Each and every day, First Read regulars can be assured that at least one poster is going to lay out a pant load of statistics - most of them utterly meaningless. We will see ratios of GDP to whatever, unemployment rates, percentage of budget borrowed, and a host of others. As a rule, they tell us nothing.

For any number of reasons, they have no value. Most readers don't seem to know the difference between a flat tax RATE, and a flat tax. Most don't know the way unemployment is measured has been changed a number of times over the years. Most don't know the difference between a balance of trade and a balance of payments. Most people really aren't very good with numbers.

Beyond that, the conditions which give rise to many of these statistics have changed dramatically over the years. The wheat farmer of a century ago would never believe the size of harvests today. A teamster of a century ago would scoff at the notion of delivering a package from the east coast to the west coast in six hours. The impossible is now the possible, if not routine.

All that by way of saying some things are still impossible. It is absolutely, utterly impossible for President Obama to be wrong all the time. Even the blind squirrel gets an acorn once in a while. Right? Yet, there is a cadre of posters that shows up here, day in and day out without fail, telling us that the President is ALWAYS wrong. (Many of them are the same posters who complain about this horrible lefty hangout, but just can't seem to stay away. Now you understand the plight of the heroin addict.)

Even as these people are busy telling us the President is ALWAYS wrong, they seem to forget that the President has advanced the same solutions touted by Republicans in the recent past. While Republicans never miss an opportunity to tell us that tax cuts cure everything from high unemployment to bad breath, when President Obama suggests tax cuts, suddenly they become the handiwork of Satan.

When President Obama follows through on the Iraq withdrawal plan negotiated by President Bush, none other than Mad Bomber John McCain tells us we need to stay longer. Not enough war dead, apparently.

When Jon Kyl tells us the President is wrong, well that has to be true, except when it's not, because we know that what Kyl says is not meant to be factual, which may be true, unless it's not.

Does President Obama make mistakes? Well, of course he does. For starters, he doesn't call me and ask for advice. Even so, more often than not, he gets it right. The point here is that surely there must be some problems - we have no shortage of them - where Republicans and Democrats can work together to find solutions. The President keeps insisting Democrats and Republicans can work together. Is he wrong about that too?

Right on Feisty. The people can only take so much before they start to push back. I think we see this beginning to happen now.

And, thumbs up to Eric Holder and the Justice Department for starting to go after those States who would circumvent our Constitutional voting rights. Throw out all the new Racial voting laws designed by the Republican bigots.

Obama in 2012.

Joe in Albany

Looks like another Democrook scandal is about to blow up here with Dem former governor and Senator, and Obama campaign cash bundler and advisor Jon Corzine

WOW Joe, your full of dog poop , i don't remember corzine being a OBAMA ADVISER!!!

he its christmas stop hating or santa will leave you coal.

Feisty, good point. Listening to the beltway wisdom chatter on the right/wrong track number last night on NBC, not one of the group took into consideration what has taken place in GOP led states--attacks on public workers, eliminating collective bargaining, voter suppression, republican governors refusing federal money for infrastructure spending which would create jobs, the 99% movement. The biggest driver of that right/wrong track number is what has been going on at local and state levels; and in my view, it is also a direct referendum on the existing Congress rather than President Obama--voters watch Congress, particularly republicans in Congress do nothing to help them.

David Walker, well said.

Each and every day, First Read regulars can be assured that at least one poster is going to lay out a pant load of statistics -

Well that didn't take long Mr. Walker, not long at all! lol

Play It Safe, or Roll the Dice

As in, should Republicans nominate Romney or Gingrich. Go with Mr. Steady, or take a flyer on someone who could actually be a change agent. Ride the anti-Obama wave with your fingers crossed, or damn the torpedoes full speed ahead.

Interesting dilemma, eh? Recent polls, as usual, don't give a clear picture. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released yesterday shows Obama beating Newt badly, but just barely besting Mitt. Then there's a recent USA Today/Gallup poll showing Gingrich beating Obama in 12 battleground states, just slightly behind Romney's showing. So there's enough out there to fit whichever narrative you prefer.

