Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:25 PM ET, 01/25/2011

State of the Union open thread

By Greg Sargent

11:24 p.m.: First snap poll: CBS finds that 92 percent who watched the speech approved of Obama's proposals, and 81 percent approved specifically of his plans for the economy, though in fairness the audience tilted Democratic.

10:47 p.m.: Putting aside the specifics, it seems like a pretty clear tonal clash: Hard to see how Paul Ryan's debt fearmongering stacks up well against Obama's upeat and optimistic call to collective action.

10:29 p.m.: Paul Ryan's full response is here. A great deal of fearmongering about how debt will destroy our country and way of life.

10:07 p.m.: An important reaffirmation of what a major and fundamentally American achievement repealing don't ask don't tell was:

Our troops come from every corner of this country -- they are black, white, Latino, Asian and Native American. They are Christian and Hindu, Jewish and Muslim. And, yes, we know that some of them are gay. Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love.

9:56 p.m.: A key line:

In the coming year, we will also work to rebuild people's faith in the institution of government.

That's a concession to the right, in the sense that he's acknowledging that people have good reason to currently have little faith in government. And he goes on to say that this is why he's calling for an earmarks ban. But the more important point is that he's pledging to do what's necessary to restore faith in government.

9:47 p.m.: The crux of Obama's pushback against repeal of health reform: He casts it as as waste of Americans' time:

So instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let's fix what needs fixing and move forward.

9:45 p.m.: Very strong formulation from Obama: "We passed reform that finally prevents the health insurance industry from exploiting patients." Lots of applause...was it bipartisan?

9:38 p.m.: This seems like a fairly strong statement in favor of immigration reform, with emphasis on the fundamental unfairness of forcing people who want to lead normal American lives to live a shadowy existence, something that hurts our country:

I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows. I know that debate will be difficult and take time. But tonight, let's agree to make that effort. And let's stop expelling talented, responsible young people who can staff our research labs, start new businesses, and further enrich this nation.

Obama's formulation seemed to force bipartisan applause.

9:35 p.m.: Obama stands up for teachers -- with the obligatory slap at teachers unions -- but still:

Here in America, it's time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones.

9:21 p.m.: Obama doubles down on American exceptionalism:

We are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -- the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny...what America does better than anyone else is spark the creativity and imagination of our people.

As Adam Serwer notes, how long until conservatives take credit for this?

9:16 p.m.: Obama: "We'll move forward together, or not at all."

9:08 p.m.: One interesting thing to note: the speech pushes hard in favor of investing in clean energy technology -- there are multiple paragraphs devoted to it -- and casts it in the larger context of American innovation.

8:58 p.m.: Obama will hail the private sector's capacity for innovation, but cast government as an essential partner in enabling it, part of the speech's broader effort to create a space that defends government investment as crucial to moving the country forward:

Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That's what planted the seeds for the Internet. That's what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS.

8:45 p.m.: Obama will declare victory over the recession, according to the prepared text, though he'll put it in the context of the speech's "win the future" theme:

The steps we've taken over the last two years may have broken the back of this recession -- but to win the future, we'll need to take on challenges that have been decades in the making.

8:37 p.m.: Not a word on gun control in the speech, but Chris Matthews on MSNBC just now says that he's received private assurances that a gun control move is forthcoming from the White House.

8:26 p.m.: Here's the full text, as prepared for delivery.

By Greg Sargent  | January 25, 2011; 8:25 PM 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: Obama seized control of debate over government

Comments

In the spirit of the evening, I'm going to pretend I'm snuggling next to Brigade, patiently waiting the speech to begin.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 25, 2011 8:34 PM | Report abuse

In the spirit of the evening, I'm going to pretend I'm snuggling next to Brigade, patiently waiting the speech to begin.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 25, 2011 8:34 PM
=======================================

Keep your hands to yourself.

Posted by: Brigade | January 25, 2011 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Good Evening Guys.

Since the speech text has been released and it's Prom Night, can't we just cut straight to the punchbowl and band?

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 8:37 PM | Report abuse

In the meantime (popcorn, Brigade?) why don't we watch this compelling interview of Sal Russo on Hardball on the topic of Michelle Bachmann's grasp of American history...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#41261376

Posted by: bernielatham | January 25, 2011 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Even in print form, his every word comes across as phony and fraudulent. Sorry, it just does.

At least the first few paragraphs were just dreadfully boring blather. Well, almost all of it was.

Won't be watching the insufferable boor this time.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 25, 2011 8:44 PM | Report abuse

lol, loving the Matthews video. Our founding fathers abolished slavery???

Posted by: DDAWD | January 25, 2011 8:46 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade

"I do! I do! Tell me again what Jimmy Carter did 35 years ago."

Jimmy Carter created 10.3 million jobs then St. Ronnie came in and cut that number in HALF..@5.3 million...great huh Brigade..give St. Ronnie credit however..his second term was the ONLY TIME an R president saw any job creation of note...10.8 million of course the first of the job killing Bushes took office and Pappy cut that figure by 80% dropping job creation to 2.6 million...then guess what Brigade...a Dem Clinton came into office and cleaned up pappy's mess...first term 11.5 million...2nd term 11.2 million...both terms FIVE TIMES HIGHER THAN BUSH I but then that brings us to shrub doesn't it...the first President since WWII to preside over a decade of NO JOB CREATION....1st term 0 yeah Brigade that's ZERO...as in ZERO..the ONLY Pres since WWII with that distinction..2nd Term
1 million and then the disaster he left Obama...who got a stimulus passed..up and running and reversed the Bush trends after 90 days in office.
Aug 2008: -84,000
Sep 2008: -159,000
Oct 2008: -240,000 <---- Market collapse
Nov 2008: -533,000
Dec 2008: -524,000
Jan 2009: -598,000 <---- Obama inaugurated
Feb 2009: -651,000
Mar 2009: -663,000 <---- ARRA (Stimulus) starts
Apr 2009: -539,000
May 2009: -345,000
Jun 2009: -467,000
Jul 2009: -247,000
Aug 2009: -216,000

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Brigade do you EVER deal in facts or simply enjoy throwing snark up against the wall to see what might stick. Make a factual point just once...puhleeze...because you know what they say about opinions and I know you to be a nice guy and not an.....

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Q.B. Hahahahahaha Epic Fail as you like to say. You offer NO REBUTTAL but suggest all the variables that go into the score.

That's really rich Q.B. From Crooked Warren Harding to Silent Cal to Herbert Hoover...
Epic fail of Republican economic ideas that catered to who...ohhh shocker..Wall Street.
From Eisenhower through G.W.Bush a CLEAR TREND which Q.B. can't address but tries the old misdirect by going...waaaaa...look at all the variables.

In Q.B. World... Steelers 24 Jets 19 ohhh but what about the fumbles..those interceptions..the missed tackles..the Steelers didn't really win this game...
Packers 21 Bear 14...ohhh but waaaaaahhh
Cutler was hurt...it was cold...there were so many variables nobody can give credit to the Pack for winning.

In QB world it might be the Jets vs Bears
Scores do not count...waaahhhh what about all those variables.

That is pathetic Q.B. you made zero defense of the fact that this is a CLEARLY DEFINED TREND...you know Q.B...as to not mean just once or twice...but every effing time an R has had office since WWII....check the jobs again...it's a MAJOR TREND...Whine all you want like your patron saint sister sarah but there is no denying the freaking score...the Dems kick the R's arse dramatically and continually since WWII!!!!

Again Q.B. read it and WHIIIIINEEE!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 8:50 PM | Report abuse

It's like the Conservatives on here. Some prominent Republican says something moronic and they all just rush to her defense and just ignore everything they know to be true. History, science, even arithmetic. Just so they can support the moronic statement and pretend like they are a part of the Conservative Club.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 25, 2011 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Well, since we're talking about Carter, I fugure Barack has to jealous the he doesn't have a major strategic national asset like the Panama Canal to give away.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 8:56 PM | Report abuse

"The steps we've taken over the last two years may have broken the back of this recession -- but to win the future, we'll need to take on challenges that have been decades in the making."

Looks like I had their ear.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 25, 2011 8:57 PM | Report abuse

@Tom Typical wussy R response ehhh...you can't deal with facts so you bring up the freaking Panama Canal....Tom please address the huge failure of the R's on the economy.
That's the R way ehhh...nothing of substance on the economy and so..look over there..it's abortion...over there..the Constitution...over there...they are not like us...but Tom..the Panama canal..that's beyond lame.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 9:00 PM | Report abuse

I do not much like Matthews style - first time I ever saw him was this video - he's no Charlie Rose.

