Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Open Thread

I hereby declare this blog a Mosque Exclusion Zone.

What else is happening?

UPDATE, 1:46 p.m.: The sudden dropping of the charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is quite an interesting story, isn't it?

By Greg Sargent  |  August 21, 2010; 10:11 AM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments


Why would anyone be against renewing The Bush Tax Cuts?

After all, they did create millions of new jobs.

That is why, at the end of 2008, unemployment figures were so low, almost all unemployment offices around the country were being phased out.


Thanks to The Bush Tax Cuts, we ended 2008 with full employment, and had it not been for those Tax Cuts, we might have very well have experienced a Great Recession, and Millions of People might have lost their jobs, and their life savings.

Tax Cuts: Is There Nothing They Can't Cure?!

Posted by: Liam-still | August 21, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Liam, don't forget that tax cuts, counter-intuitively, increase revenue.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 21, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I got polled by Rasmussen last week and it's hardly a surprise their polls "tilt" Republican. Every question was phrased with the language of Republican talking points and every question was leading. It didn't seem there was anything scientific about it.

Posted by: AllButCertain | August 21, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

"Liam, don't forget that tax cuts, counter-intuitively, increase revenue."

Which, of course, means MORE tax cuts and then EVEN MORE REVENUE and then EVEN MORE TAX CUTS and then ...

I believe Sue & I covered this Magic Money Font yesterday.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 21, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

I went to visit My Doctor recently for a general checkup.

She said that the results were good, for a person so well advanced into old fartdom, and that I would most likely live until I died.

She did however mention, that the test results revealed, that an annual tax cut booster shot would strengthen my immune system, and also pick up after our dog.

Tax Cuts; Tax Cuts: Tax Cuts: They will cure all your ills, and do your pooper scooping for you.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 21, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Weekly Address: No Corporate Takeover of Our Democracy

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/21/weekly-address-no-corporate-takeover-our-democracy

This is important stuff and deserves coverage. O-Man even stole Greg's "shadowy groups" line. Well done, President Obama.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 21, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

It's the Republican healthcare plan. If you need surgery, they just cut off your taxes.

Posted by: AllButCertain | August 21, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

"You can step right up, step right up
That's right, it filets, it chops
It dices, slices, never stops
lasts a lifetime, mows your lawn
And it mows your lawn
and it picks up the kids from school
It gets rid of unwanted facial hair
it gets rid of embarrassing age spots
It delivers a pizza
and it lengthens, and it strengthens
And it finds that slipper that's been at large
under the chaise longe for several weeks
And it plays a mean Rhythm Master
It makes excuses for unwanted lipstick on your collar
And it's only a dollar, step right up
it's only a dollar, step right up
'Cause it forges your signature.
If not completely satisfied
mail back unused portion of product
For complete refund of price of purchase
Step right up
Please allow thirty days for delivery
don't be fooled by cheap imitations
You can live in it, live in it
laugh in it, love in it
Swim in it, sleep in it
Live in it, swim in it
laugh in it, love in it
Removes embarrassing stains from contour sheets
that's right
And it entertains visiting relatives
it turns a sandwich into a banquet
Tired of being the life of the party?
Change your shorts
change your life
change your life
Change into a nine-year-old Hindu boy
get rid of your wife
And it walks your dog, and it doubles on sax
Doubles on sax, you can jump back Jack
see you later alligator
See you later alligator
And it steals your car
It gets rid of your gambling debts, it quits smoking
It's a friend, and it's a companion
And it's the only product you will ever need
Follow these easy assembly instructions
it never needs ironing
Well it takes weights off hips, bust
thighs, chin, midriff
Gives you dandruff, and it finds you a job
it is a job
And it strips the phone company free
take ten for five exchange
And it gives you denture breath
And you know it's a friend, and it's a companion
And it gets rid of your traveler's checks
It's new, it's improved, it's old-fashioned
Well it takes care of business
never needs winding
Never needs winding
never needs winding
Gets rid of blackheads, the heartbreak of psoriasis
Christ, you don't know the meaning of heartbreak, buddy
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon
'Cause it's effective, it's defective
it creates household odors
It disinfects, it sanitizes for your protection
It gives you an erection
it wins the election"

Tom Waits. Step Right up.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 21, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Australian Greens Win First Seat in Election as Vote Surges 50%

"The Australian Greens won its first lower house seat in a general election as support for the party surged almost 50 percent, making it a potential power broker for the nation’s next government. ... “It’s clear the Greens will have the balance of power in the Senate,” party leader Bob Brown said late yesterday after Adam Bandt took the seat of Melbourne from Labor. “In the lower house, results also show we’ll bring both the major parties into the 21st century. People have endorsed greater action on climate change.”

The Greens were boosted after Gillard delayed plans to set up a market mechanism to put a price on carbon to tackle global warming in the world’s driest inhabited continent until after 2012. ... “The government has been punished for its denial on climate change,” Bandt told supporters in televised comments as he claimed the district previously held by retiring Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner. “People have delivered a resounding verdict on climate change. We are opening up a new prospect in the parliament to take definitive action.”"

Don't think it won't happen just because it hasn't happened yet. Jackson Browne.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 21, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I know that this is local for me, but I like this news very much:

Michigan Jobless Rate Drops Again

Michigan’s unemployment rate continued its downward trend in July, dropping a tenth of a percent to 13.1 percent, state officials said Wednesday.
Michigan added 20,000 manufacturing jobs last month as automakers and the suppliers that normally lay off workers in the summer to retool kept the factories running because of strong demand.

“Michigan’s manufacturing job market has stabilized thus far in 2010,” said Rick Waclawek, director of the state’s Bureau of Labor Market Information and Strategic Initiatives.

That’s a far different picture than in 2009, when the state lost nearly 90,000 manufacturing jobs.

July’s report found average weekly hours and earnings rose by nearly 2 percent for transportation equipment jobs and for manufacturing jobs overall. Over the past year, transportation equipment hours have increased by nearly 4 hours a week, to 46.6, while average weekly earnings have risen nearly 4 percent, to $1,383.

http://wwj.cbslocal.com/2010/08/18/michigan-jobless-rate-drops-again/

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 21, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

"An Evening Of Hope with Sarah Palin"

Several people noted the event had to be moved from a 3,000 seat site, to a place that seats just 600 people, and even that small number of tickets have not been purchased.

People People People. It was right there, on the tee for you, and yet no one belted it down the fairway.

So, Quitter Palin; "how is that Hopey thing, working out for ya?"

Posted by: Liam-still | August 21, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Liam, I commented last night that Colbert's "Palin 2012" bumpersticker is having an effect...

"Palin 2012 - Abandon All Hope of Anything Ever Changing"

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 21, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

My Bumper Sticker has always been:

Quitter Palin for President: 2013-2015

Posted by: Liam-still | August 21, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

My Bumper Sticker has always been:

Quitter Palin for President: 2013-2015


Of course that slogan will really resonate with the voters, once all we Quitter Palin backers start chanting:

Two More Years. Two More Years. Two More Years.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 21, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

@Liam...Thanks for continuing to provide some levity for us all.

@Sue...Thanks for providing wonderful news on a Saturday morning about what is happening in Michigan. My wife grew up on a tiny peninsula that extends from Michigan's U.P. called the Keeweenaw peninsula. She took me back, I fell in love with the U.P. (I find all of Northern Michigan beautiful as well as the U.P.) As my wife who must be accused of a bit of provincialism loves to retort to other Great Lake lovers that there is a reason they call "our" lake Superior. :-)

Still Sue I'm thrilled that the Southern working half of Michigan is perhaps recovering..even if ever so slowly.

Now Sue..how about your river...has it healed or is it still despoiled. Perhaps you're as lucky as we on the Gulf Coast where 75% of that oil spill is now gone. SNARK SNARK.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 21, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I have a couple of interesting links. The first is Dean Baker criticizing Bernanke, he knows what needs to be done but won't do it. The second has to do with the deficit commission and Social Security. I know I keep harping on this, but there is mounting evidence they will recommend cuts to SS, and we must put up a fight.

Obama made Social Security an issue last week in his weekly address, but framed the fight in terms of Republicans wanting to privatize it. While that may be true in the sense of their ideal, that is not where the threat is coming from right now. After the election, it will be a different story, I am convinced of it.

http://counterpunch.org/baker08172010.html

http://counterpunch.org/nasser08182010.html

Posted by: lmsinca | August 21, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

@lmsinca I appreciate your fears about Social Security. I like to believe I'm pragmatic and so I never like to rule anything off of the table....but I would NEVER support raising the age or making ANY cuts to Social Security UNTIL...they do away with the most unfair part of our tax code and eliminate the income cap on FICA.

If eliminating the income cap still didn't fix things I'd be open to discussion...but as Krugman has pointed out...S.S. is not insolvent and won't be for a long time...except for the fact that we FUND it specifically with FICA yet count it as an expense in the general budget.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 21, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Got this link from Benen.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/8/19/113223/843

Very scary, disgusting and outrageous. I immediately emailed one of my senators (Whitehouse, RI) and suggest you do the same, especially if you live in a blue district or state where your rep or senator might actually respond.

Posted by: efgoldman | August 21, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Amazing read from Frank Schaeffer, former Right-Wing Evangelical Insider turned Progressive Advocate.

http://frank-schaeffer.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-will-triumph-so-will-america.html

Obama Will Triumph — So Will America:

"Obama’s steady supporters will be proved right. Obama’s critics will be remembered as easily panicked and prematurely discouraged at best and shriveled hate mongers at worst."

...

"The President’s critics left and right all had one thing in common: impatience laced with little-to-no sense of history (let alone reality) thrown in for good measure. Then of course there were the white, snide know-it-all commentators/talking heads who just couldn’t imagine that maybe, just maybe they weren’t as smart as they thought they were and certainly not as smart as their president. He hadn’t consulted them, had he? So he must be wrong!"

...

"After Obama has served two full terms, (and he will), after his wisdom in moving deliberately and cautiously with great subtlety on all fronts -- with a canny and calculating eye to the possible succeeds, (it will), after the economy is booming and new industries are burgeoning, (they will be), after the doomsayers are all proved not just wrong but silly: let the record show that not all Americans were panicked into thinking the sky was falling."

It's WELL worth reading the entire thing. Go do so.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 21, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me, or does Julian Assange look like, just, a totally awesome Bond Villain?

"Do you expect me to give you secret documents about troop movements in Afghanistan, Assange?"

"No, Mr. Bond. I expect you die. Now if I could just get this Wikilaser aimed correctly . . . "

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 21, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

BBQ--Thanks very much for that Frank Schaeffer link. Even 8 months later most of it rings very, very true.

Posted by: AllButCertain | August 21, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Brilliant analysis of Obama's presidency so far by John Judis in the New Republic:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/76972/obama-failure-polls-populism-recession-health-care?page=0,0&passthru=MzM1ZDQ4YmRkZTM1NDBhZDJlNDNiYjg4OTM3OTRhNTk

Posted by: wbgonne | August 21, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I am an Amateur Radio Operator, N6FXB, living in the greatest place ever to be a Ham, Dayton, Ohio. Back when I was a much younger Amateur, a bunch of other Amateurs, all young and full of fun, became utterly disgusted with the behavior of the majority of Amateurs who make up the BIG amateur club, the Dayton Amateur Radio Association, because they were old and fat and didn't know how to have fun and didn't want anyone else to have fun either. So these young, hairy, lean, amateurs went off and founded their own club, the Far Out Amateur Radio Club, which put up a couple repeaters with interesting abilities like the ability to link to an HF station in the Bahamas and a voice Id set that drew lots of attention every year at Hamvention (R) time. One of the guiding principles of this fun loving club was, if the repeater expenses and other club expenses were paid up, and there was a surplus in the club budget, someone was to move that the club have a party, almost always at a Holidome.

The years passed and those lean young amateurs got older, larger, and considerably less hairy, and now all of us qualify as DARA Heavyweights, hams who pull their considerable weight in the operations of DARA, which we always retained membership in. Other youngsters long ago took over the Far Out club and now don't klnow how to have fun at all.

In the intervening yeaqrs those lean young men, most of whom showed distyressing abilities to talk like Republicans, moved off and we lost contact.

Now I know where they went. They were advisors to the republican party, because their approach to a couple dollars extrs in the cl;ub surplus is now the operating theory of the Republican Party.:

What, there's a couple bucks extra in this year's budget? Well then, we better have a tax cut.

Now there is just one problem with this transfer of priorities. The far Out club had a couple of kids whose grandfathers were properly well to do. In fact, one of those grandfathers was L.M. Berry. So THAT club could afford to have a party on any occaision where the budget got a couple dollars ahead.