Whatever his imperfections, Newt provided the intellectual foundation that brought Republicans out of the wilderness to take control of the House in 1994 for the first time in 40 years. That was -- and remains -- a massive achievement. His Contract with America gave voice to a conservative approach to governance that resonated with voters. And despite their obvious philosophical differences and well-publicized dust-ups, the fact remains Republican Gingrich was able to work with Democrat Clinton to get some big things done – a locking of arms between the parties that has been beyond our reach for the last ten years.

Be that as it may, the Republican establishment still sees Newt as the high risk choice – make that very high risk. Not only would Republicans risk losing an election against a highly vulnerable incumbent president, but the margin of defeat could be so large it would risk losing (or at least limiting gains) in House and Senate races as well. In other words, if Newt is carrying the banner then disaster looms.

That risk is certainly real, there's little question in my mind on that point. But the potential upside of a Gingrich candidacy is just as real, and that upside needs to be measured against the potential risks. Remember the knock on Bush I about the "vision thing?" Well, vision is Newt's greatest strength and he has the ability to express his views in the context of a broad philosophical approach to conservative governance that can be absolutely mesmerizing at times. That ability could be crucial in 2012 because the differences between the parties are so vast – and the left can so easily muddy the waters with its class warfare approach – that it will be essential for the Republican candidate to have the ability to present a coherent argument for why Obama is bad for the country and why Republicans have a better way.

As of right now, I'm liking Newt's ability to make that case better than Romney ever could. Don't pay too much mind to Newt's so-called "baggage" problem, as I've explained previously we have a long history of electing folks with "baggage." What we need to pay attention to is making an objective assessment of which Republican candidate has both the intellectual and experiential firepower to lead the assault on the disaster that is Obama. So it's not a question of ideology versus electability as FR and other pundits would have us believe. It's a question of making the Republican case in a way that shows the sharp contrasts with the left, and clearly explains the dangers inherent in giving Obama another four years. Until he proves to us otherwise, Newt is clearly the person to do that. Their debates would be pay-per-view material.

Having spent my Thanksgiving vacation being "schooled" by my Libertarian brother ("Keep a bug-out bag by your door for when the economy collapses!") I'm all for annoying the conservative rellies! What's good for the goose, is good for the gander :)

In a fundraising note to supporters, deputy campaign manager Julianna Smoot on Tuesday suggested making a donation “inspired by your favorite conservative friend or relative,” especially if that person is fond of spreading right-wing chatter about the president.

What a most fabulous idea!

I missed that - thanks for sharing Joey!

Anyone else 'in'? ;o)

Not to rain on everybody's parade, but ya'all know that the election is still 11 months away? Today's numbers (unless it is regarding the GOP primary) are worth diddley squat right now? So, go ahead my little wingnuts, argue away. Talk to me when you have decided on a nominee.

Oh Bob, honey, we all know you are either a 1%er or are totally brainwashed by them into thinking you are on their level - hint, hint, to them, no one is on their level unless they are actually in the upper 1%. Reagan did absolutely nothing for the working middle class, what trickled down on my working class family was akin to something brown and foul smelling! I for one am sick and tired of the trickle down, and the wealthy do not pay their fair share, get rid of all those tax breaks and loopholes, close the loophole the georgie jr show created and you will get this country back on track and that is the only thing that will do it. The USA and our economy always do well when the working middle class does well and when the working middle class does not do well the nation as a whole does not do well at all. That is a fact, if you are too young to remember then perhaps you are old enough and educated enoough to read a good and honest history book?

To suggest Obama helped ameliorate the economic crisis is nothing but unbridled absurdity. To say Obama prevented another depression is just a lie for the mindless "lovers."

Wrong again. Alen S. Blinder, a Princeton professor of economics, did the following analysis:

The U.S. government’s response to the financial crisis and ensuing Great Recession included some of the most aggressive fiscal and monetary policies in history. The response was multifaceted and bipartisan, involving the Federal Reserve, Congress, and two administrations. Yet almost every one of these policy initiatives remain controversial to this day, with critics calling them misguided, ineffective or both. The debate over these policies is crucial because, with the economy still weak, more government support may be needed, as seen recently in both the extension of unemployment benefits and the Fed’s consideration of further easing.
In this paper, we use the Moody’s Analytics model of the U.S. economy—adjusted to accommodate some recent financial-market policies—to simulate the macroeconomic effects of the government’s total policy response. We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.
When we divide these effects into two components—one attributable to the fiscal stimulus and the other attributable to financial-market policies such as the TARP, the bank stress tests and the Fed’s quantitative easing—we estimate that the latter was substantially more powerful than the former. Nonetheless, the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls. These estimates of the fiscal impact are broadly consistent with those made by the CBO and the Obama administration. To our knowledge, however, our comprehensive estimates of the effects of the financial-market policies are the first of their kind.3 We welcome other efforts to estimate these effects.

