurate description of the segment I listened to. After the segment ended I changed the channel.
Your attempt to re-frame my post glosses over the specific point I had an issue with. This was the deliberate inclusion of a ridiculous kooked-out clip in the middle of otherwise fairly standard fare.
This would be comparable to a series of clips of Republicans speaking on current events, and then including in the middle a short clip with a Republican saying "Obama is the devil, and Democrats were responsible for 9-11".
Such a practice is highly questionable, regardless of what follows in the program to provide "balance".
Surely you don't defend such practices. I would not if I saw them on other networks.
Danman, check the facts - while the initial legislation was passed under Bush the majority party in Congress was the Democrats not the Republicans, they lost that durning the midterm elections two years before.
Also the Obama "Stimulus Package" funds are being spent and at an ever increasing pace, within six months or less most of that $800 Billion will be gone - don't you remember all the news reports about the Republicians bitching about the Democrats using the "Stimulus Funds" as a slush fund for pork? Now the Democrats are talking about another "Stimulus" package for "job creation" after the roaring success of "cash for clunkers" you really think that will fly. What about all that infastructure repair - the money is gone but where is the work?
How many years did it take to run up the deficit? - 8 years and Obama has added over $2 Trillion in less than one year. Do the math and the associated projections on spending at this rate.
Looks like the democrats might be able to get the health care bill passed. The house can pass the Senate bill, so it just goes to the president, no way to filibuster. Then they can add a few change to the health care bill and add it to a budget bill, which cannot be filibuster, so all they need is 51 votes.
This will satisfy the house Demarcates so they will pass the senate bill unchanged. The Senate bill will not go back to the senate, but right to Obamas desk.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/23/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Overhaul.html[/url]
Doppelganger,
If you want to talk about the market, don't forget how well it recovered last year.
Here are some facts. Bush inherited a record budget surplus, and turned it into a huge deficit after cutting taxes and not properly funding his initiatives. When Obama took office in January 2009 the CBO was projecting a deficit of $1.2 trillion for the year.
The $787B Recovery Act is considered by economists to have been a worthy step to address this recession. The website recovery.gov was set up to provide transparency on the spending. Roughly a third spent or in process, a third in tax cuts, and a third unspent to date. I've seen and benefited from the infrastructure (highway) improvements myself. And Cash for Clunkers was successful in providing incentives to stimulate a key industry at a critical time, and get fuel-inefficient vehicles off the road.
I agree with Damman. The economic downturn and current deficit is largely (not solely) a Republican gift to the country. Obama and the administration have taken responsible steps, proportional to the severity of the downturn, to stabilize things.
Unfortunately the right is only interested in scoring political points and getting in the way of progress on this issue.
Yes, Bush took a surplus and turned it into a deficit after 8 years of war, I assume you recall that little dust up on 9/11? The fault I have with Bush was not the war but funding it with debt and not paying as we went.
Depending on the economists you talk to the bailout either worked or failed to have a significate effect but only resulted in pork barrel spending in Democratic districts. So it is easy to shop for an economists with your point of view, just as it is for me.
I am not sure how I am expected to be grateful for a market which fell from nearly 15,000 to 6,500 then hobbled back up to 10,600 to begin dropping like a rock again this last week.
Both the Democrats and Republicans are at fault but I see the Democrats getting a big chuck of it due to the housing debacle "lets make housing affordable" bullshit which led to this mess. The Republicans deserve almost as much blame for spending and acting like Democrats after they came to power. Had they acted in concert with their avowed principals of smaller government, lower taxes and less spending we would not be in the mess we are no with the Democrats in control and Obama in constant campaign mode.
We need a leader, which Obama is not, lower taxes, less government programs and meddling in business. The one thing that always floors me is if something goes wrong politicians think we need a new law. What we need is to simplify and reduce the number of laws and ENFORCE them. The Fed and SEC could have stopped this in its tracts years ago by enforcing EXISTING law.
Today a huge commercial real estate development in New York City went into default. They bought an apartment complex for 5.4 billion dollars a few years ago and today it is valued at 1.8 billion. They gave it back to the lenders who will have to eat the loss.
This is the start of the second shoe everyone has been worried about. The wave of commercial real estate defaults coming down the pike.
I am getting on the bus and moving to that cabin in the mountains.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger]The one thing that always floors me is if something goes wrong politicians think we need a new law. What we need is to simplify and reduce the number of laws and ENFORCE them. The Fed and SEC could have stopped this in its tracts years ago by enforcing EXISTING law.[/QUOTE]We have had 200+ years of law making. There are plenty of laws and very few new developments that require special law making. The Constitution is very clear on all men being created equal and other blanket protections. There is no need for most of the legislation that has been enacted over the past 20 years. Governmental interference was certainly the largest force in the economic calamity of 2009/2010 and continued governmental meddling threatens the economy's ability to pull us out of this funk. Government policies driven by the executive branch deepened and exacerbated the Great Depression. Revisionist history incorrectly gives credit for ending the GD to people who made it worse.
Review my aged posts and you will find that I am a proponent of going back to the model that the Founders envisioned of a part-time, citizen legislature. In that model the members of congress are citizens that work for a living in the private sector and spend part-time in Washington addressing pressing legislative issues (not diverting billions of confiscated citizens' wealth to their districts)