These kids may also have grandfathers who are L.M. Berry's equal or better in regards to net worth, the problem is that they don't want those grandfathers to pay for the party, they want the poor members of the club to pay for the party, and to pay those grandfathers so that those grandfathers don't get angry about those kids spending the grandfathers' money.

It's not that Republicans object to having fun, it's just that they object to their having fun being paid for by themselves or their grandfathers. It is only fun when you can make the poor Democrats pay for it.

Other than that, ZNN, 73's VA

Posted by: ceflynline | August 21, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Re: "Charlie Cook predicts the GOP will retake the House" [from yesterday's Happy Hour Roundup]

From that WSJ link: "The analysis is significant, not only because Mr. Cook has a strong track record—he correctly called the last wave that brought Democrats into power in the House, in 2006..."

Some would dispute Cook's "predictive powers"; his record is not as consistent as the media likes to pretend it is. In 2006, Cook said:

"Structural barriers are protecting the GOP's majorities like seawalls, and would likely withstand the surge from a Category 1, 2, or 3 storm.

Despite national political trends indicating that the GOP is in serious trouble, a race-by-race "micro" analysis suggests that Democrats cannot easily seize control of the House or the Senate this fall."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/10/843019/-Charlie-Cook:-Not-the-Genius-You-Think-He-Is

That Daily Kos diary goes on to state, after noting that the Democrats won 16 seats more than the 15 Cook said that they could not win, "In other words Charlie, the Democrats did significantly better in November 2006 than the best case scenario you laid out for them in March 2006."

So much for that "strong track record," WSJ.

The Daily Kos dairy further deconstructs Cook's poor (and often Republican-friendly) track record. You should read it when you have a chance, and be sure to take Cook's analyses with a grain of salt, knowing that -- not infrequently -- they miss the mark.

Posted by: associate20 | August 21, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

A post that's been up for more than two weeks on NBC.com says the "burn the Quran day" guy from Florida was charged with possessing child porn.

Of course, he wasn't, or else every other outlet in the country would be all over it. Apparently, the message boards on NBC.com look more or less like the editorial. I only noticed it today because it was linked -- first as a true account, then redacted -- on a popular anti-conservative blog.

http://upalldamnnight.com/?p=1371

Posted by: andrew_graham | August 21, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

ruk: "how about your river...has it healed or is it still despoiled."

Thanks for asking. The clean up continues. I drove by the spot this afternoon. There were crews out mucking through. Lots of dirty boom laying around.

Looks like Enbridge is going to be buying several (as many as 200) riverfront houses/properties. There is major concern about residential wells becoming polluted, also the effects on farmland along the river. There are several family farms adjacent to the river.

It appears that neglect and/or referred maintenance was the reason the pipe burst. Internal corrosion monitors were not working, and in the last inspection, over 250 metal thickness anomolies were found. The damn thing was rotting, apparently. Enbridge was waiting for a response to a request to deferred mandated repairs when the pipe burst. A five foot long length-wise gash. There are supposed to be congressional hearings in DC in September.

You can see some photos of the spill here:

http://www.energyboom.com/policy/oil-infested-waters-pictures-kalamazoo-river-oil-spill

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/99999999/NEWS01/307270024/-1/special&theme=BC_OILSPILL&template=theme

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=A5&Dato=20100806&Kategori=PHOTOGALLERIES05&Lopenr=8060802&Ref=PH

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 21, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

ruk: "Keeweenaw peninsula" and "Lake Superior"

Your wife is right about her lake being Superior! :o) It's truly something. Did you know that there is enough water in Superior to cover both North and South America a foot deep? (!) And copper country Keweenaw! I was there last summer for ten days camping. It was wonderful.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 21, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Greg, but I can't observe the mosque politics ban. Frank Rich has a terrific, spot on column up about the disastrous demagoguing of this by the Murdoch empire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22rich.html?hp

Posted by: AllButCertain | August 21, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne, thanks for that link. I read another post last week that was similar in thought, we lost our edge at the beginning. The country was pissed and ready for big change and we played small ball. Maybe it's a matter of timing or maybe it's a matter of having the wrong priorities, I don't know, but I do know we're in trouble and it's not because of the self-fulfilling prophecy of the professional left. Here's a true story I've been wanting to tell.

Part 1

My son's best friend had a happy and successful life three years ago and it has completely slipped out of his fingers. He voted for Obama and has no idea who Jane Hamsher, Grover Norquist or even Paul Krugman are, but he knows who's in charge of the government now and you can guess who he's going to blame.

He was always a smart kid, gifted program grades 2 through 12, accepted into an accelerated pre-med program at a local University with a direct link to UCLA medical school. Along the way he decided he really wanted to be a fire fighter so changed his major just to get out. Ended up getting a BS in Business Administration and went immediately into a fire academy up in Butte, CA. He graduated third overall out of about 60 students.

He came back to So. Cal and began looking for a job in 1994. He drove an ambulance for a year and finally landed a job in the same community he grew up in. He was thrilled and worked for a year as a cadet at minimum wage and no benefits. Finally, he was promoted to firefighter and about a year later bought a condo. The next year, the city, flush with money, sent 6 firefighters to paramedic school and he was one of them. It was a really tough 6 month accelerated program and he came out of it tied as the top achiever. He met a girl, proposed, sold his condo and bought a small 3 bedroom house using his profits from the condo to upgrade. They married and bought cars, took a couple of vacations and raised her daughter together. She worked for the school district and life was sweet.

He was always eager to work overtime and his house had appreciated in value so they sold and upgraded again with the profits. It was a pretty big step up but he was confident and they also decided the timing was right to add to the family. She was about six months pregnant when he was injured at work. One knee surgery, one more mouth to feed, one less income and eight months on disability with no overtime and they were feeling the pinch. The housing market was still good in 2006 so they sold their house and down graded to save money.

They put $130k down and saved about $300 a month on their house payment by taking out an interest only loan for ten years. They thought it would buy them some time to get mom back to work and pay off the bills from his eight months of decreased income. In 2007 he was promoted to engineer with a slight pay raise and so they were hanging on but just barely.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 21, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Part 2

By June of 2007 the city was beginning to lose revenue and forced the fire department to take a pay/benefit cut effective Jan. 2008. It amounted to about a 5% cut in pay and higher co-pays etc. on medical insurance and less coverage. He’d been putting in $350 a month religiously into his retirement account with the city and felt he needed to continue because his old injury was bothering him again and he didn’t know how long he would last on the job. His wife tried to find work but couldn’t find anything that paid enough to cover child care. House prices were beginning to fall and unemployment was creeping up, remember CA was really hard hit by the sub-prime market and housing was falling apart.

They thought maybe they should sell again but even with the large down payment their house was already underwater so they were stuck. Along with the rest of the country in the fall of 2008 the bottom really fell out and now their house was worth about half of what they paid for it, his retirement lost between 40% and 50% of its value, and the city began pressuring the department to take another 10% cut or lose six firefighters and run 3 man engines instead of 4. In January of 2009 they took the paycut and now his house payment was getting more and more difficult to make every month. Like the rest of middle class America that still had jobs, they began taking more and more drastic measures to cut back, cable, cars, clothes, outside activities for the kids, food and entertainment. They started running up some emergency charges on their credit card.

In June of 2009, he reinjured both knees and went back on a reduced disability income. They began applying for mortgage relief and started making short mortgage payments. After about three months of getting the run around, submitting the same paperwork numerous times, not being assigned a case worker and being generally insulted over the phone (never by the same person), they stopped making payments because they simply didn’t have the income. He had two knee surgeries, one last October and one this March but by June he knew he could no longer do his job and had to take a medical retirement. They’re still in the house a year later, the bank and Freddie keep giving them the run around, they’re credit is shot, finally last week they got the name of their case worker but there’s no number you can call, just email, and they haven’t heard back. It’s week by week now with the bank re-scheduling the auction and after paying off the credit cards with his retirement money, they have enough left for about three months rent and living expenses.

He began looking for jobs on July 1st, applying for anything he could find because his retirement is only about $3000 a month so he needs to work full time obviously. The city hasn’t given him a check yet because of a delay in the paperwork so they haven’t had any income at all since the end of June.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 21, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Part 3

He’s applied for about 400 or 500 jobs and gotten one call back for a part-time bank teller’s job at $9.00 an hour. He doesn’t think they’ll give it to him though because he’s overqualified and they rightly know if and when something better comes along he’ll be out of there.

This is typical of what’s happening out here and most of these people just don’t give a crap about the Tea Party or the Professional Left, they want someone to fix the economy so they can get back to work and start over with their lives. It’s been two years and they're worn out.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 21, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

lms, that's a most distressing story. What may be more distressing in the aggregate is that, given the poisonous climate in the country, people may misguidely vote for the people who brought them this mess given the degree of misinformation that passes as fact.

Posted by: AllButCertain | August 22, 2010 1:30 AM | Report abuse

@sue Glad you could visit the "Copper" country. It's a three day drive for us from Florida but well worth it. Because it is so remote we could actually afford a lakefront cottage on a little cove that faces west. We call it Sunset Cove because Lake Superior sunsets can be spectacular.

The shortest way to drive would be through Chicago/Milwaukee through Wisconsin...but while it's a couple of hours longer we now always make the trip through Michigan because of the beauty. Since my wife took me to the U.P. a dozen years ago I realized how beautiful it is up there...but once we started making the drive through Michigan I was surprised at the beauty of the Northern part of the state. North of Saginaw it get gorgeous in a hurry.

As an aside..Michigan still has functioning government...where government does indeed provide some solutions. Your rest areas are among the best in the nation. Because we depend so heavily on tourism Florida also has an excellent system of rest areas but Michigan's rest areas are actually like roadside parks and each has it's own identity. Kudos to your state Sue....as opposed to Texas where they don't need no stinkin' government to help. Texas and Oklahoma may have the most vile rest areas in the land. Good luck if you have to stop at them. We've literally seen feces and urine overflowing to the point you couldn't walk in them and had to take a crap out behind them because you couldn't get in for the sh&t all over the floor. What can you expect from the state that gave us crooks like Tom Delay and DICK Armey and cretins like Louis Gohmert. It's simply boggles my mind that anyone could ever vote for Gomer. He may say the most incredibly stupid wacked out stuff in all of Congress...and alas not to get personal..but he looks and sounds like such a major doofus as well. I guess Texas must be like Alaska where stupidity and ignorance are an asset to a politician.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 22, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

The 2nd Quarter GDP will be revised downward from 2.4% to 1.4% on Friday.

The Failed Stimulus is not a Controversy. It's a Reality.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Re wikileaks and Assange... NYTimes has a piece this morning which tosses out the idea that this legal matter could make living/working in Sweden more difficult for Assange.

Thanks for linking that piece, Greg. As I said yesterday, this guy has a lot of very powerful institutions who consider him a potentially dire threat to their continuing power, wealth and influence where that relies upon secrecy and cover-up. It's a very important story if these accusations are merely black propaganda. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/world/europe/22wikileaks.html?hpw

Posted by: bernielatham | August 22, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

The 3rd Quarter GDP will come in on the Friday before election day and likely come in at 0% or even negative.

It will be an October Surprise only to those not paying attention.

Double-Dip Recession will be on the minds of the voters going to the polls.

The Failed Stimulus is not a Controversy. It's a Reality.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

"The Failed Stimulus is not a Controversy. It's a Reality."

There is a well-disguised two-story factory building on the east side of Lubbock that extrudes very dim people at previously unachievable rates.

I mean, there must be.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 22, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

"There is a well-disguised two-story factory building on the east side of Lubbock that extrudes very dim people at previously unachievable rates."

Unfortunately, that imaginary factory can be found on the government's website.

It counts that factory as having 'Created or Saved' over 1,500 imaginary jobs.

Meanwhile in the real world:

The Failed Stimulus is not a Controversy. It's a Reality.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

ABC - thanks for the Rich tip. Cute revelation on Pam Geller's earlier theory that Obama was really Malcolm X's love-child. Here's her thinking...

"Barack Hussein Obama Jr Malcolm X Barack Hussein Obama Sr. Barack Hussein Obama Sr., Tom Mboya, and Philip Ochieng, all share common physical features of the Kenyan Luo tribe: Modest stature under six feet, round faces, small chins, wide set eyes, slanted back foreheads, and retracted hairlines…none of these features are shared by Malcolm X and Barack Hussein Obama Jr."

If Larry David was still writing new episodes of Curb, there's a fair chance he'd include Geller in a follow-up bit on the "jew-face" thing.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 22, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie LMAO...there is still hope however...let's all support Governor Goodhair Perry in his attempt to secede from the Union. If Texas and South Carolina could secede the average I.Q. of the nation would shoot up 50-100 points.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 22, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Old Geller bears similar features to a clean shaven Osama Bin Laden. Perhaps he has been hiding in plain plastic surgery daylight, dressed up as Wonder Woman.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 22, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

The 2nd Quarter GDP will be revised downward from 2.4% to 1.4% on Friday.