Good Morning Feisty, Great Post and what a great choice. Who else could it have been?

The protesters here and abroad, by making their voices heard, have or a having enormous impact on our global community. Change doesn't come overnight, change comes, when a voice becomes many.

Some don't like change, but it is inevitable as the voices grow louder.

OWS you are making a difference. I salute and support you.

This is one Time choice I really applaud.

WOW Joe, your full of dog poop , i don't remember corzine being a OBAMA ADVISER!!!

_________________________________________________

Moron.

From HuffPo:

Obama's Corzine Problem

Posted: 11/28/11 02:56 PM ET

Just a few months ago Jon Corzine was on the short list to be President Obama's Treasury Secretary, but now he's ignoring a request to testify before a House subcommittee investigating the demise MF Global and setting up a showdown that could have major political implications for the president as his 2012 re-election looms.

The president, of course, is weakest when defending his economic record. Say what you want about the Republican obstructionists in Congress, this president is pretty brain dead on the economy and how to get it moving. His solutions are more of the same -- government stimulus like the one that barely worked back on 2009, and class warfare rhetoric about raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires," which he considers families making $250,000.

If you want to know why the president is so lame on the economy, consider who from the private sector he surrounds himself with for advice: Jeffrey Immelt, the chief executive of GE, which creates more jobs overseas lately than here in the US: Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor who when he isn't lecturing people on the need for higher taxes, uses every loophole imaginable to avoid paying his fair share, and Jon Corzine, who until recently was the CEO of MF Global.

The president and Corzine are known to be pretty close, and it goes beyond the president's visit to Corzine's swanky midtown Manhattan apartment for a fundraiser or the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Corzine, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs and former New Jersey governor, raised for the president this year.

Corzine is also known to be an administration counselor on economics given his many years on Wall Street.

Don't believe me, listen to vice president Joe Biden who said Corzine helped the administration develop its stimulus program (he wanted it bigger than the originally planned $300 billion; the final package was closer to $1 trillion) while referring to him as "the smartest guy I know in terms of the economy."

Whether we're conservative or liberal, we might want to ask ourselves if could be why the Occupy movement exists --

http://money.cnn.com/video/pf/2011/12/13/pf_165000_apt_nyc.cnnmoney/?iid=HP_River

An apartment that rents -- per month -- at about 10 times the annual income of a minimum wage worker, and would cost, if one could think about buying it, as much as $55 million.

Says the woman in the video --

It's not a bad price when you think about it.

It isn't the wealth that bothers the 99 percent. It's the total obliviousness of the wealthy.

When you think about it.

If you ever do.

Many of them are the same posters who complain about this horrible lefty hangout, but just can't seem to stay away. Now you understand the plight of the heroin addict

Well they have to go somewhere to hear intelligent conversation, they certainly do hear any over on Fox.

Want to bust a gut laughing out loud? Then check this out, EPA is using our tax dollars to fund a dance theater to educate youth about the impacts of air pollution. Yup, in its quest to "demystify" the art of dance these folks are doing their part to advance "environmental justice" around the country.

Kind of makes me pine for the good old days of Harry's Cowboy Poetry competition.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/epa-funds-dance-classes-against-air-pollution/254361

As of right now, I'm liking Newt's ability to make that case better than Romney ever could. Don't pay too much mind to Newt's so-called "baggage" problem, as I've explained previously we have a long history of electing folks with "baggage." What we need to pay attention to is making an objective assessment of which Republican candidate has both the intellectual and experiential firepower to lead the assault on the disaster that is Obama. So it's not a question of ideology versus electability as FR and other pundits would have us believe. It's a question of making the Republican case in a way that shows the sharp contrasts with the left, and clearly explains the dangers inherent in giving Obama another four years. Until he proves to us otherwise, Newt is clearly the person to do that. Their debates would be pay-per-view material.