Nevertheless, from the clip, Bachmann apparently thinks we have been a nation for 21 generations and the FFs fought against slavery. She was a tax lawyer. Never realized what a narrow specialty that was. I am going to ask some of my tax law colleagues these questions, to see if ignorance of American history is universal among them.

Finished working in time to watch the Address. Did not think I would.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 25, 2011 9:02 PM | Report abuse

"Well, since we're talking about Carter, I fugure Barack has to jealous the he doesn't have a major strategic national asset like the Panama Canal to give away."

Well, there's always Gitmo. Or Guam. Or Puerto Rico (no offense Bernie). Or any of the 57 states.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 25, 2011 9:02 PM | Report abuse


Obama has been in office for 2 years, do you really think he is going to come up with a real Economic policy now???


Obama's health care plan IS HIS ECONOMIC POLICY, WHICH IS A DRAG ON HIRING.


Case closed.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 9:03 PM | Report abuse

"lol, loving the Matthews video. Our founding fathers abolished slavery???"

Umm, your VP is Joe Biden. I wouldn't do a lot of talking about mangled history if I were you.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 25, 2011 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama Comedy Hour

Obama Characterizing Illegal Aliens:

And let's stop expelling talented, responsible young people who can staff our research labs, start new businesses, and further enrich this nation.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 9:06 PM | Report abuse

QB1: Thanks for the reminder, JB's debate performance was priceless.
"... when FDR addressed the nation on TV..."
etc.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 9:08 PM | Report abuse

ruk is definitely drunk.

Btw, I don't say "epic fail." Your knowledge of commenters is as reliable as your knowledge of economics.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 25, 2011 9:10 PM | Report abuse

"Umm, your VP is Joe Biden. I wouldn't do a lot of talking about mangled history if I were you."

'Member when Franklin Roosevelt gave a fireside webcast about sputnik, from the oval office?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 25, 2011 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Is OBAMA PUBLICLY SAYING WE ARE BOMBING PAKISTAN - THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SAID PUBLICLY


In Pakistan, al Qaeda's leadership is under more pressure than at any point since 2001. Their leaders and operatives are being removed from the battlefield. Their safe-havens are shrinking. And we have sent a message from the Afghan border to the Arabian Peninsula to all parts of the globe: we will not relent, we will not waver, and we will defeat you.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 9:11 PM | Report abuse

TRASHING BIDEN AGAIN


That dream is why I can stand here before you tonight. That dream is why a working class kid from Scranton can stand behind me. That dream is why someone who began by sweeping the floors of his father's Cincinnati bar can preside as Speaker of the House in the greatest nation on Earth.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Wife like Michelle's dress.
Boehner's got to be wanting a martini and a smoke this time of the night.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 9:14 PM | Report abuse

The idea of America endures. Our destiny remains our choice. And tonight, more than two centuries later, it is because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong.


_____________________________

We choose to vote the liberals and Obama out


And get rid of their high-spending ways....

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Q.B. I feel sad for you this evening.

"ruk is definitely drunk."

That's what you have to resort to? Very scholarly and intellectual. I'm impressed!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Well. Looks like the disruptive village idiot is here. Enjoy your mud pit all. Cya

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 25, 2011 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Overall, a pretty forgetable and poor speech.

OK, we need education. NO kidding.


OK, we need jobs NO kidding


OK, we had Nasa and we have high speed wireless No kidding


What is in this speech???


OH, he is going to freeze spending for a fraction of the budget - meanwhile Obama's run-away deficit will run up more INTEREST than Obama saves.


We need to SLASH THE BUDGET TO GET UNDER $300 BILLION DEFICIT


No one will really notice the difference - I'm telling you CUT IT CUT IT NOW - CUT IT NOW IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FISCAL YEAR.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 9:19 PM | Report abuse

"ruk's drunk"... hope so, heck I'm trying to catch up but only on Beer#2 and Wine#1.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Reagan

Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down this Wall


Kennedy

Ask not what you can do for your country

Obama


We do big things


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 9:20 PM | Report abuse

We do big things


What a pathetic thing to say once, please don't say it three times.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 9:26 PM | Report abuse

"That's what you have to resort to? Very scholarly and intellectual. I'm impressed!"

Is scholarly and intellectual what you call the juvenile garbage you posted tonight? I don't think anyone who reads it will think I fell short of your standards. It's just the same mindless rant you post over and over, with that extra special rukidding hysteria and YELLING!!!

Believe me, the unanswered questions I posed to you quite adequately expose the intellectual bankruptcy of your rant. But enjoy your binge, by all means.


And work on your explanation for how Obama's jobs performance is worse than he projected had there been no stimulus at all.


Posted by: quarterback1 | January 25, 2011 9:27 PM | Report abuse

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was established on July 29, 1958.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 9:28 PM | Report abuse

"Clean Energy Technology"

We are the Saudi Arabia of NatGas and Coal.
We have beaucoup Reactor Operators coming out of the Navy every year.

So we subsidize windmills and solar panels.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I don't watch a lot of Matthews, but this video wasn't par for the course. From what I've seen, he's very respectful, even towards Republicans. In fact, he gave his guest ample opportunities to respond and even called him smart at the end.

I think he tends to get worked up when people try and twist history. The only other time I've seen him get this worked up was when some Conservative guest was going on about Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler, but clearly had no idea what happened. (He couldn't answer the question as to what Chamberlain specifically did)

Posted by: DDAWD | January 25, 2011 9:37 PM | Report abuse

"Created by the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88) and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 17, 1979, the US Department of Education began operating on May 16, 1980."

... and thing have gone downhill ever since.
Grade: F
Expel it from the budget permanently.
Bid out the tallying of national test scores every 5yrs to accounting firms.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 9:37 PM | Report abuse

"High Speed Rail"
Heck, Amtrak isn't even economic in the dense population Northeast.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 9:43 PM | Report abuse

I think we oughta tax all those new high speed trains. Deficit?Solved!

You're welcome.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 25, 2011 9:44 PM | Report abuse

It's so refreshing to hear so many new ideas.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 25, 2011 9:47 PM | Report abuse

"unnecessary burden on small businesses"
Try reading bills before passing them.

ObamaCare:
10 yrs of taxes for 7 years of benefits, to game the CBO scoring.
Thousands of new IRS Agents to enforce it.

Yet now 222 organizations, predominantly unions applied to the Obama Administration and get a waiver.
Give us all a waiver and start over.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 9:51 PM | Report abuse

While half listening to BHO I am also reading.

I am reading a post-apocalyptic history book.

Empire of the Summer Moon
S.C. Gwynne
Scribner 2010

*"That had changed, and on October 3, the change assumed the form of an order, barked out through the lines of command to the men of the Fourth Cavalry and the Eleventh Infantry, to go forth and kill Comanches. It was the end of anything like tolerance, the beginning of the final solution."*

Speech is good, but not as good as my book.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 25, 2011 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Greg

It seems you WANT bipartisan support, but you are NOT willing to do what it takes to get it.


Life doesn't work that way

Case closed.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 9:54 PM | Report abuse

"unnecessary burden on small businesses"
Try reading bills before passing them.

ObamaCare:
10 yrs of taxes for 7 years of benefits, to game the CBO scoring.
Thousands of new IRS Agents to enforce it.

Yet now 222 organizations, predominantly unions applied to the Obama Administration and get a waiver.
Give us all a waiver and start over.

_______________________

Tom is correct


Why do Obama's friends get exemptions???


It makes no sense - the Republicans PAY THE BILLS, and the democrats get off the hook.


And then Obama claims he doesnt understand what the issues are......

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Who believes the "veto bills with earmarks" line?

Yeah, I laughed to.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 25, 2011 9:58 PM | Report abuse

"10 yrs of taxes for 7 years of benefits, to game the CBO scoring."

You do realize that the CBO score goes out to 20 years, right?

Also, teach me about this new method of accounting where money is measured as units of time. Any textbook I should pick up?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 25, 2011 9:58 PM | Report abuse

OK now the country has to be SUBJECTED TO a bunch of democrats claiming how wonderful obama's speech was


It is all a pile of garbage


The democrats all know Obama's speeches are horrible now - but it is now some obligatory democratic thing to say how wonderful Obama is and all that crap

AND the nation has to sit there and listen

The democrats NEVER gave Bush any respect - perhaps that is the new standard...

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Starting Beer#3 RedWine#2.
Politicians with power on TV - Go Ethanol!

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 10:02 PM | Report abuse

SIGNIFICANT

Obama defined Pakistan as "the battlefield"


Interesting.......