The Failed Stimulus is not a Controversy. It's a Reality.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 8:57 AM
.................

As opposed to the Bush Tax Cuts stimulus, that delivered no growth, lost millions of jobs, and, turned an annual budget surplus into a massive annual deficit.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 22, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

If it wasn't for that danged failed stimulus gettin in the way, oh, and that gall-darned TARP also too, we'd be livin in economic paradise right now..

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 22, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

If it wasn't for that danged failed stimulus gettin in the way, oh, and that gall-darned TARP also too, we'd be livin in economic paradise right now..

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 22, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"I mean, there must be. "

After spending the last year reading The Plum Line and its comments, I confess that I agree.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 22, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Anyone read Karen Hughes op ed in the Wa Po this morning? Considerably saner than much from the GOP side of things but she still finds a way to argue that it is really up to the Muslim folks here to do the right thing - go somewhere else. It's an etiquette thing.

What she seems to be hoping, though she can't say it or probably can't think it is that these folks will demonstrate and live the most fundamental Christian and American values in the place of all those Americans (particularly the rightwing amoral rabble-rousers) who are beneath such values.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/20/AR2010082002124.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted by: bernielatham | August 22, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

@Washington13 You mean the stimulus worked kind of like the Republican economic plan.

You do realize W13 that the Great Depression followed 3 REPUBLICAN Presidents with their typical R laissez faire policies...yes then it was Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. Decades later after Reagan's voodoo economic policy and the complete ECONOMIC DISASTER that was George Bush we had a second great economic disaster.

Of course to partisan losers the two worst economic disasters occurring under the R watch just happens to be a COINCIDENCE!!!

If you are an R w13 having you comment on economics is like signing up for a lecture on marital fidelity from Tiger Woods.
After such massive failures it simply boggles the mind that R's even make a peep.
They have shown through their results they don't have a freakin clue...ohhh wait..cut taxes...lets see the R economic plan...cut taxes...the R's NEW idea cut taxes...the R mantra demonize government and cut taxes...
ohhh and did we forget...cut taxes.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 22, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Sad piece at the Guardian on the recent PR disaster for the IDF arising from some Facebook postings by a female Israeli soldier (Ha'aretz has had coverage on this I didn't link here). Female soldiers (along with many male soldiers, of course) who have served in the occupied territories have and are speaking out on their experiences and on their personal turmoil from having witnessed the on-going policies of the IDF and Israeli government towards Palestinians:

"I left the army with a ticking bomb in my belly," she said. "I felt I saw the backyard of Israel. I saw something that people don't speak about. It's almost like I know a dirty secret of a nation and I need to speak out."

It's depressing but if you're interested in this matter, it's a worthwhile read, as is the coverage at Ha'aretz.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/22/israel-female-soldiers-gaza-occupation

Posted by: bernielatham | August 22, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Karen Hughes, Newt Gingrich, and Charles Krauthammer are doing Bin Laden's work for him.

He seeks to ignite a Holy War, between Islam and Christianity. Along comes these prominent Right Wing Morons to help him out.

Remember when Bush appointed this Hughes woman, to be his special envoy to the Muslim nations? Bush's Muslim Whisperer, if you will. Never mind that this Texas Banshee knew less about Muslims, than a polar bear does about purchasing a time share condo in Miami.

Karen Hughes, Newt Gingrich, Charles Krauthammer, and Bin Laden all seek to ignite a global holy war. They are all on the same page.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 22, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"particularly the rightwing amoral rabble-rousers"

What do you mean by "amoral"?

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 22, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Bernie,

He apparently concedes that they are "rabble rousers"!

Posted by: Liam-still | August 22, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Der Spiegel piece re America on the way down. The disappearing Middle Class and the redistribution of wealth from all of us to the monied minority...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,712496,00.html

Posted by: bernielatham | August 22, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Flailing, incoherent and historically inaccurate responses manufactured to make the current economic reality more palatable will not change the fact that in the real world:

The Failed Stimulus is not a Controversy. It's a Reality.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca:

A poignant story. Obama may have missed some chances to do Big Things but, unfortunately, there is a distinct possibility that the near future will present him with more opportunities. Desperate times. To paraphrase Judis, when things get ugly the American people get angry and if you are the president you either point at the villain or else you get pointed at. The vital question is whether Obama can adapt his political persona.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 22, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Here's a graph from a typically bright piece by Kinsley on comparisons between the Tea Party thing and the youth movement of the 60's...

"A final difference: although the 1960s featured plenty of self-indulgence, this wasn’t their essence. Their essence was selfless and idealistic: stopping the war; ending racism; eradicating poverty. These goals and some of the methods for achieving them may have been childishly romantic or even entirely wrongheaded, but they were about making the world a better place. The Tea Party movement’s goals, when stated specifically, are mostly self-interested. And they lack poetry: cut my taxes; don’t let the government mess with my Medicare; and so on. I say “self-interested” and not “selfish” because pursuing your own self-interest is not illegitimate in a capitalist democracy. (Nor is poetry an essential requirement.) But the Tea Party’s atmospherics, all about personal grievance and taking umbrage and feeling put-upon, are a far cry from flower power. There is a nasty, sour, vindictive tone to the Tea Party that certainly existed in the antiwar movement and its offspring, but never dominated the atmosphere created by these groups." http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/06/my-country-tis-of-me/8088/

Posted by: bernielatham | August 22, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Amoral?
"having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong"

Posted by: bernielatham | August 22, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

The 2nd Quarter GDP will be revised downward from 2.4% to 1.4% on Friday.

The Failed Stimulus is not a Controversy. It's a Reality.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 8:57 AM
.................

As opposed to the Bush Tax Cuts stimulus, that delivered no growth, lost millions of jobs, and, turned an annual budget surplus into a massive annual deficit.

Of course the Bush/Paulson TARP bailout of The Wall St Casino Banks was also a unqualified success. Thank God, Bush had the sense to send Henry Paulson up to The Hill, and have him get down on his Knees(You all remember that) to plead for The TARP bailout of The Wall St Robber Barons.

That move really jumped started the economy, didn't it!

Posted by: Liam-still | August 22, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

@Washington21 - I'm sorry. I hadn't noticed earlier that you'd used capitalization of key words in your slogan. This adds heft, poignancy and authority to what you say and I ought to have acknowledged the subtle intelligence behind such argumentation.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 22, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Great Der Spiegel piece, Bernie. You may want to read it Ims as there are stories similar to your son's friend in there. This excerpt bears note:

"The boom in stocks and real estate, the country's wild borrowing spree and its excessive consumer spending have long masked the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans derived almost no benefit from 30 years of economic growth. In 1978, the average per capita income for men in the United States was $45,879 (about €35,570). The same figure for 2007, adjusted for inflation, was $45,113 (€35,051).

Where did all the money go? All the enormous market gains and corporate earnings, the profits from the boom in the financial markets and the 110-percent increase in the gross national product in the last 30 years? It went to those who had always had more than enough already.

While 90 percent of Americans have seen only modest gains in their incomes since 1973, incomes have almost tripled for people at the upper end of the scale. In 1979, one third of the profits the country produced went to the richest 1 percent of American society. Today it's almost 60 percent. In 1950, the average corporate CEO earned 30 times as much as an ordinary worker. Today it's 300 times as much. And today 1 percent of Americans own 37 percent of the total national wealth. Income inequality in the United States is greater today than it has been since the 1920s, except that hardly anyone has minded until now."

Trouble ahead. Big trouble.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 22, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong"

How do you know they are amoral as opposed to simply having different "tastes" in morality than you?

(Recall that you liken moral notions to tastes in art or food, there being, according to you, no truth value to moral claims outside the mind of the observer.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 22, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans Are The Ones Who Made It Impossible To Block The Center.

Such Delicious Irony!

From The Chicago Tribune:

"When GOP gave aid to Muslims
A 2000 law favors the ground zero mosque.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0822-chapman-column-20100820,0,1147455.column

Ten years ago, Republicans in Congress passed a major law to protect the right of Muslims to establish mosques even where such a building might be unwelcome. Yes, they did. They just may not have thought of it quite that way at the time.

The law, called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, was aimed at a common problem often ignored by the courts: local government bodies using zoning authority to prevent religious institutions from moving in or expanding their operations.

It had the support of such groups as the Christian Legal Society and the Family Research Council. Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., said it was aimed at "the well-documented and abusive treatment suffered by religious individuals and organizations in the land use context." Sen. Orrin Hatch, R- Utah, pushed it because, he said, "At the core of religious freedom is the ability for assemblies to gather and worship together."

Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that permitting the construction of the center would show "weakness and submission" to our enemies.

Carl Paladino, who is running for governor of New York in the GOP primary, has vowed to seize the land. Pamela Geller, head of Stop Islamization of America, urged the city to give landmark status to the existing building to kill the proposal.


But had the city used its landmarking power to kill the project, it would have faced a court challenge. And thanks to the 2000 law, it would probably lose.

The law says, "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution," unless it meets very strict conditions. Nor may any government inflict a regulation that discriminates "on the basis of religion or religious denomination."

Posted by: Liam-still | August 22, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Republicans passed the law. Now they seek to demonize a group who has that law on their side.

There is a prime example of Republican Amorality being played out, right before your very eyes.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 22, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - how do you know that the individuals I refer to are not classic example of the sociopathology which has, as one of its manifestations/indicators, an absence of moral constraints?

Posted by: bernielatham | August 22, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Nice catch Liam. Thanks for sharing. 400% of your daily allowance of irony in a few short paragraphs.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | August 22, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Policy idea of the day:

"Republican candidate for governor Carl Paladino said he would transform some New York prisons into dormitories for welfare recipients, where they could work in state-sponsored jobs, get employment training and take lessons in “personal hygiene.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/22/gop-ny-prison/

Nice touch, that last bit.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 22, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Props to Mr. Gregory for taking McConnell to the woodshed for not actually answering a single question today.

Posted by: eadsiv | August 22, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Have a good day, all. Particularly those not the subject of prayer.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 22, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"how do you know that the individuals I refer to are not classic example of the sociopathology which has, as one of its manifestations/indicators, an absence of moral constraints?"

You have dodged the question. I wonder why that is.

In any event, since you didn't specify any individual, I don't know. However, knowing the people you have called "amoral" in the past (Murdoch, Ailes), I'm guessing they don't.

Still, the question stands. How do you know these (unnamed) people do not simply have a different "taste" in morality than you?

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 22, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

The real economic data continues to overwhelm the infantile petulance of the disillusioned left who struggles daily to convince the citizenry that what's happening to them isn't really happening to them or if something bad is happening to them, it's someone else's fault.

The Failed Stimulus is not a Controversy. It's a Reality.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

w13 We now realize your lack of intellectual heft. You are unaware of U.S. History.

"Flailing, incoherent and historically inaccurate responses manufactured to make the current economic reality more palatable will not change the fact that in the real world:"

And ignoring facts doesn't change anything either. Please point out the historical innaccuracy...were there or were there not 3 consecutive R presidents leading up to the Great Depression. Do you challenge that fact? More importanly they embraced the same old tired R rhetoric...no taxes..gov't bad..no regulation..trust the foxes on Wall Street to guard the henhouse.

Do you deny the FACT that the Bush presidency ended with the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. What part of these two statements of historical fact do you dispute.

Again...having an R spew about economics is ludicrous. w13 you have no credibility so rant on.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 22, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Found this post @ Greenwald re: Soc. Sec. and the Obama Admin being as much (if not more) of a threat to reduce benefits as the GOP. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/16/democrats/index.html

Any folks here care to comment on this?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | August 22, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I'd be very interested to hear what W13 (and any of the resident GOPers) would prescribe (NOT proscribe) to reduce unemployment.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 22, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

On they day, President Obama was elected, the unemployment rate was 6.8%.

What was a normal recession, became a Great Recession when employers decided to massively increase layoffs as a result of Obama's election.

Business will not hire as long as the current Administration continues to cause the Great Recession with high taxes and socialized medicine.

GDP Reports and Unemployment Reports will continue to show two long years after his election the abject failure of Obama's economic policies.

History is the enemy of the left who dream that President Obama is somehow going to achieve the electoral re-election success of Reagan even as he is replicating the historical ineptness of Carter.

In 1983 and 1984, America had four consecutive quarters where GDP was 8% or higher with one quarter at 9.3%.

Remember this as 2Q10 GDP is revised down to 1.4% and 3Q10 GDP hits 0% or -0.5%.

Remember this as 2011 and 2012 continue in economic malaise all thanks to President Obama.