Bill - I have been studying the dynamic that the GOP nomination process has been presenting. I have to admit that I was WRONG about the GOPers when I calculated that they would become a united front against President Obama. I was also wrong in thinking that the GOPers and the Tea Partyers would be able to co-exist in forming a united front against President Obama.

What was most puzzling to me is WHY the GOPers and the Tea Partyers, who absolutely DETEST President Obama, are so willing to gift-wrap the Presidency and GIVE Presidenyt Obama his 2nd term that that Senate Minority Leaders so vociferously trying to deny.

The problem here is that the Tea Partyers so HATE this President, their hatred is blinding them from forming any logical challenge to him. This is why they have picked Newt Gingrich. He is a bombastic and pompous azz, and his rhetoric resembles verbal hand grenades. It doesn't matter if Newt can win or not; what matters is that Newt can 'stick it' to President Obama. The Tea Partyers see Newt as the President's intellectual equal, and have made a calculation that Newt will beat President Obama in a one-on-one debate.

Who cares if Newt has marred his 2nd mistress (who is kinda hot in a Stepford sort of way)? Who cares about the ethics violations during Newt's speakership? All that matters is that Newt continue to throw out the 'red meat' for the Tea Party crazies so that they can feed their hatred for OUR President.

I see that you subscribe to that mindset, Bill. I figured you to be a bit more moderate in your stance, but excusing Newt's indiscretions because you think that Newt would be the best 'bomb-thrower' against President Obama is, well, kinda amusing.

Feisty, it looks like you were right about Blingrich being a better bet for Obama's re-election. And I do believe a Newt nomination will be the beginning of the end for the Tea Party.............

Feisty: Right on that "Protesters" are Time's people of the year. They will definitely have an impact on the 2012 election. Enough of Republicans feeding the 1% while the 99% are struggling.

BTW: Your post is numbered 15.0. What happened to the first 14 posts? Just asking.

Hopefully, the GOP-Radical Right will continue to show the nation their true colors. These people must think the American people as a whole are stupid. Well they are correct in that assumption, as far as their party backers are concerned.

it looks like you were right about Blingrich being a better bet for Obama's re-election

He also gives us an excellent chance of regaining the House & retaining the Senate!

Say hello to Madame Speaker! ;o)

Feisty: Right on that "Protesters" are Time's people of the year.

Thanks Ron!

Nice to see you out & about this morning!

What happened to the first 12 posts?

The FR gremlins are working overtime these days...

And I do believe a Newt nomination will be the beginning of the end for the Tea Party...

The Tea Party is already over. People talk about the Tea Party like they were beamed down to earth the day after Obama won the election. That is silly, the Tea Party is just the Republican base and it always has been. Now that the Tea Party brand is toxic (see recent polls) the Tea Party will slink into the background and once again become nothing more than the most embarrassing portion of the Republican Party.

Newt won't win, but IMO if he were it would mark a pivot point for the Republican Party just like the Goldwater loss. Many people actually look at the Goldwater loss and say it led to a renewal of the Republican party. Sometimes you have to hit bottom before you can start working your way back up.

Is it me, or have some of folks on the right been hitting that egg nog a bit early? You guys need to chill out and worry about picking a candidate. From the way it's going, you all may eat each other up and end up with noone!

Bill of Fairfax VA,

Thanks for your view from a conservative perspective. Having just visited your lovely part of the country, I can see why you are willing to roll the dice with old Gingrich. Nice little estates in Fairfax... the lobbyists, attorneys, consultants that make their living off the government have to live someplace.

Gringrich, the peddler, sowed the tactics of obstructionism in Congress. He shut down the government under Clinton and had to walk back from that stance when the people blamed Congress for the shutdown.

Of course Gingrich will try to have any debates , if he wins the nomination ,to be on pay per view. He will still need to peddle his "ideas" for pay. The cost of the dues for the country club in Fairfax must be very high. But maybe he only has a social membership. He does not look like a golfer to me.

Ron, that's a bug I've seen coming up on the boards lately. It comes and goes - sometimes it's way off the wall. I was post 007.34 the other day. And not all people see the same numbers, on your monitor it may say 15, but on his it may still be correct.

David Walker:

The point here is that surely there must be some problems - we have no shortage of them - where Republicans and Democrats can work together to find solutions.