The ACLU obviously would object...

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 10:02 PM | Report abuse

"I am reading a post-apocalyptic history book."

Sounds good. I love post-apocalyptic fiction.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 25, 2011 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd writes:

"10 yrs of taxes for 7 years of benefits, to game the CBO scoring."

You do realize that the CBO score goes out to 20 years, right?

Also, teach me about this new method of accounting where money is measured as units of time. Any textbook I should pick up?


_________________________

Ddawd

You continue to show an amazing combination of arrogance and ignornance. It is incredible that you get anything right.


It is correct that the CBO scoring on the 10 years has 10 years of revenue up against 7 years of costs.

That is true.


So why the arrogance, pissy response???

It is because you have a RACIST motive here???

If a white guy did the same thing, you would be complaining.


So why don't you come out directly and say that you talk about Obama differently because he is black.


Why don't you at least be honest about it.


......

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 10:05 PM | Report abuse

He let Dick Cheney write this foreign policy section and I appreciate the bipartisanship!

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Read "The Road.". But first take all the weapons out of the house.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 25, 2011 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd writes:

"10 yrs of taxes for 7 years of benefits, to game the CBO scoring."

You do realize that the CBO score goes out to 20 years, right?

Also, teach me about this new method of accounting where money is measured as units of time. Any textbook I should pick up?


_________________________


Ddawd

You continue to show an amazing combination of arrogance and ignorance. It is incredible that you get anything right.

It is correct that the CBO scoring on the 10 years has 10 years of revenue up against 7 years of costs.

That is true.


So why the arrogance, and the pissy response???

It is because you have a RACIST motive here???

If a white guy did the same thing, you would be complaining.


So why don't you come out directly and say that you talk about Obama differently because he is black.


Why don't you at least be honest about it.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 10:08 PM | Report abuse

"Gays can now serve in the military"

... yeah, now that DADT passed by a Democratic congress and signed by Clinton is repealed.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 10:08 PM | Report abuse

@rukidding7 ""I do! I do! Tell me again what Jimmy Carter did 35 years ago."

Jimmy Carter created 10.3 million jobs then St. Ronnie came in and cut that number in HALF..@5.3 million...great huh Brigade..give St. Ronnie credit however..his second term was the ONLY TIME an R president saw any job creation of note...10.8 million of course the first of the job killing Bushes took office and Pappy cut that figure by 80% dropping job creation to 2.6 million...then guess what Brigade...a Dem Clinton came into office and cleaned up pappy's mess...first term 11.5 million...2nd term 11.2 million...both terms FIVE TIMES HIGHER THAN BUSH I but then that brings us to shrub doesn't it...the first President since WWII to preside over a decade of NO JOB CREATION....1st term 0 yeah Brigade that's ZERO...as in ZERO..the ONLY Pres since WWII with that distinction..2nd Term
1 million and then the disaster he left Obama...who got a stimulus passed..up and running and reversed the Bush trends after 90 days in office.
Aug 2008: -84,000
Sep 2008: -159,000
Oct 2008: -240,000 <---- Market collapse
Nov 2008: -533,000
Dec 2008: -524,000
Jan 2009: -598,000 <---- Obama inaugurated
Feb 2009: -651,000
Mar 2009: -663,000 <---- ARRA (Stimulus) starts
Apr 2009: -539,000
May 2009: -345,000
Jun 2009: -467,000
Jul 2009: -247,000
Aug 2009: -216,000

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics"

First, no President or Congress "creates" millions of jobs. I recognize that Republicans are guilty of this formulation as well, but it's a gross exaggeration of their limited role in the national economy.

Second, I find the "misery index" to be a better indicator of the economic conditions of a President's term than just the employment numbers.

"During the Presidential campaign of 1976, Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter made frequent references to the Misery Index, which by the summer of 1976 was at 13.57%. Carter stated that no man responsible for giving a country a misery index that high had a right to even ask to be President. Carter won the 1976 election. However, by 1980, when President Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index had reached an all-time high of 21.98%. Carter lost the election to Reagan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_%28economics%29

Out of curiosity, were you actually around during Carter's presidency or are you just relying on statistics you read about when you are trying to characterize it as a time of good economic performance? Most of us who were actually around for the gas lines, inflation, etc. remember otherwise.

Posted by: jnc4p | January 25, 2011 10:08 PM | Report abuse

I can't help it. I disagree with this gentleman on almost everything.

But I lll...uhh...li...um...li...like him.

Much of this is respect for the office, and pride for my country, but darn it all, I like the guy.

We could be washing our eyes with tears and damning our ears listening to Rodham.

So now, go out and do it, brother.

{{{you're gonna have to tell Barney and Harry to just blow}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 25, 2011 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Go padres and chargers!

Posted by: dudemypickle | January 25, 2011 10:12 PM | Report abuse

"No matter where you cone from"?! Even Kenya?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Now lets hear how FOX spins this one. Should be entertaining as usual.

Posted by: dudemypickle | January 25, 2011 10:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm actually liking some parts of his speech. But as he has said in the past "... words, just words".
I don't care what politicians say, at all, just what they do.

I still think he and most in his administration are neo-marxists, I'm waiting for them to prove by action that they are not.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 10:16 PM | Report abuse

I read "The Road" but kept my shotgun. TMW, you would love this book. The apocalypse happened to the Comanches, but not before they had driven the Spaniards south out of Texas, and not before they had driven the settlers back from west Texas for 20 years.

You could say that the Comanches forced Texas into the Confederacy. East TX voted to secede - it was southern. The Hill Country voted to stay in the union. West Texas had been promised federal help against the Comanches since annexation. The Texas Rangers had won the Mexican War for Polk, but none of the promised federal help came. West Texas, with no slaves and no dog in that fight, voted overwhelmingly to secede because of the Comanches and the broken promises from DC.

Well, now it's 1871, and now the Army is finally coming after the Comanches.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 25, 2011 10:17 PM | Report abuse


Reagan

Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down this Wall


Kennedy

Ask not what you can do for your country


Obama


We do big things

(He really didn't say that stupid line three times, did he?)
.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 10:17 PM | Report abuse

ruk is definitely old enough to know better. But he actually believes 1979 was our country's economic pinnacle. No facts can ever penetrate his ideological obsession.

It's PL liberal Article of Faith that Jimmy Carter was at least our second or third greatest President. But the country done him wrong. Poor Jimmy. No wonder he's so bitter.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 25, 2011 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Here comes Ryan!

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 10:18 PM | Report abuse


Ddawd writes:

"10 yrs of taxes for 7 years of benefits, to game the CBO scoring."

You do realize that the CBO score goes out to 20 years, right?

Also, teach me about this new method of accounting where money is measured as units of time. Any textbook I should pick up?


_________________________


Ddawd

You continue to show an amazing combination of arrogance and ignorance. It is incredible that you get anything right.

It is correct that the CBO scoring on the 10 years has 10 years of revenue up against 7 years of costs.

That is true.


So why the arrogance, and the pissy response???

It is because you have a RACIST motive here???

If a white guy did the same thing, you would be complaining.


So why don't you come out directly and say that you talk about Obama differently because he is black.


Why don't you at least be honest about it.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Q.B. I give links and facts...and you....

waaaahhhhhh I can call you names..neener neener...you're drunk...get that from your little girl Q.B.? She'd probably do a lot better than you tonight. Your drunk?LMAO Great Q.B. You can join brigade, RFR, Tom,and all the other "intellectuals" who NEVER provide a link or fact in their response.

I'm not going to engage in name calling with you....

Again can't any of you righties explain a clear trend...that transcends all the name calling? It's a TREND...as in repeated over and over again...it's all luck..right...Let's see...Brigade tried to bring up Jimmy Carter...oops twice as many jobs as Reagan's first term and many as St. Ronnies 2nd...the R benchmark for success...Clinton followed that with twice as many jobs as St. Ronnie...

Ohhhh but wait what did the R's give us for those few jobs...record deficits..St. Ronnie...record deficits...G.W. Bush RECORD DEFICITS...Bill Clinton...balanced budget...G.H.W. Bush...deficits...Carter
balanced budget..decreased deficit...do you guys understand what a TREND means statistically? Yeah go ahead and bet on the losing team...which is DEMONSTRABLY the R's.

Again any moron can say somebody is drunk...or call them names...only wussies like Q.B. Tom, and Brigade are reduced to NOTHING but name calling because their facts do not back up their narrative and absurd conclusions. Reality clashes with their right wing FANTASIES!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 10:22 PM | Report abuse

"I still think he and most in his administration are neo-marxists, I'm waiting for them to prove by action that they are not."