The Failed Stimulus is not a Controversy. It's a Reality.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Scott -- do you agree with W13?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 22, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

To Reduce Unemployment, give business a reason to hire and retain employees:

1) Do not allow taxes to rise in 2011. Business is factoring the increases in and not hiring as a result.

2) Repeal the business crippling mandates of Obamacare. Business will not hire new employees that require compliance with profit destroying mandates.

3) Reduce the Payroll Tax in order to allow business to keep more of their money to hire.

4) Stop pushing for an Energy Bill that will increase the burden on business by taxing the fuel they use to power their industry and transport their merchandise. Business will not expand with this looming burden.

5) Create certainty in the Tax Rate rather than false incentive in Tax Rebates. Tax Rate reductions create incentive for business to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Tax credits are one time checks that are miniscule and banked rather than spent. Tax credits are nothing to plan on. Tax Rate reductions are.

6) End the Failed Stimulus program which is currently absorbing the majority of the loans to fund government projects and as a result leaving small business on the short end because they can not compete with the government in getting money from lenders.

7) End the policies put in place by the community reinvestment act in the late 70's. As long as banks are required by the government to give loans on homes to people who have no way of paying them back, the home builder's industry and the bank lending structure will continue to be vulnerable to another collapse and thus hold back on any real long term investment due to the risk.

All in all, do the opposite of the current administration that is causing high unemployment with their policies.

Otherwise, the continued reality of the failed policies of the Obama Administration will cause millions of Americans to continue to suffer.

The Failed Stimulus is not a Controversy. It's a Reality.


Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

er, uh, wasn't some of the bailout begun under W.?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | August 22, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60:

"Scott -- do you agree with W13?"

About what?

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 22, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Let me try to summarize:

1. Increase the deficit by giving more tax cuts to rich people.

2. Increase the deficit and ignore the plight of 40 million Americans without health insurance.

3. Increase the deficit through another tax cut for the rich.

4. Ignore climate change and renewable energy and expand American reliance on the international oil and gas oligarchy and oligopoly.

5. Increase the deficit through another tax cut for the rich.

6. Middle class tax increase.

7. False premise and nonsense.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 22, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Uhhh w13 you do realize how far your head is up your arse statistically don't you?

First there is the famous jobs lost chart that shows dramatically how badly we were hemorrhaging jobs during the Bush Admin and how dramatically that turned around AFTER Obama took office. These are FACTS w13 how do you argue with facts...ohhh I forgot your a republican...that would explain it...

CHART OF THE DAY: It's Official: Obama Is Creaming Bush When It Comes To Jobs

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administration-2010-2#ixzz0xM2GKoOY

The lost decade for the economy
The U.S. economy has expanded at a healthy clip for most of the last 70 years, but by a wide range of measures, it stagnated in the first decade of the new millennium. Job growth was essentially zero, as modest job creation from 2003 to 2007 wasn't enough to make up for two recessions in the decade.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/01/01/GR2010010101478.html

I realize w13 you find it hard to respond to ACTUAL FACTS..and so you better stick to the R's only line of attack...symbolism...bring on the death panels...anchor babies..ground zero mosques and whatever else because the R's are easily documented as the biggest losers on the economy in our history.

As for your .1) point...do not let taxes rise...are you talking about the 36 billion that will go to the top 1% ..because hopefully you understand that the so called "failed stimulus" included the largest middle class tax cut in our nation's history. As a small businessman I could give you a very explicit example of how that helped our small business and it's employees..but that would be fact based w13 so let's go back to arguing something you R's seem ready to do...again the symbols...the President wasn't born in this country...he is a Muslim....ohhh for the day the R's go the way of the Whigs so our country would have at least a fighting chance of recovering our former greatness which has been so thoroughly sapped by R governance for 20 of the 28 years that proceeded Obama. And I'm sure w13 you don't wish to admit that the only break from deficit spending during that period came under a D not an R!

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administration-2010-2

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 22, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

cm60:

"Let me try to summarize:"

Forgive me. For a moment I thought you were actually interested in what I think.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 22, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

"Let me try to summarize:

1. Increase the deficit by giving more tax cuts to rich people.

2. Increase the deficit and ignore the plight of 40 million Americans without health insurance.

3. Increase the deficit through another tax cut for the rich.

4. Ignore climate change and renewable energy and expand American reliance on the international oil and gas oligarchy and oligopoly.

5. Increase the deficit through another tax cut for the rich.

6. Middle class tax increase.

7. False premise and nonsense."

The tired and false rhetoric may go over well in leftist circles, but employers do not think like children who live in a world of fantasy.

Employers live in the real world.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

If it's August 2010 and your are linking to opinion pieces in January 2010 rather than focusing on the current real economic data, then you are not speaking factually, you are pandering to an alternative universe.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

"The tired and false rhetoric may go over well in leftist circles, but employers do not think like children who live in a world of fantasy."

What was false?

Let me try this -- Would you agree that capitalist employers only hire when to do so would increase profits? (Not a trick question)

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 22, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

How about the real world w13.

By the end of the Bush Administration the economy was in such shambles that REPUBLICAN candidate John McCain felt the need to hurry back to DC. It was perceived almost universally as a crisis. Fears of the 25% unemployment that came with the Great Depression were running rampant. Stories abounded with the meme...is this the next depression. Do you have alzheimers w13 or perhaps you are indulging in that time honored 'liberal" pastime of smoking dope. Whatever..talk about massive memory loss.

I'm not Joe the Freaking Plumber..some manufactured character. I actually own a small business (5 fulltime 3 part time employees). The Bush crash had our business in the sh*tter well before Obama took office!!!

Here is how the stimulus tax cut worked in the real world. We couldn't afford to give our employed a raise. The tax cut that came with the stimulus enabled each of our employees to keep an additional 3% of their take home pay. This was a total win win for our small business. It meant we didn't have to budget 5% (we would have had to add taxes to any raise we gave) for each employee...it saved us money in a time of need and enabled our employees to still see a raise.

Are you able to understand how that worked in the real world or are you so blinded by partisan ignorance you simply refuse to comprehend. We are impressed with your vocabulary w13 so you're obviously educated...except in economics and current politics!!!!

BTW. After falling by 5% during Bush's final year our gross has now rebounded with a 3% growth last year and we're on schedule for a 5% growth this year. All you R's yammering about small business are clueless about small business. Tax cuts for people making 1,000,000 have ZERO to do with small business!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 22, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I recommend going door to do this fall, repeating everything your just wrote, concluding it with a "You're Welcome" and see where that gets you with people who know they can't pay bills or plan for the future with falsehoods from leftists.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Scott, no, cmc doesn't care what you think. These liberals aren't interested in thinking at all. Thus, his mindless talking point response to W13.

I see that ruk also remains as economically, historically, and forensically illiterate as ever. It would be comical, if the consequences of such nonthinking were not so tragic for the country, to see people continue to propogate such transparent nonsense.

The Great Depression primarily resulted from Smoot Hawley, inept deflationary Fed policy, and the aftermath of WWI (primarily European repudiation of debts). It had nothing to do with "...no taxes..gov't bad..no regulation..trust the foxes on Wall Street to guard the henhouse," which is nothing but ahistorical claptrap. Smoot Hawley essentially wrecked the Atlantic economy, and hurt the domestic economy just as many economists warned it would, while the Fed strangled the money supply and drove banks under.

Hoover in no way governed as a laissez faire economic conservative. He SUPPORTED and SIGNED Smoot Hawley -- protectionism, a mainstay of LIBERAL DEMOCRATS to this day. He embarked on huge government intervention and bailout programs urged by the progressives of the day -- much like what the Obamacrats have foisted upon us. Look it up, historically ignorant liberals. These foolish tactics only worsened the problems, leading, for example, to disastrous oversupply of agricultural products. Look it up, liberals. It looked much like Obamanomics in significant respects -- politicized bailouts and loans, government takeover of industry . . . sound familiar?

FDR fueled the fire with his panoly of foolish programs of price and supply controls, punishing taxes, and war on business. He even jailed businessmen for charing prices below legally mandated industry codes. It was crazy, terrible economics that prolonged the agony, but was great for dividing the country and perpetuating electoral success by demonizing "the haves" and businesses that actually create prosperity.

Nor was George Bush's presidency remotely an era of laissez faire market freedom. Far from it, the growth of the regulatory, welfare, redistriutionist state continued unabated, under a President who was economically moderate at best and a Congress under de jure or de facto control of Democrats most of the time. The 2008 recession was primarily caused, like the Great Depression, by inept big government economic regulation and engineering (see CRA, Fannie, Freddie), and Democrats did all they could to stifle growth and prosperity.

I am convinced that no one who is of sound mind and moderate intelligence believes the tropes of liberal "economics." It is just a set of deceptions and fantasies fashioned, by people who do not believe in freedom or free markets to begin with, to dupe bitter and envious people into intellectual and political servitude. And people like the liberals on this blog -- including its proprietor -- prove just how effectively it misleads.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 22, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Maybe I should print out what you just wrote and tape it to the windows of the closed businesses that line the streets of my city. Businesses that closed this year.

Or maybe I should print out what you just wrote and hand it to members of my family or friends who have had to apply for Unemployment this year for the first time in their life.

This economic reality is more real than the fake business you are using as a tactic to try to justify the failed policies of this administration.

Your lack of understanding of basic economics sounds like the lack of understanding of basic economics that is running this administration, which is why the economy of this nation is currently failing so miserably.

No matter how much you try to fight the reality, it is not going away. It is happening right in front of your eyes. Everyone else sees it.

Turn on CNBC, Bloomberg, FBN, CNN Money.

Read the Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily or even Yahoo! Finance.

Better yet, leave your home and look around.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

And so I take it Q.B. that you assume the fact that unemployment dropped from 25%-15% COINCIDENTALLY after "FDR fueled the fire with his panoly of foolish programs"

And when cautious conservatives in Congress forced FDR to concentrate on deficit spending and the U.S. stopped stimulating the economy it stuck at 15% until the ultimate Gov't spending program WWII bailed us the rest of the way out of the hole.

I also suppose you guys think the fact that wealth distribution again COINCIDENTALLY reached the same (almost exactly) unequal proportion it was just before 1929 has nothing to do with today's current crisis.

And w13 you are foolish. I gave you a REAL WORLD example of what Obama's tax cut provided my small business and your response is..go door to door...and because I'll run into morons like Joe the Plumber I'm supposed to think that is an argument?

I can guarantee you that extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest amongst does nothing to help the very people you and GOPTV take advantage of every chance you get with misdirection and out and out lies like "death panels" "he's a Muslim" etc.

Why do you and Q.B. hate Americans who are not earning one million or more a year?

And please don't give me anymore of your "voodoo economics". Supply side economics has been exposed as the farce it was by many many economists including more than a few who were originally proponents such as Bruce Bartlett who was one of Reagan's top advisors. Why do you suppose he changed his mind? Is an arch conservative suddenly now a liberal or has he simply looked at facts.

One tariff agreement...Smoot Hawley is the primary reason for the Great Depression...there wasn't any rampant speculation going on in the Stock Market.

OMG you guys are experts at revisionist history. Of course 50 years from now frighties will be arguing that DICK Cheney wasn't really for torture and that yes there were WMD in Iraq and wow what a wonderful idea to ship billions to foreigners while we remain the LAST civilized country on earth to fail to provide decent healthcare for our citizens.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 22, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Q.B.,

Don't waste your breath.

Mindless leftist inanity always seems to find its' way into a discussion about economics where only one side lives in the real world and the other side has to make things up to protect the current administration.

I'm sure that will make the citizenry of this nation feel at ease, when the GDP report comes out on Friday showing 1.4% growth in 2Q10 or when the 3Q10 GDP comes out showing negative growth on October 28th.

The left can't win a debate that they have already lost.

The Failed Stimulus is not a Controversy. It's a Reality.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

W13,

I know. I've been around the horn with ruk and fellow numbskulls many times. They regurgitate the talking points they hear and nurse their grudges against everyone who earns more than they do. You notice how ruk abandons his original claims and dodges the issue as soon as someone calls him out with specific facts in response to his balderdash talking points?

The Obamunists will be blaming Bush forever, while their own disastrous policies continue to crush the economy and put us trillions more in hock. They are literally destroying the economy. This isn't rhetoric like they still use about Bush. They live in a fantasy world of inverted realities, where higher taxes, punishment of sucess, central planning, class warfare, etc., lead to prosperity, even while, as you remind them, the numbers prove they are killing hope of recovery and prosperity.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 22, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Ruk,

You should try to find a conservative who thinks your employees' taxes shouldn't have been cut, and argue with him. Good luck with that.

Your assertion that tax cuts for people or businesses earning a million up have nothing to do with small business is one of the most ludicrous I've ever seen. Just too ridiculous for any serious person even to entertain.