According to Republicans, Democrats ARE the problem, and permanent one-party rule by the Republicans is the solution.

The President keeps insisting Democrats and Republicans can work together. Is he wrong about that too?

Obama has never been as wrong on anything as he was on the assumption that he could bargain with the Republicans as if the best interests of the people were their number one priority. After what Mitch McConnell said in plain English what their real goals are, Obama should know better now.

It doesn't matter if Newt can win or not; what matters is that Newt can 'stick it' to President Obama

Hello my friend of the left hand mouse. You're coming at this from the dark side. The bright side is that it's Newt's very ability to "stick it" to Obama that enhances Republicans chances of beating him.

nisl,

I gave historical facts - you give a partisan opinion based on a Keynesian model of what might have happened.

Absurd.

For lefties or the CBO to say Obama's stimulus and economic policies worked ... that things would have been worse without Obama's actions, that he saved / created 2.7 million jobs is like saying that Bush's national security policies in Irag saved 500,000 American lives, saved 50+ million lives world wide by avoiding a third world war.

The funny part is that I can make a better case for that based on historic fact than your professor can for the proposition that Obama helped the economy.

Regardless of the liberal spin, the empirical fact is that Obama did not save us from a depression - the recession was over.

If you want to argue Obama saved us from a double-dip recession which could taken us into a depression of his making - you at least have a leg to stand on.

Does President Obama make mistakes? Well, of course he does. For starters, he doesn't call me and ask for advice.

Huh! Wonder why he calls me but not you?

Bill, Fairfax VA:

Out of curiosity, if it were up to you, which Republican that is currently running for the Republican nomination would win?

Bob - You made a rambling incoherent wingnut tantrum, nothing more.

The problem is we have seen your posts and measured your intellect. I'll go with the CBO, Princeton, Harvard and Moody's Analytic over you on any given day.

You have a habit of pontificating on matters you know nothing about. I suppose that is why you are a Republican.

@nisl

Bob gets that way when he doesn't drink his prune juice. He gets backed up and everything just spews from his mouth instead of the other end! :)

Bill, Fairfax VA wrote: Want to bust a gut laughing out loud? Then check this out, EPA is using our tax dollars to fund a dance theater to educate youth about the impacts of air pollution.

I'm not laughing at all. I think it's a great idea. The problem with people like you is that everything is about money. There's no place for Art in your world. Art and the expression of abstraction is one of the things that separate us from chimps. It's a great medium for looking at ourselves and the world from a different angle. And it's a great tool for teaching kids about the world.

Where federal spending is concerned, I'll take modern dance over a missile any day of the week.

Jefferey Toobin (h/t Andrew Sullivan) has a good piece up on the 1964 to 2012 analogy.

In 1964, Republican insurgents seized control of the party. They recognized that their views were not held by a majority of Americans—at least not yet. As Rick Perlstein wrote in “Before the Storm,” his fascinating history of the Barry Goldwater campaign, the Republican Party was taken over by “a little circle of political diehards whose every move was out of step with the times”—which did not bother them much at all. For their moment, they were political missionaries who came to introduce a nation raised on the New Deal to an alternative approach to governing. Goldwater embraced “extremism” in the fond hope that its time, if not his time, would come. Goldwater and his aides didn’t spend a lot of time worrying about “electability.” They didn’t expect to win, and, emphatically, they did not. Lyndon B. Johnson won sixty-one per cent of the popular vote, and carried forty-four states.

Is the Republican Party preparing to reelect Barack Obama intentionally?

Paul Waldman adds:

[F]or the base of the party, beating Obama may be a secondary goal, and this is where the 1964 comparison makes the most sense. As Ed Kilgore explains, "the conservative activists who dominate the Republican presidential nominating contest are split between those who simply don’t believe adverse polls about Gingrich, and those who would rather control the GOP than the White House, if forced to choose." If this is a conflict between the establishment, which would rather nominate Romney, and the base, which would rather (at this point anyway) nominate Gingrich, then right now the establishment is losing, and they don't have too many ways of stopping Gingrich if he were to win the early contests.

David --

And despite their obvious philosophical differences and well-publicized dust-ups, the fact remains Republican Gingrich was able to work with Democrat Clinton to get some big things done – a locking of arms between the parties that has been beyond our reach for the last ten years.