What is your criteria? Though I'm assuming your premise is not disprovable.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 25, 2011 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Mark-in-Austin:

Maybe what's wrong with Mexico is that we got behind on the periodic A-Kicking schedule.
What the heck, Mexico City has always regarded their northern states as bandit country anyhow, maybe time for some raids back south?

;o)

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Yay "fearmongering"!!!

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 10:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm with Troll. The post apocalyptic novel that everyone must read, if you can keep from committing suicide, is The Road, Cormac McCarthy.

Right up there with the Road, is Neville Shute's On the Beach.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 25, 2011 10:39 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

I say "neo-marxist" to differentiate from classic marxism which is direct state ownership of production and distribution assests.

To me "neo-marxism" is the full control of production and distribution through regulation and taxation.
They don't need to own it when they can achieve (and get for them and thiers) all they want by regulating and taxing it.

Even on our own private lands the maze of regulations and taxes is overwhelming.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Great 10 minute response. Now Bachmann!!!

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Crap I just dozed off. Ryan say anything good?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 25, 2011 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Mark,

Put it on my list, thanks.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 25, 2011 10:40 PM | Report abuse

@Tom

Intellectual that you are...do you even effing know what a Marxist is?

More importantly do you know what the word nuance means. Didn't think so.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 10:41 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington, the link to Ryan's full speech was added above.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Tom, I meant criteria for Obama to show that he isn't a neo-Marxist.

Incidentally, given that your definition of neo-Marxist seems to encompass anyone who passes a tax or regulation, I'm willing to settle for you showing me ANY politician who isn't a neo-Marxist. Hell, let's start with Bush.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 25, 2011 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Next up, per Wolf, the "official" Tea Party response.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 10:48 PM | Report abuse

ruk,

I guess you should have decided you weren't going to name call before you started calling us bufords and losers etc. For name calling before you were against it?

Your posts are reading like they were written under the influence. That's a fact. You rant and rave and mock, and cling to your silly charts, covering your ears to inconvenient facts that put them under question.

I've posted endless links and facts refuting these lame "arguments" of yours, and you know that perfectly well. But you don't like to talk about any facts that are inconvenient to your shallow non-analyses. You never, ever even once answer the questions I put to you earlier.

You ignore: Jimmy Carter's self-defined misery index. The strangling of inflation -- through strangling the money supply -- by Paul Volcker (a necessary but hugely painful measure). The growing economy, end of the Cold War, tech boom, lower tax rates, and cheap oil that Clinton inherited, and the GOP Congress that reined him in and imposed spending sanity in 1994. The recession, fed miscalculations, and 911 inherited by Bush II.

You can never identify a single concrete common thread policy thread that explains how all D presidents supposedly "create" jobs while Rs don't. You can't ever explain the fact that there are as many policy contrasts among these Ds and Rs as there are between them. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You think Ike was great because taxes remained high under him, but you trash him with other Rs. You lump Nixon with Reagan, even though Nixon was one of the most liberal Presidents domestically (wage and price controls!). You lump Clinton with LBJ and FDR, even though he declared the era of big government over and left taxes much closer to where Reagan/Bush left them than he raised them back toward FDR or even Kennedy levels. You are tellingly silent about the role of Congress.

Your inability and unwillingness to deal with actual facts like these indeed renders your shallow argument risible.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 25, 2011 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Oooohhhhhh Bachmann up now. I' m gonna pour me another drink for this.

Wonder if she'll pick a winning topic and make fun of Michelle Obama's anti-obesity initiatives.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 25, 2011 10:49 PM | Report abuse

@Mike Short answer to your question..NO!

He really didn't say anything at all...just the broad sweeping Mom, Ice Cream and Apple Pie.

Having said that...he was the most formidable R speaker I've seen since Marco Rubio's victory speech in Miami back in November.

The R's have finally found someone who is not a total embarrassment. In terms of charisma and optics...Ryan blows way Boner, and virtually every current R presidential candidate with the exception of Huckabee. Only one speech but give the blue eyed liar his due...he lies smoothly and wit charisma.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 10:49 PM | Report abuse

ZOMG she looks like Satan or something.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 25, 2011 10:51 PM | Report abuse

"Only one speech but give the blue eyed liar his due...he lies smoothly and wit charisma."

I have no TV, so I didn't watch the speech, but I thought McDonnell's response last year was pretty good.

(and let's just pretend the response from two years ago never happened)

Posted by: DDAWD | January 25, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

She just said Obama should repeal Obama care. Heh

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 25, 2011 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Another good speech (and charts). Why couldn't she look into the camera though? What's a "gestion"? "Spunding cuts"?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Wow...scary.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 25, 2011 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Tom,

"To me "neo-marxism" is the full control of production and distribution through regulation and taxation."

Not a bad usage. I just call that contemporary or regulatory socialism (maybe neo-socialism?). I confine neo-Marxism to theories involving societal conflict.

Marx wrote about economic class conflict, inherent contradictions, etc.
Neo-Marxists extrapolated that idea to other forms of "class" conflict. Gender oppression and conflict. Race and ethnic conflict. New interpretions of economic class conflict. And this is precisely why (partly why, anyway), I confidently say Obama and many other Dems are indeed neo-Marxists. It was in great vogue when he was in school, and he clearly soaked it up.

Many of the lefties are completely unfamiliar with any of this and howl in protest at the terminology, even while they espouse socialist and Marxist theory.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 25, 2011 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd:
Yes, in general, but as a conservative I'd hope the Reps are for less regs/taxes than Dems, but they haven't had a good track record lately.
Bush ain't my Huckleberry, he let Congress run wild.
I'm hoping this House landslide shrinks Fed spending, regs and taxes. We'll see.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Why was Anderson Cooper rubbing his hands behind Wolf Blitzer?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 11:03 PM | Report abuse

@10:47 update...

Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/user/mldb2008#p/u/4/RGW38Zy4bJo

Posted by: getjiggly2 | January 25, 2011 11:05 PM | Report abuse

"fearmongering about the debt"


Greg

You BETTER be afraid of the debt.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 11:08 PM | Report abuse

If one is not afraid of the nation's debt, then one is one of the most irresponsible people in the country

.... and you really should not be writing for a major daily..


You really don't have a grasp of what is important. You should resign immediately.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 11:10 PM | Report abuse

"You lump Nixon with Reagan"

Not at all! Nixon blew Reagan away in total economic performance...almost as many jobs...without the HORRIBLE Reagan deficits...and how ironic Q.B. as you yourself point out...

"though Nixon was one of the most liberal Presidents domestically (wage and price controls!)."

As 12Bar would say Q.B. bwaaahaaahaaaa

You make my point perfectly...the more conservative the R the worse they suck at the economy because trickle down has been exposed as a disaster..

"You can never identify a single concrete common thread policy thread that explains how all D presidents supposedly "create" jobs while Rs don't."

Why is that my responsibility? If I tell you the Steelers beat the Jets 24-19 and say that's the score...if I am unable to tell you why the Steelers won, does it make the score invalid. You are the loser Q.B. it's up to you to explain how those facts are simply coincidence...not me. Really Q.B. Trends that dominate and clear cut and you want me to explain how that's not a coincidence. I could engage you on the subject but we'd be here all night and you'd call me even worse names.

That's really beside the point isn't it...I'm a Keynsian you are not..we can argue the THEORY...but you still can't escape the REALITY of the results. The proof is in the pudding and compared to the D's it is simply a fact that historically the R's suck at the economy. Call me names...it doesn't change the FACTS!!!!!


Genius Q.B. You're losing it. Again nothing but your tired pedantic blather and name calling. As they might say Q.B. where's the beef...you've produced less beef than Taco Bell...in fact you haven't even approached 35% yet. LMAO!!!!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 11:10 PM | Report abuse

"Ddawd:
Yes, in general, but as a conservative I'd hope the Reps are for less regs/taxes than Dems, but they haven't had a good track record lately.
Bush ain't my Huckleberry, he let Congress run wild.
I'm hoping this House landslide shrinks Fed spending, regs and taxes. We'll see. "

So you're saying that the line for being a neo-marxist falls somewhere in the small area where Dems and Rs feel that taxation and regulation should be?

Also, when have you ever seen Republicans in Congress shrink spending? Is this hope based off Jay Leno jokes?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 25, 2011 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama says the "Idea of America endures"


But you, obama have trashed the economy, and dragged down hiring.

AND what happened all this "birth defect" stuff and "stain on the Constitution" ???

This dude Obama is simply not the guy to represent the country - I don't think the liberals really thought this through..