Oh, btw, Smoot Hawley wasn't an "agreement." But I'm not surprised you thought it was.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 22, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

QB

Your assertion that tax cuts for people or businesses earning a million up have nothing to do with small business is one of the most ludicrous I've ever seen. Just too ridiculous for any serious person even to entertain.

That's good then Q.B. you won't have to explain it because it's clear you are not a serious person. Blaming the Great Depression on Smoot Hawley is just classic.
Of course that's why all those idiots back then...including R's felt the need to create..let's see what do you call it..."FDR fueled the fire with his panoply of foolish programs" Yes I think we can all agree Q.B. that the S.E.C....F.D.I.C. banking regs like Glass Stegall..and of course the favorite whipping boy of all you selfish conservatives Social Security are all "foolish programs." And you wonder why we all laughed so hard when Georgie frat boy coined the ultimate oxymoron.."compassionate conservative"

And so perhaps Q.B. you'd like to explain which of those programs you view as foolish..perhaps you can explain why anyone felt the need to create mechanisms to control rampant speculation when it was really Smoot Hawley and the end of WWI that caused the Great Depression.

And btw...can you even read Q.B.? I referred to Smoot Hawley thusly...
"One tariff agreement...Smoot Hawley"
It was a tariff and I was speaking of Congresional agreement to enact that tariff.

But actually Q.B. that's the closest you come to something substantive in the past three months...mostly you speak in broad sweeping generalities without ANY substance...e.g.

I know. I've been around the horn with ruk and fellow numbskulls many times. They regurgitate the talking points they hear and nurse their grudges against everyone who earns more than they do. You notice how ruk abandons his original claims and dodges the issue as soon as someone calls him out with specific facts in response to his balderdash talking points?

The Obamunists will be blaming Bush forever, while their own disastrous policies continue to crush the economy and put us trillions more in hock. They are literally destroying the economy. This isn't rhetoric like they still use about Bush. They live in a fantasy world of inverted realities, where higher taxes, punishment of sucess, central planning, class warfare, etc., lead to prosperity, even while, as you remind them, the numbers prove they are killing hope of recovery and prosperity.

Whew lots of facts to digest there Q.B.
My original post actually had links to support facts...but as usual Q.B. you're all opinion and no facts.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 22, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Q.B.

"You should try to find a conservative who thinks your employees' taxes shouldn't have been cut, and argue with him. Good luck with that."

WTF is that supposed to mean. I'm not arguing that conservatives don't think their employees taxes should be cut....geeshhh..
I'm pointing out to people like w13 who suggest Obama has raised taxes that is simply ignorant, disingenuous, or an out and out lie.

The point Q.B. is that the morons on your side..Joe the Plumber..Sister Sarah..w13 cannot understand REALITY...Obama's stimulus plan contained the largest MIDDLE CLASS tax cut in our history. Sorry it didn't go to the top 2% the way the R's would like.

Run Forrest Run! LMAO

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 22, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Assange?

He's dead isn't he?

If he isn't he should be.

Just a matter of time and those ol'boys in Malmo are going to discover there's some sort of reward on him and they'll collect.

They don't care.

Actually, the Swedes don't care either.

They can be so accommodating when it gets rid of a problem.

Posted by: muawiyah | August 22, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

QB,

I've worked 10 hours of overtime since January 2009. Earning 18% less in 2009 and 2010 than I did in 2008.

I had 400 hours of overtime in 2008.

Everyone in my family had a job in 2008. Today, 3 have been unemployed since June of 2009.

Property taxes were 20% less in 2008.

Gasoline taxes were 5% less in 2008.

The sales tax was 2% less in 2008.

Medical Premiums were 10% less in 2008.

That $5 per week is really making up the difference.

"The largest middle class tax cut in American history" is a false line spewed by people who can't hear the train as their car is stalled on the tracks.

Grab some popcorn (even though it costs more in 2010) and watch.

The train arrives on November 2nd.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

QB,

Obama has created a business environment that is causing millions of Americans to suffer unnecessarily.

He throws us scraps from his table and his loyal court jesters dance for his amusement.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

The left can't win a debate that they have already lost.

The Failed Stimulus is not a Controversy. It's a Reality.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

w13 Sorry now we can see where you are coming from...the manure factory. You can't just make up BS here and get away with it.
You've watched far too much Fox where they do get away with lying repeatedly and their sheeple audience doesn't really care..whether it's putting up fake pics of crowds at a Glen Beck Rally or false video of a Sarah Palin bookstore appearance.

You have mentioned NOTHING that has to do with the Federal Government or Obama ...but does have to do with the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression...which again COINCIDENTALLY happened during Bush's last year in office. Can you loons not see how absurd it is to watch one administration take 8 years to literally destroy our economy and then preach at the next admin because they haven't fixed it in 18 months.
You people are real pieces of work.

"I've worked 10 hours of overtime since January 2009. Earning 18% less in 2009 and 2010 than I did in 2008.

I had 400 hours of overtime in 2008."

You're suggesting that this economic disaster didn't arrive until 2009. That's simply FALSE!!!! You are either making stuff up...lying on purpose..or perhaps more generously you are simply ignorant.

"Everyone in my family had a job in 2008. Today, 3 have been unemployed since June of 2009."

According to the Repubican party that's because your family belongs to that group of lazy people who simply won't get off their arses and find work...you know Glen Beck's favorite whipping boys. Are you suggesting the R's are wrong?

"Property taxes were 20% less in 2008.'

Wow...I don't use this term in criticism but simple truth...you are ignorant..literally. Property taxes are controlled by local counties/municipalities not the Federal Gov't. In most cases falling property values have meant FALLING property taxes a huge problem for states as they try to balance their budgets. Some arsebackward states like S.C. (remember they are represented by intelligentia like Demented and wilson) have yet to adjust appraisals to reflect the market but most have.
Whatever this is not Obama's doing. Move to a different state.

"Gasoline taxes were 5% less in 2008."

Again a tax more indicative of the states than the Feds

"The sales tax was 2% less in 2008."

When did Obama initiate a sales tax?
Again w13 you live in a sorry state could you tell us which state has not matched property appraisals to the market AND raised their sales tax 2% as well. LINKS PLEASE!..IF..and what a big IF you are not engaging in hyperbole.

"Medical Premiums were 10% less in 2008."
The most brain dead assertion of all...premiums have been rising in double digits for years...not the fault of Bush or Obama but a broken system.

"The largest middle class tax cut in American history" is a false line spewed by people who can't hear the train as their car is stalled on the tracks."

Can you read w13?
http://www.appomattoxnews.com/2009/on-tax-day-largest-middle-class-tax-cut-is-taking-effect.html

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 22, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196.html

Let's see...since Q.B. and w13 question my historical accuracy we'll let them tell us who left office in 1999 after 8 years in office and who was sworn into office for 8 years.

You R's had 8 years to screw up the economy...we expect 8 years clean up your gargantuan messes!

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 22, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

The left can't win a debate that they have already lost.

The Failed Stimulus is not a Controversy. It's a Reality.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Wow. That baloon juice video from the hatefest going on in Manhattan over the community center is rough.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/08/22/black-muslim-same-difference/

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 22, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

QB,

This guy seems to be a bit unbalanced.

Perhaps he has a large collection of tinfoil hats.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

"The 2008 recession was primarily caused, like the Great Depression, by inept big government economic regulation and engineering (see CRA, Fannie, Freddie), and Democrats did all they could to stifle growth and prosperity."

True to form, qb says "let them eat cake". It's our own fault we took out those pesky predator loans and forced the banks and credit rating agencies to pawn them off on the rest of the world.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 22, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

The left can't win a debate that they have already lost.

The Failed Stimulus is not a Controversy. It's a Reality.

Posted by: Washington13
========

We have a robot posting here, apparently. How many times have these same unoriginal lines been posted here today?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 22, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

@Suek

How's the river in Kalamazoo...not dumping oily crap into Lake Michigan I hope.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 22, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

If you care to tune into economic reality you can watch:

CNN Money
CNBC
Fox Business
Bloomberg

or you can read:

The Financial Times
The Wall Street Journal
Investor's Business Daily
Yahoo! Finance

or you can:

Leave the house.
Drive around the neighborhood
Talk to Family (if you have any)
Talk to Friends (if you have any)

There are so many ways to get informed and learn about the awful and worsening economic conditions as a result of a Failed Stimulus by the current administration.

Posted by: Washington13 | August 22, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

lms:

"True to form, qb says "let them eat cake"."

In what possible sense could the quotation you cited from qb be interpreted as saying "let them eat cake"?

Or is this just the standard lib tactic of demonizing as uncaring those who dare to disagree with them?

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 22, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Troops Punished After Refusing to Attend Evangelical Concert:

http://www.truth-out.org/troops-punished-after-refusing-attend-evangelical-concert62504

Posted by: akaoddjob | August 22, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Here was ruk's original "argument":

"You do realize W13 that the Great Depression followed 3 REPUBLICAN Presidents with their typical R laissez faire policies...yes then it was Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. Decades later after Reagan's voodoo economic policy and the complete ECONOMIC DISASTER that was George Bush we had a second great economic disaster."

How many fallacies and historical errors can you spot? Let's try a few.

Laissez faire and Hoover? Please go ahead and make that case. Don't forget to explain his signing of Smoot Hawley, the birth of RFA, and his disastrous agricultural subsidy program through the Farm Board. And don't forget to explain how the Fed's strangling of the money supply is laissez faire economics.

Then you skip to today's "economic disaster," which you characterize only as following Reagan and GW Bush. Well, gee, what happened to Clinton? And why not relate it to Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and the Great Society, etc.? Why don't you discuss the key role of government social engineering through bank regulation and litigation -- by such liberal heroes as Kennedy, Frank, Dodd, and Obama? Because, of course, you aren't making an argument with any rational or historical integrity. You are just spewing rhetoric and name calling.

And why don't you make a case about the specific policies that caused this "disaster," rather than just saying that a Republican was President when it happened? Why don't you put blame on the Democrats who controlled Congress and were resisting reform and regulation of their pet projects, and claiming they were doing fine right up until the bottom fell out?

It takes someone either supremely ignorant or supremely demogogic and contemptuous of truth to claim that the Bush years were an era of laissez faire. I judge that you meet both criteria, because you prove it over and over with absurdities like those above.

You also skip over the economic disaster of the 1970s. Now, why is that, I wonder. You are old enough to remember stagflation -- unemployment, inflation, and interest rates all skyrocketing under the very same big government, Keynesian approach you advocate. Coincidence? No, just lack of intellectual integrity on your part.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 22, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Later, ruk said:

"Of course that's why all those idiots back then...including R's felt the need to create..let's see what do you call it..."FDR fueled the fire with his panoply of foolish programs" Yes I think we can all agree Q.B. that the S.E.C....F.D.I.C. banking regs like Glass Stegall..and of course the favorite whipping boy of all you selfish conservatives Social Security are all "foolish programs."

Tsk, tsk, ruk, your lack of intellectual honesty is showing again. My sentence said: "FDR fueled the fire with his panoly of foolish programs of price and supply controls, punishing taxes, and war on business."

No doubt there were a few Depression-era reforms that at least in principle were a good idea, or at least a good case can be made for them. But kinds of programs and policies I actually mentioned were a misguided disaster in almost every respect. The NRA, the massive New Deal agricultural subsidy and control program, gargantuan make-work programs and government planning projects like TVA, passing and raising punitive taxes -- these indeed prolonged the disaster and did permanent economic harm. There really isn't much room for debate about that. I understand you'd rather talk about FDIC and SEC, because you can't defend the kinds of policies to which I actually referred in the sentence that you deliberately partially quoted. You don't engage in honest debate, because your positions are bankrupt.

"And so perhaps Q.B. you'd like to explain which of those programs you view as foolish.."

I did; you ignored and misrepresented my comment.

"perhaps you can explain why anyone felt the need to create mechanisms to control rampant speculation when it was really Smoot Hawley and the end of WWI that caused the Great Depression."

A few comments about this. First, you would have to define what you mean by speculation, what is wrong with it, and what was necessarily done to stop it. If by speculation you mean investing based on one's prediction of future value of something, speculation is always present and is the nature of a trading market. If you mean some sort of stock market "bubble" or "irrational exuberance" caused the Great Depression, you just don't have much of a grasp of the historical facts or the economics (but what else is new). Real economic growth was spectacular in the mid to late 20s. The market, from what have read on the subject, largely reflected that growth and its expected continuation.

But economists have also shown that, when it began to falter and crash, it did so in direct correlation to the prospects of Smoot Hawley as it was debated and ultimately passed. Imagine that. Business people and investors actually paid attention to and appreciated the likely disastrous effects of the tariff.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 22, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

"One tariff agreement...Smoot Hawley'

You called it that. I didn't put the words in your mouth.