For which, perhaps, Bill Clinton should be afforded a lot more credit in retrospect than anyone figured at the time.

Because I don't think there's any other evidence, anywhere, that Newt Gingrich is a consensus builder.

Quite the contrary, actually.

Houston --

Obama has never been as wrong on anything as he was on the assumption that he could bargain with the Republicans as if the best interests of the people were their number one priority. After what Mitch McConnell said in plain English what their real goals are, Obama should know better now.

Agreed, except that he should have known better from the start.

And I don't think there would be any better opportunity to bargain with Newt.

I'm not laughing at all. I think it's a great idea.

And therein lies the vast chasm between us, and there's a lot more to it than filthy lucre. BTW, I'll match my degree of separation from a chimp against yours any day of the week.

@nisl

If I may, I think a percentage of the GOP base does not want to just beat President Obama. They hate him so very much they want to destroy him. And the rest of the Progressives in this country that do not measure up to their extreme right wing zeal.

The GOP establishment is realizing this problem. However, I believe they realize that in this climate, they wil not win the presidency and are pinning their hopes on both houses of Congress.

Just my view of the political climate of today.

nisl - your Paul Waldman post pretty much sums up what I have to conclude when watching this GOP nomination process. I think that you are right - there is a WAR going on between the Tea Partyers and the GOP establishment and the collateral damage will give the President his 2nd term.

What is puzzling to me is WHY.

Bill, Fairfax, VA says that I am looking at this situation from the LEFT side of the coin, but it really does not make sense to me why 'scorched earth' tactics are being used. Could it be that the 'short term' is NOT IMPORTANT to Conservatives right now? Could it be that the 'scorched earth' tactics are the ONLY tactics that Conservatives know?

Joe,,,do you have problems getting to and back from the store? You sure can't stay focused on here. But nice job of copy n paste. What the hell dose your rant have to do with this article?

I'll match my degree of separation from a chimp against yours any day of the week.

Uhh. . . I don't you think you are--separated, that is. No daylight between you at all.

I still say Romney will be the nominee and that he will lose to the President.

I cannot believe that Newt can go the distance. Although the President's margin of victory will be MUCH larger if Gingrich is the nominee.

As I lay on the couch yesterday suffering from a stomach virus I watched an old Van Heflin movie on TCM. The movie was "TENNESSEE JOHNSON" and was a bio-pic about President Andrew Johnson. It changed my mind about Johnson's Presidency. The greatest impact the movie had on me was the speech Heflin/Johnson gave during his impeachment hearing. I don't know if the speech created by the script-writer was based on history or histrionics but it was a damned good speech about healing the wounds of the recent Civil War and becoming a single nation, united in liberty and freedom for all once again.

It was a wonderful speech and it spoke to me of the situation in America today. The polarizing politics of propaganda and deceit. The vitriolic tone of the discussion we see here day after day, a microcosm of the polarization we see in Washington and on the campaign trail.

I realize that most of you come here precisely to shout insults at one another, mostly while hiding behind your anonymous blog moniker. As I've said before, I guess it's therapeutic and makes you feel like you are doing something for your side of the argument. But you're not. The only thing your are doing is squirting lighter fluid on the tiny flames of polarization and adding to the problem.

This country has not been this divided since the American Civil War, 150 years ago. As intelligent, rational, American citizens of the 21st Century don't you think we could do better?

I would hope we could all agree to tone down the rhetoric, the name-calling, and the talking points of your day to day conversations on this blog and try to come to some compromise that will give everyone the ability to claim a small victory and ensure the continued success and existence of the American dream.

I'm not a fool. I don't expect a single one of you to acknowledge this post or to even try to be more respectful of each other or more rational in you discussions.

But, I was inspired by the words the script-writer gave to President Johnson, whether historical or not and I would hope that SOME of you could take my words to heart.

I am an atheist. But I admire the teachings of the Rabbi from Nazareth. I doubt his deity, but his teachings have value none-the-less. Love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, and above all help each other, for your value is judged by how you treat the least of us, not your wealth or power.

It's the Winter Solstice, Christmas, Hannuka, Ramedan, Kwanza. Celebrate it in whatever manner your traditions dictate and give the gift of brotherhood and understanding to your fellow Americans.