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 11:12 PM | Report abuse

QB1:
Thanks man. I lived and worked an 8yr Expat assigmnent in N.Europe where the socialists and even communists aren't afraid of admitting what they are and name their political parties as such.

Guys: I'm far from an "Intellectual", actually an Engineer/Supt/Mgr... linear thinking and all that. 2+2=4.000000 etc.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd:

All I can do is hope. It seem like the "ratchet effect" is infinite at the Federal level whether Rep or Dem is in power.

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."
- P.J. O'Rouke (but I think he may have been quoting someone else)

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 11:16 PM | Report abuse

"fearmongering about the debt"

When the bond markets get done with what they will be forced to do,
Washington will look like out-takes from Evil Dead II.

Posted by: tao9 | January 25, 2011 11:18 PM | Report abuse

@DDawd "I have no TV, so I didn't watch the speech, but I thought McDonnell's response last year was pretty good."

If you take the amount of improvement you felt McDonnell made over Howdy Doody Jindal..add that amount to McDonnell's performance and you get Ryan.

He was much better than McDonnell and didn't need any fake cheerleaders in the crowd. He didn't say anything...I think we were hoping he'd actually lay out his plan for privatizing SS...coupons for Medicare so the American public could see his true colors...but he was very, very smart. He started with a relatively long tribute to Gabby Gifford...I'm not critical of this and I'm not even suggesting he did this for political purposes...in fact IMHO he was sincere, on a winning topic and got off to a great start. Ryan was great...give him credit.
He's an impressive man even though I completely disagree with him. He's bright, articulate, works out like a fiend and remains in awesome shape..a real health nut (I consider myself a health nut as well I work out a lot and I know the power that gives Ryan) and he has penetrating blue eyes...what does that have to do with anything...optics...charisma...he gives the R's some hope after all the embarrassing loons who have been getting all the ink on the R side recently.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 11:19 PM | Report abuse

There is no way that Ryan is actually putting his plan out there. Though I guess I'll have to youtube his response if it was that well presented.

In defense of my governor, Jindal is a much better speaker than what you saw two years ago. Not a great speaker, but better than that. His natural style is to start fast and just go faster until it's all a blur. My theory is that he was overcoached before giving that response. He needs to slow down, but not drawl it out like he did back then.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 25, 2011 11:25 PM | Report abuse

"Also, when have you ever seen Republicans in Congress shrink spending?"

IIRC, Clinton's 2nd term.

Posted by: tao9 | January 25, 2011 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd:
You're in LA!
I got to live in Lafayette twice for about 5 yrs. Loved it.
Great people and by far The Best Food In The World.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 11:30 PM | Report abuse

"...2+2=4.000000 etc."
Posted by: TominColorado|January 25, 2011 11:12 PM

DDAWD, going forward is it OK if I have Tom check my math before I post?

Thnx man

Posted by: tao9 | January 25, 2011 11:31 PM | Report abuse

"There is no way that Ryan is actually putting his plan out there"

Agreed DDAWD. In fact the R's pretty much distanced themselves from that "plan" from the get go. I feel certain they told him to stifle the plan and go with the charm. He did an excellent job of that.

As for your Governor...don't worry...Bobby looks like Ronald Reagan compared to our Governor. Tricky Ricky Scott doesn't even speak to the public. I am freaking serious..the only time I've seen Scott speak publicly besides one of his ubiquitous :30 attack ads was during a debate. They didn't televise his inaugural address and he is the Howard Hughes of politics a real hermit. Say this for the crook he is a "different" politician. He doesn't care about the people of our state, he only has a very singular and clearly focused vision of HIS plan everybody else be damned. I guess his CEO background. Of course considering his last foray as CEO cost his company close to TWO BILLION in fines we are holding our breath that the state gov't is too large for him to eff up as badly as he did in the private sector. He listens to nobody, not his cabinet, legislature, the media or his constituents..he is a true believer...in his own infallibility.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 11:32 PM | Report abuse

The most understated commentary I've seen about Bachmann's speech comes from Josh Marshall:

BACHMANN TRAINWRECK BLOGGING
10:50 PM: I'm not even sure what to say about this.

--Josh Marshall

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 25, 2011 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Ruk is the only one calling names and yet accusing me of doing it. Brilliant stuff.

I'm sorry you are unable to see why actual policy facts and not a party initial are relevant. Sorry you don't get that dems controlled the House for 50 years until 1994 or how that is relevant. Or how they broke their deal with Reagan on spending. The things you say don't even make internal sense. You are a Keynesian who sees Clinton as an economic genius and rails about "fiscal discipline." You probably don't even see the problem with that.

You get off on a simple-minded argument. We all get that by now, so you can stop repeating and showing us that.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 25, 2011 11:35 PM | Report abuse

@sue

I gave this my 85 year old Fox news loving mom test..not Bachman's speech tonight but in speaking to mom this afternoon she was stunned at how easily Anderson Cooper exposed Bachman as a ludicrous fraud by pointing out Bachmann's ignorance about history. My mom has written off Bachmann and Palin...and is leaning Mittens..with Huck a close second. If she saw Ryan tonight she might have a new BFF...weren't those blue eyes something Sue?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Q.B. You're really disappointing me dude.

"You get off on a simple-minded argument. We all get that by now, so you can stop repeating and showing us that."

I'm not making an argument at all. I'm simply pointing out FACTS..you are the one who is trying to ARGUE against freaking facts. Is it a fact or not Q.B. that there are clear trends that show that since WWII FACTUALLY speaking the R's have done much worse on two important metrics of the economy..they've sucked compared to Dems at job creation...they've sucked compared to Dems at the deficit. I'm not ARGUING THIS POINT I'M STATING A FACT. And I thought you were an attorney Q.B.
You can do better.

As far as repeating those FACTS...I plan to do it over and over again..you know..message discipline...kinda like..."death panels" "gov't takeover" "job killing" the only difference is that I'm dealing in FACTS not R BS talking points. Facts deal with them Q.B. Your side sucks at the economy..I'm pointing out a FACT not making an argument!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Just now watching Bachman.
Look into the camera please.
Liked Ryan's brevity better.

... finishing with the "Iwo Jima" statue... holy carp, yes we are at a critical point in national history now but it's not the existential struggle vs the Axis.

Have beaucoup guns, no bayonettes, maybe she'll send me one if I ask nicely.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 25, 2011 11:43 PM | Report abuse

"weren't those blue eyes something Sue?"

Yeah, but the content was just empty calories.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 25, 2011 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Good night all...Ryan was great...Bachmann was...not so much. :-) The President was the President!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 11:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm not really a Deep South person, but I love New Orleans. If I were to complain about the food, it would be that the diversity isn't great in comparison to somewhere like DC. But nowhere better to be for Cajun food.

As for Jindal, he's a far better governor when the spotlight isn't on him. When he is getting national scrutiny, he feels pressure to do and say Conservative Things. His handling of the BP spill was idiotic.

But yeah, Florida is the new Louisiana. Rick Scott and Marco Rubio are two of the most corrupt politicians I've ever seen. David Vitter likes to get down and dirty a lot and is a very ineffective politician, but as far as I know, he has never stolen the money they have.

There are a lot of politicians who I find abhorrent in terms of policy, but Rubio and Scott are on their own pedestal of corruption.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 25, 2011 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Oops one last thing for me to make clear.

I do not believe the R's are soley responsible for our huge deficits...share the blame for that one if you wish...I come down on the side of a German Real Estate Broker teaching a class in International Real Estate...he shared with us that Euros view both parties pretty much the same on domestic policy...

The D's Tax and spend
The R's borrow and spend

The job creation metric however...the R's really suck at job creation because giving all the money to the wealthy so they'll invest and create jobs and products for a middle class that cannot afford them simply is not as effective as making sure the middle class gets the tax cuts..put enough money in their pockets and create demand...there will always be plenty of investors to jump in anywhere there is demand...no demand..and investors tend to sit on their $$$$ and who can blame them?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 11:52 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD

"There are a lot of politicians who I find abhorrent in terms of policy, but Rubio and Scott are on their own pedestal of corruption."

As a proud Floridian it pains me to say that you've hit the nail on the head!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 11:54 PM | Report abuse

ruk, stop torturing qb1. The poor guy knows he's got no argument. Hence, he is asking you to demonstrate the exact economic forces that lead to the Dems' far superior record of job growth. (Despite the fact that he will never produce a shred of evidence that trickle down economics works)

And you could provide a million studies to prove your point, but do you really think he's going to read them? Mr. "the Bush tax cuts added 0.00% to the deficit" has enough trouble with basic arithmetic as it is.