And it isn't only your calling it an "agreement" that betrays your ignorance. You refer to it as if it were just "one" insignificant tariff that had no economic impact. It was in fact very braod based, and very high. It drastically and quickly impacted trade and global economic growth. It drastically impacted the US and Europe. Those are "facts," ruk. Like them or not. Grown ups and professional economists accept them. You should too.

And, do you even have any clue what Fed monetary policy was leading up to and going into the Great Depression? Do you have any clue whaat effect it had on the banking and financial system?

These are rhetorical questions. It is obvious from the ignorance of your comments that you do not.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 22, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

"No, just lack of intellectual integrity on your part."

That's rich coming from you Q.B. LMAO

We're still waiting for which programs you
consider foolish.

"."FDR fueled the fire with his panoply of foolish programs" "

Are your talking about Glass Stegall..FDIC or other banking reforms...Would you like to do away with the S.E.C...various labor laws...or perhaps like most of the heartless on your side who don't give a rat's arse about whether old people are homeless in the street you wish to do away with Social Security.

Meanwhile Q.B. you said "The Great Depression primarily resulted from Smoot Hawley, inept deflationary Fed policy, and the aftermath of WWI (primarily European repudiation of debts). It had nothing to do with "...no taxes..gov't bad..no regulation..trust the foxes on Wall Street to guard the henhouse," which is nothing but ahistorical claptrap. Smoot Hawley essentially wrecked the Atlantic economy, and hurt the domestic economy just as many economists warned it would, while the Fed strangled the money supply and drove banks under. "

Alas Wikipedia and all credible sources would back up my assertion that the Great Depression started...not from Europe to the U.S. but just the other way around..and that rampant speculation(necessitating the need for all "panoply of foolish programs)resulted in our infamous market crash which is credited with starting the Depression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

"The depression originated in the U.S., starting with the fall in stock prices that began around September 4, 1929 and became worldwide news with the stock market crash of October 29, 1929 (known as Black Tuesday). From there, it quickly spread to almost every country in the world."

While SOME economists believe Smoot Hawley may have EXACERBATED the effect nobody but Q.B. credits it with starting the Great Depression since the Crash was in 1929 and Smoot Hawley was not until 1930.

I was a young adult in the 70's and while "stagflation" was certainly a concern..brought about largely because of the Arab (OPEC) oil embargo, it was nothing compared to the crisis that occurred at the end of the Bush administration..either anecdotally or statistically.

But I can see by your final paragraph Q.B. that yes you consider the fact that the two worst economic disasters BOTH occuRred under Republican leadership to be purely a COINCIDENCE.

Try reading Norton Garfinkle's "The American Dream versus The Gospel of Wealth"

You'll see the statistical evidence noted empirically in the appendix as well as get an education on the attitudes that led to such greed.

But I do give you much credit for your last post Q.B. at least you tried debating with facts instead of simple ad hominem attcks. Good try my friend.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 22, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

W13,

"This guy seems to be a bit unbalanced."

Indeed. He once wished a serious disease on me just because I was opposed to Obamacare. And he likes to YELL A LOT and is a great one for spewing paragraphs of ad hominem followed by damnation of his opponents for not being "factual" and sticking to the issues. Sometimes you can just juxtapose his paragraphs from the same rambling comments to let him contradict himself.

But it is maddening because people like ruk are destroying this country with their hateful and misguided brand of politics and "economics." Raise taxes (on other people, not me)! That is the cure all! More stimulus spending! Government spending pays for itself and then some!

I refer to that article of liberal faith as the Laugher Curve. Ruk is a firm believer, as is the embittered lmsinca. Well, they all are.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 22, 2010 11:05 PM | Report abuse

LOL, ruk declares wikipedia to represent "all credible sources"!

Stop, just stop, you are embarassing yourself.

And, btw, I didn't say the depression started in Europe, did I? Why is it that ruk must twist and misrepresent every argument of an opponent?

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 22, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Stipulated: the umimpeachable efficacy of FDR's (occasionally unconstitutional) economic response to the, perhaps, GOP-caused market crash was ten years of 15-25% unemployment, and enervated GDP.

Sounds about right, and a dead ringer scenario for the present moment (that means right now for y'all from SanFran).

Soooooo with the present admin's policy direction: In 15 years, after God Willing...the US prevails in a prolonged war, it's all good!

BTW: DO NOT google "Hindenburg Omen"

Carry On bickerin'.

& HEY! lms is about as "embittered" as a peach cobbler, give it a rest.

Posted by: tao9 | August 22, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

When GOP aided Muslims, good article
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-stevechapman,0,5918139.columnist

Posted by: jn2375 | August 22, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

scottc (re qb), CRA, blame the victim. And nowhere in that quote is any responsibility credited to the banks, AIG, the credit rating agencies or the over leveraging encouraged by the Bush administration. I won't bother to mention the unfunding of the SEC or what they did with whistle blowers.

The Great Recession of 08 and TARP happened on the Bush watch, aided and abetted by Rubin, Greenspan and even Bill Clinton. It was not the fault of the middle or working class but we're footing the bill. I just happen to think it's a bit disingenuous to turn around and blame us for their screw up, especially after we bailed them out.

And of course now there's both Repubs and Conservadems who would like to prove how fiscally responsible they've suddenly become by attacking Social Security and blaming the unemployed for not having jobs. Azzbackwards.

Seems to me we all need to be working together to figure out how to put people back to or, as W was fond of saying, "this sucker's goin' down".

Posted by: lmsinca | August 23, 2010 12:34 AM | Report abuse

edit: back to work, or

Posted by: lmsinca | August 23, 2010 12:41 AM | Report abuse

A Student Loan is an Investment in Your Future
Consider your student aid loan as an investment rather than a burden. If you think about it,
you’re not very different from a business that has borrowed thousands of dollars in start up money.
The student aid loan funded your professional education,

Posted by: estudenta | August 23, 2010 1:51 AM | Report abuse

A Student Loan is an Investment in Your Future
Consider your student aid loan as an investment rather than a burden. If you think about it,
you’re not very different from a business that has borrowed thousands of dollars in start up money.
The student aid loan funded your professional education,

http://www.estudentaid.com/

Posted by: estudenta | August 23, 2010 1:52 AM | Report abuse

A Student Loan is an Investment in Your Future
Consider your student aid loan as an investment rather than a burden. If you think about it,
you’re not very different from a business that has borrowed thousands of dollars in start up money.
The student aid loan funded your professional education,

Posted by: estudenta | August 23, 2010 1:53 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, Tao, you can have your opinion, but have mine, too, about lms, and it is based on plent of experience with her that tells me she is very much an embittered and resentful liberal. Unripe peaches and too little sugar will do that. Whenever she isn't doing her Rodney King act she is usually bitterly attacking Republicans and conservatives and nameless and faceless plutocrats who apparently forced all of us to borrow and spend what we could not afford. Thus you see her comment where, again, she appears to declare me a Marie Antoinette for rejecting the good old time class warfare religion of the corrupt and destructive FDR.
And, lms, yes, actually it is the fault of people themselves for taking out loans they could not afford. Sad but true. That is the real grown up world. A "bankster" did not kidnap your friends or neighbors and force them into big houses with big mortgages. But your hereos in big government did promote subprime loans and force banks to make loans they shouldn't have to people who were not creditworthy. That is called spreading the wealth around.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 23, 2010 6:42 AM | Report abuse

@tao

"Sounds about right, and a dead ringer scenario for the present moment (that means right now for y'all from SanFran)."

Thanks Tao for making my Monday morning. I'm not particularly fond of the climate in San Fran but everything else about that city makes it wonderful...from actually providing health care for the poor..to many other progressive ideas. And they have one of the strongest economies in the entire nation...and so yes we could hope the U.S. mirrored San Fran as a livable highly successful place to live.

As for comparing this moment to to ohhh say 1933..roughly the time you are talking about...I WISH. Q.B. is too timid to answer so I run the question Tao...which of Q.B.'s "panoply of foolish programs" or your "unconstitutional' programs of FDR do you wish to do away with? SEC..FDIC...Labor laws...Social Security.

It's one thing to be conservative..or non progressive..it's another to be regressive.
You guys would like to take us back to the days where we could all live in a place like Deadwood S.D. in the 19th Century.
No screwy rules or regulations then..and talk about 2nd Amendment rights...yeah we could exercise them in the middle of the street...but then crime has always been a problem so why not simply have everyone packing....the best part is with R ideas we could still have children working 12 hours days...nothing like cheap labor for our corporatist masters...the few old people who survived could always join the other beggars out in the street. And no sweat if your a mine operater...in the U.P. we still have an EPA superfund lake left over from the good ole days when the Copper mines could dump their waste materials wherever they wanted.

In short the policies you guys are advocating result in a brutish, unfair society where only the strongest and brightest make out and sc&*(w everybody else.

Can someone please name ONE program the R's have given our country? I can think of Interstate highways from Ike and trust busting from T. Roosevelt...but how about since then...can anybody name a program which helped moderate the brutish harsh existence our citizens have suffered in the past,..Social Security? Unemployment insurance? Regulation of the greedy rapacious Wall St. Bankers? Any rules to keep manufacturers/mines etc from simply dumping stuff where ever they wanted.

No the frighties are like cavemen...let's all enjoy going back to survival of the fittest.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 23, 2010 7:02 AM | Report abuse

Hi! ru,

The unconstitutional FDR program I was referring to was the one the SCOTUS vacated as, uh, unconstitutional: NRA.

nb.: Putting words in folkses moufs will not hunt per characterizing one's preference for respect for markets as jonesing to return to zero regulation. It would be analogous to characterizing progressives as desiring a total command econ environment. Like say, the NRA!

4fun:

"I mentioned that the relationship between unemployment and job openings was stable from December 2000 through June 2008. Were that stable relationship still in place today, and given the current job opening rate of 2.2 percent, we would have an unemployment rate of closer to 6.5 percent, not 9.5 percent. Most of the existing unemployment represents mismatch that is not readily amenable to monetary policy."
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/news_events/pres/speech_display.cfm?id=4525

But, but Booosh, but...how can that be?

{{{gotta go rapaciously capitalize, buh-bye}}}

Posted by: tao9 | August 23, 2010 7:30 AM | Report abuse

I always enjoy this story and it fits some of you so well.

A Day in the Life of a Conservative

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. The pharmacy offers Joe cheaper, generic medications with the same effectiveness as name brand pills for only a $10 copay instead of a $60 copay because some anti-corporate-trust liberals fought the pharmaceutical industry against paying more money just for a brand name.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the food industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking, transportation fees, and gasoline because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker’s compensation or unemployment check because some commie liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous big bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

cont....

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 23, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

cont...

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist academic liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe’s student loans are smaller than most people’s because he attended a state-run, public university with lower tuition rates and affordable student housing and health care.


Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the taxpayer-funded well-maintained roads.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans.


The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.
Joe is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. Should his father become disabled and require constant care, Joe’s company would provide federally-mandated paid family medical leave so Joe could care for his elderly parent. Joe would also be able to add his father to his health insurance as a dependent so his father’s long-term health care wouldn’t drive Joe into bankruptcy. This can happen because some deviant gay childless liberals demanded that employers and insurance companies recognize “family” extends beyond the typical heterosexual wife and 2.5 children to include same-*** partners, dependent siblings, and elderly parents.


Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that his beloved conservative, supply-side, big-business/small government Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day, from environmental standards to auto industry safety standards to food and drug regulation to workers’ rights. Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government socialist commie liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 23, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Starting the day and the week with the final two graphs from Krugman...

"No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy. Instead, as I said, it’s about a dysfunctional and corrupt political culture, in which Congress won’t take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience.

So far, the Obama administration is standing firm against this outrage. Let’s hope that it prevails in its fight. Otherwise, it will be hard not to lose all faith in America’s future." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html?hp

Posted by: bernielatham | August 23, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Letting the truth tumble out of his mouth.

Here's a quote from Rubio. I'm assuming the sentences, broken by the writer of the piece, are concurrent and without omission:

“The solution isn’t just to paralyze government,” Mr. Rubio said in an interview as he traveled the state last week from here in the Panhandle to Miami. “Vote for us because you couldn’t possibly vote for them? That’s not enough. It may win some seats, but it won’t take you where you want to be.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/us/politics/23rubio.html?hpw

The last three sentences are not logically connected to the first. And it's the first sentence that precisely reflects the mode and strategy of the modern GOP and movement leaders allied.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 23, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

@rukidding: "Can someone please name ONE program the R's have given our country?"