Peace,

Obama/Biden 2012

Phine says: I believe they realize that in this climate, they will not win the presidency and are pinning their hopes on both houses of Congress.

Hmmm, could be, but if so would it really matter? If the Republican establishment does realize they won't win the presidency and that their hopes lie in Congress then they would do everything in their power to make sure whoever wins the Presidential nomination doesn't hurt the races down ticket.

That means they would back Romney. Since that is who the establishment is ALREADY backing what you are actually arguing (correct me if I'm interpreting you incorrectly) is that the Republican establishment has lost control.

@ skip --

Thank you. I've been thinking for a while that we needed that, and it 's a big part of the reason why I haven't been here as much recently as in the past.

It took real courage to put yourself out there.

"What sweeter music can there be ..."

Peace to you, too.

there is a WAR going on between the Tea Partyers and the GOP establishment and the collateral damage will give the President his 2nd term.

What is puzzling to me is WHY.

Because the Republican Establishment has lost control of the message. Fox News and Hate Radio now control the wingnut thinking process. Fox News and Hate Radio do better under a Democratic president, it is easier for them to pretend to be victims that way.

But I'm not sure the Republican Establishment has lost control. If they manage to stop Newt'r we will know they still have some real power. We will see.

That means they would back Romney. Since that is who the establishment is ALREADY backing what you are actually arguing (correct me if I'm interpreting you incorrectly) is that the Republican establishment has lost control.

nisl - but with WHOM have the GOP establishment lost control?

I agree that the GOP establishment will continue to back Romney. However, consider this- if the internal strife (WAR) between the Tea Partyers and the GOP establishment has come to a head in the GOP Presidential nomination, do you think it would NOT affect the 'downstream' races in the House and Senate?

@nisl

Actually, that is what I am saying. Look at Boehner. He is an old school, GOP establishment republican. He has no power over his caucaus of today's GOP, even if he is speaker. Eric Cantor has more sway over the rank and file.

This is also why the "A" tier probable GOP candidates are sitting this election out. The base is going to have to get this all out of their system, and learn to play with others again.

The 'establishment' Republican Party has absolutely lost control!

The TeaPeople have taken over with their radical agenda but somehow are now happy with what they have been able to accomplish, which is NOTHING!

It's an absolute treat to come to Newsvine and see where Ron the brain dead necrophiliac has spouted more venom and nonsense. He, and people like him, are the reason there is no compromise. They are he!! bent on stealing as much of other people's money as they possibly can. His jealousy, envy, greed and larcenous intent ooze out of every comment he spouts. Rather than work for it, have your elected officials just take it. That a boy.

There, I fixed it for you.

nisl

Bob - You made a rambling incoherent wingnut tantrum, nothing more.

He is competing with Roy Wilson for the title of "most number of meaningless rants posted"

There, I fixed it for you.

Thanks nisl!

Your version is much more accurate! ;o)

Chilled - We won't know for sure if the Republican establishment has lost control until the nominating process is over.

If Newt wins a strong case can be made that you are correct.

If I were a teacher, I would have to give the GOP/TP an F. They do not work or play well together.

Thanks Anna Molly, I'm just sorry more people don't feel the same.

Happy Holidays to you and yours,

Obama/Biden 2012

The ideology is indeed the point. And it paints a picture of what kind of country that wing of the political right wants to establish. The 2012 election is a major watershed in American history - and oddly, the ultra-right which desperately hoped that the 2010 results would lead to gratification of their long-held dreams, seem perfectly willing to lose, and wreck the GOP, rather than adapt.

Following is from a 'Vine column I wrote about the national discontent, which includes some roots of the "Protestors," as well as the Tea Party. It is again a broader look at the idea of "What kind of a nation do Americans want?"

I WANT IT!

How the “Acquisition Society” Turned Into the Tea Party

When the world collapsed in September, 2008, Americans were already angry and bereft – their happy spending spree on houses, luxury cars, expensive purses, overpriced shoes, boats, steaks and lobsters, costly vacations, and high-priced private schools had begun to shrivel as far back as the summer of 2006, and the world they had grown up expecting to enjoy was tumbling down.

Since the 1970’s, the “ME Society” had grown used to getting all it wanted with little effort. It had turned into a self-centered, catty, selfish non-commune distinguished by brand names, fighting over spots in well-rated preschools, anxiety over condominium apartment acceptance committees, and the latest episodes of reality television programs.