So show some heart here.

But yeah, you've got it right. Public investment is far better at spurring economic growth than upper class tax cuts. Just look at how we got out of the Great Depression. It was by large infrastructure stimulus spending followed by even larger wartime stimulus spending. This isn't really a debatable point.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 26, 2011 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Emergence from the depression... plenty of opinions around on that besides govt infrastructure spending...

Unrestricted Warfare bombing all your competitors industrial capacity and civilian workforce to plasma from an isolated continent, then loaning them the money to rebuild with our goods was probably a "small" factor.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 26, 2011 12:24 AM | Report abuse

It's actually hard to imagine what has happened in the US in just the last 24 hours and almost ALL related to Bachmann-Turner-Boogaloo-Overdrive-a-mania...

1. CNN has now promoted for the nut-bag fringe Wal-Martians, that the Overdrive machine is now an equal partner in the Rethuglicon Automaton spewing devices... CNN should loose their license - tonight.

2. The Bachmann-Turner-Overdrive-Cannot-Contact-the-Mothership machine ERASED 100+ years of American history by saying that Slavery was abolished by the founding fathers and that John QUINCY Adams worked for almost 150 years, tirelessly to abolish Slavery before he slept.

We're talking about a total mental break with any form of reality that can be described by any human on the planet. I truly believe that she is trying to remake the classic "One Flew over the CucKoo's Nest" with her playing all the parts... She is truly the laughing stock of the planet.

3. Paul "I'm the Rethuglicon Boogie-Man and I came to Erase You" Ryan actually taking the Rethuglicaon party "ALL IN", in order to defeat EVERYTHING that has ANY TRACE of Barack Obama on it.. EVERYTHING..

Ryan will loose and go down in history as the single person that brought the Rethuglicon party to it's knees - and turned it into basically a non-thing.

Thanks Paul.. Awesome stupidity.

Oh, and PS, if you guys didn't hear Ari Fleischer spew his line on CNN about the Rethuglicon party finding it's one voice and hitting it's stride tonight when asked his opinion of the evening and then being taken apart by EVERY ONE else on the panel - you gotta go find it and watch.. WHAT a giggle to watch mental patients out and allowed to speak without their meds...

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | January 26, 2011 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Tom:

ON your neo-Marxist thoughts

When one can not LIVE without PAYING the liberals money for their massive health care plans


And when one can do anything - because the liberals will define EVERYTHING, INCLUDING DOING NOTHING, as "interstate commerce"


The world has become INSANE, you call it "neo-Marxist" -


I call these people MAD.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 4:28 AM | Report abuse

Everyone

If the health care bill is 2,000 pages - how many pages are the regulations going to be ???


We already have reports that provisions TAKEN OUT BY CONGRESS have been put back in by Obama by regulation


THAT IS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC AND AUTHORITARIAN.


We have a Marxist government right now.


WHO would have thought that only 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia would be dealing with run-away Capitalists and the United States would be STRUGGLING TO REMOVE SOCIALISTS FROM OUR GOVERNMENT


However that is the case.


PATRIOTS DEFEND AMERICA -


forget these silly discussions


ACT NOW TO DEFEND AMERICA FROM SOCIALISTS


AMERICANS ACT NOW

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 4:37 AM | Report abuse

(to RUK:) . . .
"by the summer of 1976 was at 13.57%. Carter stated that no man responsible for giving a country a misery index that high had a right to even ask to be President. Carter won the 1976 election. However, by 1980, when President Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index had reached an all-time high of 21.98%. Carter lost the election to Reagan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_%28economics%29

Out of curiosity, were you actually around during Carter's presidency or are you just relying on statistics you read about when you are trying to characterize it as a time of good economic performance? Most of us who were actually around for the gas lines, inflation, etc. remember otherwise.

Posted by: jnc4p | January 25, 2011 10:08 PM
=========================================

He was around when Herbert Hoover was President, but age has taken its toll on his memory. Everyone else remembers what a miserable failure was Carter, but we try to humor poor RUK. He feels so much more comfortable living in the past---and pretending Obama is the Messiah.

Posted by: Brigade | January 26, 2011 6:38 AM | Report abuse

So now, go out and do it, brother.

{{{you're gonna have to tell Barney and Harry to just blow}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 25, 2011 10:10 PM
========================================

Barney won't need much encouragement.

Posted by: Brigade | January 26, 2011 6:40 AM | Report abuse

One might imagine, given the women that the Tea Party crowd has pushed or helped push into the limelight (Palin, Bachmann, Brewer, O'Donnell, Angle) that the fundamental goal of the Tea Party is to make the gender look so foolish, dim, uneducated, punitive and emotional that they really ought to be removed from the political process all together.

But then it occurs to me that this is unfair as the men of the TP aren't any better.

How could it have happened that such people have gotten so far in US politics, and that a movement so deeply invested in anti-intellectualism (as a core American value!) has this sort of profile and influence on the GOP?

Part of the answer is old (see Hofstadter) and part is the more modern re-direction of citizen resentment against the financial elites (New Deal) and towards a new target, the "cultural elites". This was a tact which Nixon and Reagan both settled on and used effectively. And it doesn't take much perceptiveness to understand how such a re-direction of resentment worked in favor of the corporate and financial sectors.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 6:45 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD:
"I have no TV, so I didn't watch the speech"
=======================================

There's probably a government program that can help you out. If not, there's a TV downstairs in the community room.

Posted by: Brigade | January 26, 2011 6:48 AM | Report abuse

And, to bring us even closer to the modern circumstance, the "Southern Strategy" that emerged and which shifted a whole demographic to a position of opposition to Dems and progressive policies, set the "anti-elite" sentiment against government, particularly the federal government.

Those two strains go a long way to defining the Tea Party movement and the modern conservative movement generally. And once again, we'll note how both facilitate the desires and dynamics of the corporate and financial sectors.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 7:16 AM | Report abuse

It seems that rbaldwin2 was watching a different CNN last night. I know that Erik Ericksen didn't "take apart" Ari Fleischer. I don't think that Crowley or Gergan said anything after Fleischer either. Anderson Cooper came on right after that. Maybe rbaldwin2 was speaking about where he lives?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 26, 2011 7:17 AM | Report abuse

ruk:

""I'm not making an argument at all. I am simply pointing out facts.""

You are not simply pointing out facts. You are drawing a conclusion from those facts, which involves an implicit argument.

If you were just pointing out facts, you would simply present years, job numbers, and party control of the White House and say no more. However, you have drawn the conclusion that R's "suck" compared to D's and that R's "suck" on the economy.

In truth the mere "facts" that you present do not support your conclusion. Anyone familiar with either statistics or logic knows one very important dictum...correlation does not equal causation. If 98% of breast cancer victims wear bras, does that mean that bras cause breast cancer?

If you were to sensibly conclude as you have, you would first have to establish some common policy thread (as qb has asked you about), and then control for external factors such as which party held congress, which policies were actually put in place, and economic circumstances outside of politics (which is actually a daunting task...contrary to your simplistic notion, job growth is effected by much more than simply what is going on in Washington.).

In any event, you have made an argument, albeit implicitly, and it is based on what really is a freshman error...assuming that correlation equals causation.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 26, 2011 7:20 AM | Report abuse

bernielatham, did you ever follow that link to the 16 GOP responses to LBJ's State of the Union?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 26, 2011 7:21 AM | Report abuse

"...look so foolish, dim, uneducated, punitive and emotional..."

Bernie,

I've actually seen, at close proximity, Ted Kennedy give a speech drunk. He was also notorious (in Boston) for doing the same thing on the floor of the Senate.

It is also understood that Senator Kennedy never wrote one single word of those speeches that he occasionally slurred.

He was a pretty effective lib though, a booming intoxicated marionette.

I wonder if old Bernie L. has ever expounded his jive live and/or extemporaneously?

Sometimes man, you're such a crone.

Posted by: tao9 | January 26, 2011 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Finally, this meme of "cultural elites" was conveniently wrapped into the narratives about the media (snooty, liberal, anti-Republican) which Nixon and his people found convenient to forward as a means of discrediting criticism of what that administration was up to (and to protect Nixon's particular sensitivities about class). Attacking the press didn't begin there, of course, but it became a third fundamental aspect of the modern movement's worldview.

It was as a consequence of this lack of supportive press and media which might reflect and bolster the movement's notions (that is, to focus their resentments) that a thriving range of media enterprises all of which fulfilled this "need" have come into being. There was a market for it and it became very profitable indeed.