Well, Nixon was a Repubican, and "gave" us OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the EPA, sweeping environmental reforms, including the Clean Air Act (Bush Sr. also has one of those) and an initiative (launched around the same time as the War on Drugs) called the War on Cancer.

Reagan ended domestic price controls on petroleum, which must not have been too bad because 8 years of Clinton and 2 years of Obama, the Ds have not even considered introducing legislation to reverse that. There was also this: "1984 Expansion of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 - tightened federal standards for the disposal of toxic waste and extends controls to small companies".

Also, don't forget the 1986 amnesty: "granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously"

Under George H.W. Bush: "As the unemployment rate edged upward in 1991, Bush signed a bill providing additional benefits for unemployed workers". He also signed the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which has turned out to be an important piece of at least quasi-progressive legislation. Plus, the reauthorization of the Clean Air act and immigration reform than increased legal immigration by 40%.

George W. Bush increased funding to both the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. No Child Left Behind, authored with Ted Kennedy. Medicare Part D. Advanced an early cap and trade effort called the Clear Skies Act of 2003. Bush declared the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands a national monument, creating the largest marine reserve to date. On August 9, 2001, Bush signed an executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for the 71 existing "lines" of stem cells--allowing for the first federal funding of any research involving embryonic stem cells. Bush advanced a modestly liberal immigration "amnesty" bil, though, of course, that didn't happen. Bush also pushed for the highest levels of foreign aid to Africa, especially for AIDs relief, of an U.S. President.

If you want to go way back, there is that old Abraham Lincoln. He did a thing or two that wasn't so bad.

An, re: Social Security. Why is your Social Security any higher today than it was for your grandpa 40 years ago? You have Richard M. Nixon to thank for that, as he is the first president to introduce Cost of Living Adjustments to Social Security.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 23, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

@mikefromArlington: A Day in the Life of another conservative:

Joe gets up at 6:00 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean, in part because of the Clean Water Act of 1972 and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, both sponsored and signed by Evil Republican Richard Nixon. It's also possible, Joe allows, that work done by the Environmental Protection Agency over the past thirty years has also possibly helped. Turns out, the EPA was created by Evil Republican Richard Nixon, as well. It also turns out that sewage treatment and water processing that keeps the water clean, healthy, and fluoridated (good for his teeth!) is that way because of work done on the local level by Democrat and Republican politicians and even some people who consider themselves politically independent, and that local standards were in fact increased over the national level because of work done by conservation group that is largely peopled with churchgoing conservatives.

It turns out that the water for his coffee does cost three times more than it needs to, because some well-meaning liberals discovered that concentrations of arsenic of levels nearly a million times what was actually present in the water supply made some snail darters pale and sluggish, and were immediately sure that, despite the fact 3-parts-per-trillion arsenic had not caused any discernible health problems in the whole of human history, legislation needed to be immediately passed to filter out any dangerous-sounding trace mineral at any level, cost be damned, because, "how can we put a price on our children's lives?"

Well, with his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications don't work as well as the one's he used to take, because a well-meaning consumer-advocacy group fought to take the more effective drug off the market, because 1-in-100,000 people had a fatal allergic reaction to it. Fortunately, this drug is safe and he can rely on it's contents, in part because of the Food and Drug Administration, a government bureau that started with the Bureau of Chemistry, started by the first Evil Republican, Abraham Lincoln, and was altered, supported, and strengthened over the years by Democrats, Republicans (And a Bull Moose ), conservatives and liberals. Since liberals believe, for some reason that apparently cannot withstand the withering scrutiny of applied logic, that they are the only people that like safe medicine or clean air and water, they tend to forget most of that history. In addition to expanding the powers of the FDA, establishing the procedure of reviewing Over-The-Counter drugs, establishing the National Center of Toxicological Research, and moving the regulation of biologics (including serums, vaccines, and blood products) to the FDA, Evil Republican Richard Nixon called for the reviews of the FDA's GRAS list, which led to the lifting of the ban on saccharine.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 23, 2010 8:26 AM | Report abuse

...cont...

Oh, and let's not forget the tamper-resistant packaging regulations, the Orphan Drug Act (for the FDA to promote research and marketing of drugs for rare diseases), the heavy increase of fines and penalties for all federal offenses (which includes violations of FDA regulations), the approval of the AIDS blood test, the Childhood Vaccine Act, the Food and Drug Administration Act, and the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, all authored by Democrats and Republicans and signed by the Evilest Republican of them All, Ronald Reagan (when he wasn't busy stealing food from poor people and dancing on the backs of AIDS victims). So, Joe's helped out there, too.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan, because his employer was finding it difficult to attract qualified applicants without providing a comprehensive health plan and so, in order to compete for quality employees, his employer started offering a a very good health plan, from a private insurer. However, the truth is, since the health plan is part of the cost of employing Joe, nobody but Joe is really paying for his health plan--he just doesn't ever see the money. While his employer his eligible for better overall benefits because the employer employs many workers, if Joe had the money his employer spent on his membership in the healthplan in his pocket, Joe could still afford more than adequate health care (but not such a good dental plan), but he probably wouldn't because he'd spend the money at the dog track, because Joe has some issues with gambling (that, unfortunately, aren't qualified for treatment under his healthplan).

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat, aside from the cholesterol and fat and salt content, which is bad for his health, and a consortium of liberals and trial lawyers is busy, even as he stuff his face, working to allow Joe to sue Jimmy Dean and Oscar Myer for selling him fatty foods without warning him that eating bacon is not as healthy as eating broccoli. Still, to the degree the bacon is safe (although bacon has always been pretty safe, because the heavy salt content acts as a preservative and kills most molds and bacterias), it is safe because people of all political stripes fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. As time passed, liberals began to believe that only they liked safe meat, and that for some reasons conservatives enjoyed eating tainted pork that could make them sick and die. However, Joe, and most conservatives, don't actually like tainted meat. They like fresh, safe meat. Although some well-meaning liberals did douse Joe with red paint the last time he went to the butcher shop.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 23, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

...cont...

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because various Democrats and Republicans (and perhaps even a few apolitical folk) fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Though, for some reason, as time went on, liberals convinced themselves that they were the only people who wanted to know what was actually in the products they consumed.

Joe dresses, walks outside, and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean, in part because he's a rich Republican and moved out past the suburbs to a almost rural area, leaving the poor and disenfranchised to choke in the dying cities. However, the air is also clean because many state and local governments, made up of liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, had passed legislation dealing with air pollution because of the needs of their citizens in their localities. Then, both Democrats and Republicans in congress Passed the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955, the first federal legislation regarding air pollution, and it was signed by less-Evil-But-Still-Slow-and-Stupid Republican, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eight years later, Democrats and Republicans in congress passed the Air Act of 1963, which began imposing regulations on factories, but not automobiles. The Act was strengthened through amendments, authored by both Democrats and Republicans, in 1965,1966,1967, and 1969, under both Johnson and Nixon.

Then there was the Clean Air Act of 1970, authored by Democrats and Republicans, with the blessing of Prime-Evil, Richard Nixon. Thankfully (for conservatives everywhere) all this crazy air cleaning stuff stopped, and Ronald Reagan pinned pollution problems squarely where they belonged: on the trees.

Alas, Better-Than-His-Son-But-Still-Evil-Republican George H.W. Bush signed off on the Clean Air Act of 1990, which has demonstrably improved air quality. So, Joe is glad he voted for Bush I.

To do his part, Joe doesn't drive the Hummer to work today. Instead, he walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. While some liberals say that it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees, Joe knows that the government doesn't get it's money from the money-fairy, they get their money from his back pocket, and quite a lot. Since he's a rich Republican, and earns a good income, they take enough out of his paycheck each year to pay his house note. So Joe knows that "government-subsidized" actually means "Joe-subsidized", because there ain't no free lunch.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 23, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

...cont....

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays, and vacation because Joe is a talented guy who worked hard for his skills, and right now his abilities are in demand, and if his employer wasn't offering such an attractive package, he'd have taken that job offer from the firm in Syracuse, which was otherwise similar but didn't offer as much vacation in the first year.

Joe's employer offers these benefits because Joe's employer doesn't want Joe to quit for a better job. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check, because both liberals and conservatives, both Democrats and Republicans, didn't think he should lose his home or go hungry because of his temporary misfortune, especially as the overall economy grew, thanks to the free market, and allowed such safety nets to be constructed. Such things benefit everybody, which is why most people support such things, within reason, and on-budget. As time goes on, liberals decided that only they wanted people to be able to keep their homes or eat a square meal or see a doctor or have a decent job, somehow becoming convinced that conservatives and Republicans didn't like good jobs, medical treatment, safe food, clean water, and breathable air. From that point forward, liberals made all their arguments, and ran most political campaigns, against easy-to-defeat straw men that didn't really represent what most Republicans and conservatives advocated and supported. This makes Joe smile as he does his work, because he knows it's going to keep conservatives and Republicans in office for a long time to come.

It's noontime, and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. While Joe's deposit hasn't actually been federally insured by the FSLIC since 1989, when it was replaced by the SAIF, under the FDIC, it is federally insured, by legislation in which both Democrats and Republicans have had a hand in over the years, because both Democrats and Republicans wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers(and problems created by well-intentioned banking regulations that not only allowed, but in some ways encouraged, bankers to do foolish things with the money in their banks) that ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 23, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

...cont...

If Joe weren't a rich Republican, he might have to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage (which means, largely underwritten by the tax-payers, like Rich Republican Joe and his ilk) and his below-market federal student loan (and also state financial aid) because many Republicans and Democrats decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. For some reason, many liberals later decided that only they thought education and earning money was a good thing, and that conservatives wanted people to be ignorant, uneducated, and poor.

Now, Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his Hummer for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world, because it was originally designed for the U.S. Army, to help them more effectively kill people and break things, and also meets or exceeds car safety standards established, largely with bi-partisan support, by the U.S. government. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration, because bankers didn't want to make rural loans, because of the outrageously high default rate that would have eventually put the banks under, and cost the savings of all their other investors. The house didn't have electricity until George Norris, Republican from Nebraska, and Sam Rayburn, Democrat from Texas, authored the Rural Electrification Act. A majority of Republicans voted for the act, but, over time, liberals forgot and gave themselves and the Democrats 100% credit for Rural Electrificaiton.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security, which he paid into most of his life and Joe pays into now, and there was a union pension he used to get, because some leg-breaking, scab-shooting union organizer helped make it happen, but modern union management looted the pension for political activism, and bankrupted it, so now all Joe's dad has is Social Security, and Joe, but since Joe is a rich Republican, it's not a problem.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 23, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

...cont...


Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are wrong on most of their contemporary policy efforts and that conservatives are right about theirs, and he also mentioned he is a proud conservative and Republican, unlike the news magazines Joe has on his coffee table and the cable news network Joe watches when he gets home, which tell him that conservatives are bad and liberals are good, and then insist they are proud, non-partisan journalists. So, Joe turns on the talk radio show host again. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day, because it's both logically absurd on the face of it, without even delving into the empiric evidence, and, when actual facts and history is reviewed, and real names, ideologies, and party affiliations are reported in regards to the acts, efforts, and processes which have afforded Joe the infrastructure of his rich Republican lifestyle, it turns out that trying to give one group credit for everything good that ever happened, and one group blame for everything bad, is not just logically silly, but demonstrably wrong.

Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals agitating for ever-increasing government control and involvement in every aspect of our lives, without any accountability for results! After all, I'm a self-aware man who believes everyone should take a look at the practical results and consequences of what they do and how they do it, instead of just the 'good intentions'. And I think, when deciding where we're going to go in the future, we should actually look at where we've actually been in the past--not where some people imagine we've been, in a way that makes them the hero, photographed in a noble pose, filmed in soft-focus with symphonic music swelling in the background. I say we look at what actually works, what the actual costs are, and what our priorities are versus our resources, how we're going to hold new programs and bureaucracies accountable for real results, and go from there. And I am a proud conservative!"

The end. That's for you, MikeFromArlington! ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 23, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/the_morning_plum_79.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 23, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

The spreading bigotry...

"In Tennessee, three plans for new Islamic centers in the Nashville area -- one of which was ultimately withdrawn -- have provoked controversy and outbursts of ugliness. Members of one mosque discovered a delicately rendered Jerusalem cross spray-painted on the side of their building with the words "Muslims go home."'

"...Evangelist Pat Robertson weighed in Thursday, wondering on his television program whether a Muslim takeover of America was imminent."

Still, one has to take the 'maybe yes/maybe no' position. As Gowen writes:

"But the intense feelings driving that debate have surfaced in communities from California to Florida in recent months, raising questions about whether public attitudes toward Muslims have shifted."