And once again, one can very easily perceive how this has even further facilitated the desires, preferences and dynamics of the corporate sector.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""the "Southern Strategy" that emerged and which shifted a whole demographic to a position of opposition to Dems and progressive policies, set the "anti-elite" sentiment against government, particularly the federal government.""

You really believe this was cause and effect? The Southern Strategy caused people to oppose Dems and "progressive policies" and develop an anti-elite sentiment? It isn't possible that the Southern Strategy was designed to capitalize on these naturally existing sentiments?

Do you have any evidence for this cause and effect, or are you just making it up?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 26, 2011 7:33 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3, his biggest fallacy from the prior thread was that "Jimmy Carter created 10.3 million jobs." What we do know is that 63 Congressmen and women LOST their jobs in November because of ObamaCare ; )

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 26, 2011 7:34 AM | Report abuse

For real, what is bernielatham talking about?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 26, 2011 7:39 AM | Report abuse

@Scott Yeah it's just coincidence. LOL

BTW Let's be clear here. I am talking about the White House...not state governments...Congress...the Court system which as you'll perhaps concede can also have an effect on our economy.

In business the CEO is the one who takes the heat. Call it coincidence if you wish Scott.

If you wish to call my opinion an implicit argument fine(I call it an observation)...but Scott you still haven't been able to explain the FACT that since WWII...this country has fared better under Dem Presidents than R's by two important metrics...job creation and the deficit. It's just a FACT Scott deal with it.

The deficit is easy to explain even though I tried to go soft on you guys at the end.
Again the Euros have figured that one out...the Dems tax and spend the R's borrow and spend...duh...no wonder the Dems are the only party with ANY success at balancing the budget...the R Presidents..whether they've had control of both houses...or no control are horrid when it comes to the deficit. That's a FACT Scott...and I've just given you one of the causes...is it going to be tax and spend or borrow and spend.

I'm certainly not going to spend any more time with you two ideologues trying to explain why your lame ass tax/regulatory/and fiscal policies have led to our nation's economic ruin...TWICE now in the past 60 years...no causal effect Scott...just SHEER COINCIDENCE.

I've gone into great detail with dozen of links and facts showing that our middle class is shrinking. Again Scott this is a FACT statistically! Virtually every study of this phenemenon points out growth from WWII to approximately 1977...then with 1980 and trickle down...yeah the middle class saw a trickle while the robber barons at the top became obscenely wealthy.
And yes call it class warfare. IMHO when someone earns 10 million a year and pays only 15% on that while the middle class is taking hit after hit after hit...it's freaking OBSCENE!

When I suggested to your knee jerk ideological friend that it might make sense to return to the some of the tax and regulatory policies that existed when the middle class was actually growing I was called a socialist. But of course you Scott would want any theorem proved conclusively before acting...how about a little freaking common sense...if one set of policies produces one result and another set produces a totally different result with bad consequences I don't consider it prudent to listen to folks like you before returning to the policies that actually WORKED and not failed...coincidence or not.

There is a HUGE difference between us Scott. You concentrate on theory and debate while I'm more concerned about REALITY.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 26, 2011 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Drunk? Who cares if a politician gets drunk or gives a speech while drunk? Who cares if a med student or a nuclear plant technician gets drunk on saturday and barfs inside a taxi? It's boorish, sure, but so what? Your measure of competency and brains and leadership is whether a person conforms with chapter three of Miss Manners?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 7:41 AM | Report abuse

Re the speeches last night, Ryan is handsome and talks well and smiled good. He seemed sane. He was a good choice to deliver the speech. But if he was, as reported, advised to try to convey a Reaganesque demeanor, it's hard to see how he matched that goal. His content was pretty much entirely negative and fear-promoting. Obviously, it was Obama who did the other and I really can't imagine how any (or many) non-partisans would have found Ryan's response attractive or compelling.

Re Bachmann, I watched three minutes and that was my limit.

But I don't really think any of this is terribly important going forward. If Dems fail to outline explicitly what Ryan's roadmap actually entails, that will be important. If the job situation doesn't continue to improve, that will be important. If Bachmann is allowed to fill the national tv screens in such a manner again, that will be important.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Well, I'm certainly not going to spend any more time with rukidding7 arguing against banning bras too...98% of breast cancer victims wear them...no causal effect you ideologue...just SHEER COINCIDENCE.

There is a HUGE difference between us. You concentrate on arguing on-line while I'm more concerned about REALITY and getting all women to go topless!

Long live Lykis!!!

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 26, 2011 7:51 AM | Report abuse

ruk:

""There is a HUGE difference between us Scott.""

Of that there is definitely no doubt.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 26, 2011 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Drunk? Who cares if a politician gets drunk or gives a speech while drunk?""

I suspect you would, if the politician held views opposite to yours. That is pretty much your modus operandi.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 26, 2011 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Nice meltdown, quarterback. Way to go.

Confronted with actual, solid, incontrovertible data about Democratic and Republican presidencies and jobs, absolutely unfavorable to your side, how do you handle it?

Uh, presidents don't create jobs. Yeah like our be saying that if in defiance of all logic the data were reversed.

Uh, yeah, misery index. A fictitious piece of meaningless fluffery with no real meaning. Tell me, which is the more poignant expression of misery?

* "I don't have a job"

* "A loaf of bread costs a dime more than a year ago."

Beyond dodging the point. Beyond dishonest. Simply a pathetic performance on your part. Why didn't you work the White House tennis courts in there somewhere too.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 26, 2011 8:10 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie

"If Dems fail to outline explicitly what Ryan's roadmap actually entails, that will be important. If the job situation doesn't continue to improve, that will be important."

Agreed. I thought the President did a good job last night. I was soooo pleased to hear him reaffirm our getting out of two absurd wars. The only thing I wished he had done is take perhaps :60 to poke some fun at statements tossed off repeatedly...like the failed stimulus...he could have pointed out that the economy teetered on the brink..he could have gone back and said...remember...General Motors was at the edge and we saved them..and along with it # of jobs. He could have done this not in an abrasive in your face jab at R's but simply reminding the American public of his successes which are actually pretty remarkable if you objectively create a list.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 26, 2011 8:13 AM | Report abuse

If Bachmann avoided eye contact it was probably advice based on audience testing by her handlers.

"Uh Michelle, when you look at the cameras, er, umm, you look kinda nuts."

Seriously, what is with that woman's eyes? Her smile could be used to paper-train naughty puppies.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 26, 2011 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Bernie,

I guess I’m just not as impressed by the overall intelligence (or sanity) of almost all politicians as you are.

Nor, am I fetishist about "elites" in political leadership or at the top of the bureaucracies. You see, I've met a lot of these people.

You seem to worship them, a sure sign you think you yourself are at their candlepower level.

{{{giggle}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 26, 2011 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Scott, is that kind of adolescent snark the ONLY daub on your palette?

Amazingly shoddy performance by the "conservatives" in this thread. The overwhelmingly positive reaction to Obama's SOTU must have their ears ringing.

They'll be up all night hitting refresh in their email software waiting for tomorrow's scripted talking points.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 26, 2011 8:24 AM | Report abuse

@ru - I've been arguing for a while that (as it seems to me) Obama really does want to change the political dynamics in the US in the sense that he wants to diminish this us versus them duality. I've also argued that I think he (or someone else) has to do this to keep the US from doing serious damage to itself and its citizens. And I've argued that one way he has of trying to get to this desired end is by modelling even-handedness, willingness to really listen, refraining from the types of attacks that are so common modernly.

I'm right on two of those. The only uncertainty is whether he'll be able to rally citizens with this style and model. I hope so. The alternative isn't a happy one.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 8:27 AM | Report abuse

""Drunk? Who cares if a politician gets drunk or gives a speech while drunk?""

I suspect you would, if the politician held views opposite to yours. That is pretty much your modus operandi.

==

At least Clinton got his BJ after work.

Boehner stands at the podium on the House floor sloshed to the gills and reeking of bourbon.

Don't know why other posters give you any cred. You write with no evident maturity.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 26, 2011 8:30 AM | Report abuse

"Debt is a good thing because a Republican says it's bad." The wit and wisdom of Greg Sargent.

Posted by: jimtreacher | January 26, 2011 8:35 AM | Report abuse

cao:

""Scott, is that kind of adolescent snark...""

What snark are you talking about? I haven't used any today...yet.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 26, 2011 8:36 AM | Report abuse

bernielatham writes
"if [Ryan] was, as reported, advised to try to convey a Reaganesque demeanor, it's hard to see how he matched that goal."

The 'reaganesque' spin must've been a distributed talking point; Gerson tried to make the case on Newshour, while conceding that Obama's delivery was far more compelling.

If you ask me, Ryan's doom & gloom was more Carteresque, while Obama's 'bright future over the horizon' echoed Reagan's 'city on a hill.'

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 26, 2011 8:39 AM | Report abuse

And yes call it class warfare. IMHO when someone earns 10 million a year and pays only 15% on that while the middle class is taking hit after hit after hit...it's freaking OBSCENE!

==

Don't forget. These reaganite types really do believe that vast income disparities are a good thing.

Recall the TV shows that were all the rage during Saint Ronald's "watch" Dallas and Dynasty, both fawning over the fabulous lives of fictitious ridiculously wealthy families.

You're not going to shame them by pointing out, however correctly, that the USA is turning into a two-tier banana republic. They already know it, and they think it's great. And no, they don't think they have a shot at moving up to the Carringtons' stratum. They know they're going to end up feeding their kids from dumpsters too. Just as long as the Latino or the liberal is rooting through a grimmer dumpster and the CEOs are raking it in, all's right in the world.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 26, 2011 8:41 AM | Report abuse

I'm referring to this,Scott:

"ruk:

""There is a HUGE difference between us Scott.""

Of that there is definitely no doubt."

==

You ignore the entire point for this immature rejoinder.

I turned off TH to read this thread. It's an experiment I won't repeat. You guys have acquitted yourselves absolutely horridly.

I remember Goldwater. I remember Dirkson. I remember when conservatism was an authentic syndrome of positions and its advocates could martial real arguments. You guys just don't measure up at all.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 26, 2011 8:50 AM | Report abuse

@bsimon - that's my take on it as well.

Re the Carter analogy... the difference I see in the two (Carter and Ryan) is that Carter was genuinely troubled and worried. Whether the "malaise" was more within him than in the country is a point one could argue, I suppose. But the bite of his worries was evident in his face and voice.

But I had no sense of such sincerity with Ryan. Rather, I perceived a near eagerness to portray a bleak portrait and a comfort with the role he played.

From the viewpoint of a Canadian, I'll tell you that the conservative movement's notions regarding Carter are amazingly nuts. If there's a US political figure who actually gives a damn about other humans' well-being as much as this fellow, I don't know who it would be (as evidenced not merely by his period in office but particularly, after). And he is utterly despised on the right. We Canadians peer over the border, see stuff like this and just shake our heads at how frigging upside down (and malicious) this is.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 8:55 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/the_morning_plum_174.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 26, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/the_morning_plum_174.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 26, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/the_morning_plum_174.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 26, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Ryan's the sky is falling lie does need a response for those of us who prefer measured reality rather than the R fetish of playing Chicken Little...the sky is falling...the sky is falling.

As the President CORRECTLY said last night our growing debt is a problem we need to manage and so he outlined some concrete steps he planned to take.

Ryan simply did his Chicken Little routine (very well btw IMHO) with zero substance and literally no specific idea of what to do about the deficit...cut it..duhhhh
But worst of all Chicken Little Ryan did not tell the truth...the deficit is certainly problematic but not yet at the "crisis" stage Chicken Little wishes us to believe.

On MTP Sunday one of CNBC's business reporter said as much...the debt is a problem but nobody in business views it as an unmanageable crisis. The sky is not falling..despite ole blue eyes Chicken Little's protestations.

Why are the R' guilty of gross fear mongering and rampant distortion of the problem...because they refuse to place the debt in it's actual context.

For those who care..righties don't read this it bursts your little bubble, and the next thing you know I'll be getting called a socialist, drunk, old and feeble minded...it's all quite entertaining to watch the righties avoid real facts in favor of ad hominem attacks...LMAO

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/keep-large-debt-numbers-in-context/1146801

"The debt of the United States is currently $14 trillion and is rising fast. Congressional Budget Office projections show it climbing to roughly $70 trillion in the next 75 years. • Numbers this large tend to boggle the mind. Such numbers lower our nation's sense of financial security, increase anxiety and, especially for future taxpayers, foster insecurity. • At a time when the United States is borrowing ever more money to repair our nation's infrastructure, buy oil, improve math and science education, and fight joblessness, should anxiety over America's debt prevent us from additional borrowing to modernize the country? Before answering that question, it is important to realize that such numbers — while accurate — are only part of the story. Such numbers play well in a sound bite, but the sound bite is missing some critically important contextual information."

Rule No. 1: Never use large debt numbers without stating the time period in which they are incurred and the corresponding proportion to ability to pay.

Rule No. 2: Never repeat statements made by others that fail to adhere to Rule No. 1, unless it is to include the missing information.

Rule No. 3: Report all failures to adhere to Rule No. 1 as a failure of professional ethics."

Chicken Little Ryan is guilty of an egregious violation of Rule #3!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 26, 2011 8:58 AM | Report abuse

I, for one, find it very surprising that NRO and the Weekly Standard find nothing positive or winning in Obama's speech last evening. There's journalism at the top of its game, for sure.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Ruk,

I am traveling today so wont be able to keep up with your latest insightful retorts. But for now:

You are making an argument. "Republican Presidents suck at deficits and jobs" is an argument. It is crude, simplistic, and weak, but it is what passes Tirana argument by you. It is all but economically and politically illiterate.

Your support for this crude argument are charts purporting to track deficits and jobs by presidential terms. Now, I haven't even to carefully examine your charts for the "trend" you claim. Perhaps I will when I have time, but I know without studying them that your argument -- and even more your implied argument -- is fatuous on all of the grounds I've pointed out. Your "dumb" response that you aren't trying to explain anything and don't have to is in fact an unacceptable one in economics or any other social science, because the task and responsibility of a social scientist is in fact to develop hypotheses that explain what happens in the world and why. To say that "jobs grow faster when the President is a Democrat " is a meaningless economic statement. You might as well play the game of finding correlations with Super Bowl winners or skirt lenghts or tie widths. Those things have been done too, but they don't prove anything about causation at best they raise hyoptheses for investigation.

You have a crude hyopethis. I've pointed out numerous falsifiers of it and presented you with many challenges to it that you can't answer and refuse to answer.


I will close with another example or two. You claim that's FDR, Truman and JFK were all better than Ike. But at the same time you idolize Ike because tax rates remained high, the highway system was being built, etc. You've always said the 20-30 years after waking were the best. But you put JFK over Ike even though jfk's main economic policy was tax cutting. Your argument is deeply antiintellectual. People who are serious about what causes prosperity are serious about examining real evidence about policies and event. You instead play what amounts to a trivia game.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 26, 2011 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Bernie

I don't see how Ryan can be sincere when he knows his Roadmap to "Obscurity" won't actually reduce the deficit, it has been scored afterall. He knows as well that their health care plan last year, such as it was only added about 3 million people to the insurable rolls and didn't actually lower the cost of health care appreciably. And he also knows that their so called repeal of HCR doesn't actually save jobs or debt burden. I didn't see his speech but I read it, I'll take an Obama any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I'm keeping the pressure on though. LOL

Posted by: lmsinca | January 26, 2011 9:03 AM | Report abuse

You have a crude hyopethis. I've pointed out numerous falsifiers of it and presented you with many challenges to it that you can't answer and refuse to answer.

==

No, he has facts.

And you don't have falsifiers. You have junk and denial.

You have "presidents don't create jobs," But presidents create policies that favor or disfavor the creation of jobs and Democrats absolutely and I disputably excel on the favoring side.

You have "misery index." A *slogan*.

You have allusions to *economics*.

The data are against you. But, oh, you don't have time for a serious rebuttal. As though time is your only problem in coming up with one.

You have plenty of time for derision and condescension, of course. What you're lacking is any actual evidence to work with.

Better go for the tennis courts.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 26, 2011 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Flight delayed a bit, so here is a good question for ruk to test his claim that he isn't making an argument.

If each President had followed precisely the same policies but had the opposite party affiliation, would the job creation and deficit correlations you claim exist have been the same or different?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 26, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

cao:

""I'm referring to this,Scott""

That wasn't snark.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 26, 2011 9:46 AM | Report abuse

TominColorado, here is the camera that Bachmann was looking into:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3D1fRxO_Yx99I

It's not her fault that CNN set up their camera so far to the right.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 26, 2011 10:20 AM | Report abuse

The only real takeaway from Obama's SOTU speech is this:

"I know my first two years were a disaster and I have a lot of makin' up to do so please forget how bad I've been and just have faith that I can do better".

The real Obama is gone and the triangulating Obama has taken over.

Posted by: battleground51 | January 26, 2011 10:49 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

© 2011 The Washington Post Company