Or, as the cowardly sub-head writer puts it:

"Outcry over mosque proposals in Tenn., elsewhere could be a sign of rising anti-Muslim sentiment." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/22/AR2010082202895.html?hpid=topnews

Could be, alright.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 23, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

A very insightful piece by Krugman, as usual.

We learn that the government will be "cutting checks" to "the rich" if their tax rate does not increase.

By his logic, the government is "cutting checks" to each of us for the net income it allows us to keep. Does Princeton actually let this crackpot feed this swill to students?

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 23, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin - your post to ru is very good, thank you.

@ru - Kevin's post points out not just some relevant details but also why we have to be very leery of using absolutes in our writing and, more importantly, in our thinking.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 23, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"And it's the first sentence that precisely reflects the mode and strategy of the modern GOP and movement leaders allied."

Let me understand...are you finally admitting that, in contrast to what you and your fellow travellers have been claiming, the mode and strategy of the modern GOP and movement leaders is NOT simply to paralyze government?

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 23, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie and Kevin...

I agree Kevin's post was excellent and I certainly accept what Nixon has offered as steps toward protecting our society. And yes I give G.W. credit for the prescrip drug bill...been nicer if he paid for it...but at least his heart was in the right place...

Yes I stand guilty of getting lured into bombastic arguments without considering the source. Mea Culpa.

And both you guys know you are two of my favorite posters...I hesitate to label Kevin a conservative...he seems more of an independent to me...but Kevin can choose whichever label he wishes..he's always thoughtful. He and Tao are my two favorite people to joust with because they are bright, literate, and they both have a sense of humor.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 23, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

qb, you continue to paint borrowers with the broad brush of greed while it was the industry that lured them into the trap in order to capitalize on the easy money to be made up front and then dump the risk at the backend. It wasn't the government forcing banks to make these loans, it was the de-regulation of the banking industry (Rubin, Clinton, and a Republican Congress) followed by changing the leverage rules (Bush) and Greenspan's firm belief in a benign free-market. There were warning signs and a few people who recognized the risk and they were either forced or hushed into silence.

I am not so much interested in re-litigating the past mistakes made by one and all, I am more interested in figuring out a way to restore the middle class through employment now that the banks have been rescued from their mistakes.

I have not heard one idea yet from a Republican candidate or current legislator that gets to the fundamental importance of having a strong middle class for the benefit of all of us, but I have heard a lot of blame the lazy, greedy sub-prime borrowers and unemployed.

"There are a lot of these people who got the subprime who, if they had shopped more aggressively, would have gotten the prime loans," says Jim Campen, a research associate at the University of Massachusetts Gastón Institute, who works with the Massachusetts Community and Banking Council.

Subprime clients are increasingly being marketed products — zero-down loans, interest-only financing and home equity loans as high as 125% of a home's appraised value — that allow them to buy or borrow, but at an elevated risk.

Like the credit card industry, mortgage companies are pushing their product through television advertising, pop-up ads on the Internet and mailings. While the industry touts its efforts at consumer education, a message of its sales pitch is speed.

"Even if other banks may have turned you down. We don't care — we want to get to know you," says a mailing from Home 123. "We'll get your loan application processed instantly, privately and anonymously over the Internet."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-12-07-subprime-day-2-usat_x.htm

Posted by: lmsinca | August 23, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Ah gee, I posted a similar though less energetic and fulsome response the "day in the life" fantasy long ago and got nothing but more abuse. But the gist is simple: ungrateful and resentful liberal spends all his time attacking the sources of his own livelihood and comforts until he has none left. Then he blames the rich.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 23, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse


Bernie:

"And it's the first sentence that precisely reflects the mode and strategy of the modern GOP and movement leaders allied."

Let me understand...are you finally admitting that, in contrast to what you and your fellow travellers have been claiming, the mode and strategy of the modern GOP and movement leaders is NOT simply to paralyze government?

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 23, 2010 8:43 AM |

.....................

"Fellow Travelers"

ScottC, The Bastard Child, from a sexual relationship between Senator Joesph McCarthy, and Roy Cohen.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 23, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Of course, Kevin could have mentioned civil rights and much else as well, but it also misses the basic point that ruk reflexively measures good government by new programs.

When have Dems ever ended a program?

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 23, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

@Quarterback: When has anyone actually ended a program?

Bill Clinton ended the Tea Tasters Board and, I believe, the Navy's Dairy Farm. Not much, but better than most Republicans. When, since LBJ, has a Democrat grown the government to compete with George W. Bush or (the admittedly not conservative) Richard M. Nixon?

The only things that ended under Bush were certain military weapon's development programs--via Rumsfeld--and those expenditures were, I believe, largely replaced. Certainly, government spending on the whole grew and grew and grew.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 23, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Lms, for someone not interested in blaming, you do a lot of it from a well-rehearsed script.

I didn't blame the middle class or borrowers for the meltdown. I blamed inept big government. You mischaracterized this as blaming borrowers and then said it wasn't their fault they overborrowed. Two different questions. It is silly to claim borrowers aren't responsible for their own actions. It is resentful and irresponsible. But I blame liberal, statist, redistributioniist big government for the meltdown.

You have heard plenty of Republican economic ideas. You just dismiss them because you only believe in more welfare state big government. I on the other hand have never heard one Democrat idea for economic growth and recovery. Guess we are even.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 23, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

"Lms, for someone not interested in blaming, you do a lot of it from a well-rehearsed script."

As opposed to you (CRA, fannie, freddie). Where is the culpability of the predatory lenders and big banks who essentially received corporate welfare?

Look, we run a successful small business and our customers are other small businesses, most of them family owned, across the country. These are the employers of the middle class and they cannot grow or even continue to employ because that same middle class is not buying.

Low corporate taxes and de-regulation do absolutely nothing for them. We tried that and it increased the wealth at the top but decimated the middle class by taking away their investments, retirements and access to money.

I don't know what the answer is, Obama wasn't aggressive enough IMO, and Republicans have been like a piece of old shoe leather, obstructing and offering the same ideas that helped get us into this mess.

Meanwhile, the heart of America, the middle class, falls further and further behind. That's who I'm fighting for and have consistently been fighting for. These aren't poor, lazy people looking for a handout, they're hard-working men and women with families who can't seem to catch a break.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 23, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

And qb, for the record I am not bitter, I am worried.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 23, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"As opposed to you (CRA, fannie, freddie)."

I'm not the one who claimed no interest in blame assignment. I responded to ruk's stock tirade that Bush=Hoover=Coolidge=Reagan=Depression. Identifying causes is important to solving problems and not repeating them. I am open about this. You pretend you only look forward for solutions, while you habitually "look forward" with claims such as:

"Low corporate taxes and de-regulation do absolutely nothing for them. We tried that and it increased the wealth at the top but decimated the middle class by taking away their investments, retirements and access to money.

I don't know what the answer is, Obama wasn't aggressive enough IMO, and Republicans have been like a piece of old shoe leather, obstructing and offering the same ideas that helped get us into this mess."

We've never had low corporate taxes and deregulation. Join reality.

Obama has offered nothing but the same old "spread the wealth around," exploding government, central planning, statist snake oil that got us into the current mess.

I am a business owner, too, a partner in a law firm. Obama and his onslaught against free enterprise are strangling our clients from top and bottom and all sides. We hear it every day.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 23, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Kevin, come now, surely you aren't going to contend that Republicans are worse at program-ending than Dems?

True, not much ever gets ended by anyone. Newt or someone once accurately pilloried his own party as the tax collector for the welfare state. But do you deny that Republicans have often tried to end programs but been thwarted and villified for it, and even been villified just for seeking reform of dysfunctional programs?

How about we start with Education. What happened when a Republican proposed to abolish it? What about Public Broadcasting? Or how about those new favorites, Fannie and Freddie? You know this litany could go on forever.

In fact, much of this blog (e.g., ruk and lms's comments above) is devoted to hysterics about how Republicans have deregulated and tried to abolish government in its entirety.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 23, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

qb, below is from the GAO report issued in 2000. And the reason I said most of the businesses we deal with don't care about lowering corporate taxes is because while a few of them are incorporated they fall well below the millions of dollars income levels to be taxed at those rates. These are the true small businesses and they don't feel over-burdened it's just that the demand side of their business has been crushed by unemployment. This was at the end of the Clinton years.

"The GAO report showed that 61 percent of US corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1996 through 2000, a period of rapid economic growth and rising corporate profits.

An estimated 94 percent of US corporations reported tax liabilities amounting to less than 5 percent of their total income in 2000. The corporate income tax rate is ostensibly 35 percent, but companies are able to reduce their effective burden by claiming various deductions and credits.

US companies paid an average of $11.88 in corporate taxes for every $1,000 in gross receipts, the study said.

Small corporations were more likely to avoid taxation than large ones, it showed. About 38 percent of big companies (those with more than $250 million in assets or $50 million in revenues) paid no taxes during the five-year period.

Foreign-owned companies fared better in some respects than their US-based competitors. The report found that 71 percent of foreign-controlled corporations paid no taxes on their US income, while 89 percent had liabilities of less than 5 percent of their income.

The GAO didn't attempt to determine why so many companies were able to avoid paying taxes. It said possible explanations included legitimate deductions for current-year operating losses, losses carried forward from previous years, and sufficient credits to offset any tax liabilities. In addition, it said improper pricing of transactions between US and foreign operations could contribute to tax avoidance."

Posted by: lmsinca | August 23, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"and lms's comments above) is devoted to hysterics about how Republicans have deregulated and tried to abolish government in its entirety."

I thought we were having a fairly reasonable conversation for two people diametrically opposed to each other's governing philosophy. There are definitely people involved in hysterics on both sides of the fence here, but I'm sorry you consider me one of them.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 23, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

A reasonable conversation which you opened by equating me to Marie Antoinette for critiquing ruk's statist rant, then went on with the usual tirade against Republicans and corporate interests.

Many small businesses or the I dividuals who own them do earn enough to pay high tax rates. The lack of confidence and spending also impacts them. That malaise is fed by Obamanomics and the fears it justifiably engenders. People and businesses especially know that taxes are going up, that Obama is spending unimagiinable amounts of new money, that Obamacare is an economjic and policy nightmare, and that Obama's amalgam of Keynesianism, state capitalism, and central planning is a failure.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 23, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"And, lms, yes, actually it is the fault of people themselves for taking out loans they could not afford. Sad but true. That is the real grown up world. A "bankster" did not kidnap your friends or neighbors and force them into big houses with big mortgages. But your hereos in big government did promote subprime loans and force banks to make loans they shouldn't have to people who were not creditworthy. That is called spreading the wealth around."

Actually, qb, you did go on to blame the consumers of these loans. And those big government heroes you mention were doing business during the Bush Administration. I have conceded that it began in part with Clinton, will you concede that the banks were responsible, as much as Freddie and Frannie in marketing sub-prime loans? There were an awful lot of innocent bystanders taken down by the housing crisis and the greed that ran rampant through the Financial Services Industry. Most of the people we know aren't facing foreclosure or unemployment, but they are facing a greatly reduced retirement future. The big banks have bounced back for the most part and yet you seem to think we should just return to a system that sets up the exact same kind of bubble again or worse. I really don't get it.

I don't care about spreading the wealth as you imagine or even class warfare, but I do think it's incumbent on all of us to figure out a way to restore a vigorous middle class. Any ideas? Or are you more interested in just insulting me in every post? You decide.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 23, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

You can misstate what I said as many times as you like. Unfortunately, you cannot change what I said. The words are above.

I was hit harder than most people. We went from the immediate prospect of having college, retirement, and everything else in hand to much uncertainty and belt tightening. So don't pretend I don't understand.

Ideas? Conservatives have known the answers for years. Instead, your party is doing the opposite, and it isn't working.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 23, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

As for insults, you are again projecting.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 23, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

I give up qb, we'll never find common ground.

"Conservatives have known the answers for years."

It's not like they haven't had the chance and yet the middle class has just fallen further and further behind while the wealth has traveled up the food chain.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 23, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Of course there is little to no common ground. I am not sure why you would suggest you were looking for any. You starting point is that anyone to the right of ruk is like Marie Antoinette.

There really aren't any new ideas; there haven't been for millenia. There are only reiterations of the same ideas, in my opinion. That is just the nature of reality. All is footnotes to Socrates, someone said.

"It's not like they haven't had the chance"

Conservatives or even Republicans have never had the control the Left currently has with a President and huge majorities in both houses. Never. The growth of the welfare-regulatory-redistributionist state has continued more or less unabated since the New Deal, regardless of Presidential elections. Reegan was able to reduce income tax rates and trim at the margins here and there, and the middle class and the country as a whole prospered as a result (it most certainly did not fall "further behind"). I know you were around to know that first hand. But we have never had anything resembling conservative governance.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 24, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company