Then came the crash.

Then came the election of a moderate Democrat as President – who was also Black.

Then came the spectacle of car companies – the blue-chip stock companies – going bankrupt. And the big banks depending upon a Federal bailout to keep them running. And thousands, millions, of people losing their homes through foreclosure.

All the certainties of American life, rich, rich American life, struck down, apparently in just one day.

How is it any wonder that suddenly Americans rose up in fury, screaming, “WE WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK!”

Indeed so, who would not?

In the land of Homer’s lotus-eaters, rising up – effort of any kind, really – was unthinkable. But take away the lotus leaf …. take away the money …. and suddenly there are addicts enraged.

The collapse of the American “dream” – a fantasy created by President George W. Bush in 2002 with his speech urging Americans to spend, spend, spend to drive away recession – absolutely infuriated many who had invested their whole lives in building that “dream.” With the stock market collapse of 2008, lifetimes of savings were wiped out – 80-year-old men and women suddenly went to work flipping hamburgers just to say afloat.

The results of the 2008 election further infuriated many Americans. They wanted a President who would imitate Ronald Reagan, not a Black man who mildly initiated some of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s responses to dire economic distress. They wanted an immediate reconstruction of their selfish vision of the “American Dream,” who would instantly restore prices to the housing market; magically, restore every lost job; with a wand’s wave, re-create every lost fortune. President Barack Obama did not do any of those things.

Nor could he.

The “Lost” America was always a fantasy. While those in the upper middle class could indulge their “Beverly Hills 90231” fantasies with overpriced goods and excessive parties, the rest of the nation had been wallowing in stagnation or worse.

Average household incomes fell year after year from 1981. Savings rates dropped, especially after President George W. Bush urged the nation to cash out their bank accounts and spend, spend, spend.

High-paying American jobs fled the country as Federal policies not only encouraged the closing of U.S. factories, but also rewarded companies that did so.

The U.S. economy descended into a service economy, in which dollars simply moved from the right pocket to the left, without creating anything of added value. And the economy shifted to an economic aristocracy, in which the owners at the top gained ever more earnings, while those in the basic jobs earned ever less.

President Obama is doing more and more to try and change those basics – he is the first President since 1980 to build up national manufacturing. He is the first President to address the falling wage levels of the middle class.

But there is more to be done. “Reforms” of the Reagan era, which included massive incentives to shift to short-term profits rather than long-terms gains of business, must be unrolled.

Incentives to profit from day-trading on the stock market rather than long-term investment, must be changed. Incentives to hire “temporary:” employees rather than permanent full-time staff have to be changed. Incentives to fire experienced older employees in favor of lower-paid young people have to be changed. Incentives to reward corporate managers with massive bonuses and stock benefits for a one-eighth quarterly increase in a copmany’s stock price have to be changed.

The Tea Party wants its country back. So do most Americans. It is the kind of country that is restored that makes the difference.

nisl....

I still have visions of all those silver-haired seniors complaining about 'government takeover of healthcare'....tea bag wearing to rail against HCR, funded by big insurance, FreedomWorks, etc.

They displayed a complete lack of the issue as they enjoyed their MEDICARE/MEDICAID/TRICARE....all socialist programs.

They were told to HATE....and did so, just because!

nisl,

Has it ever occurred to you that for the first 150 years of this country, the wars, the recessions ... the federal government never intervened in the economy.... that there never was a "Great Depression" until the 30s when there was unprecedented big government intervention?

Would the Great Depression have been "Great" if not for government intervention?

I suppose these same guys would say that the depression that never ended (until WW II came along) would have been worse too without FDR's wonderful interventions that did little except accomplish ....... the worst depression in history?

Why wouldn't they?

Heck they do - and tools and fools fall for that too.

Btw - What does nisl stand for - nominal intelligence simply lacking?

John A.-400474 - Very nicely done!

By the way ... Fesity, a grand opener today. David Walker, what a delightful post - and goodness, man, that in-and-out Moebius Strip of a paragraph ... a classic! the post quoting the economist on the success of the president's efforts ... and so many more ... thanks, all of you!

Bob - Do you know the difference between a recession and a depression? I bet you don't.

Look, I'm not going to get into pointing out how savagely misinformed you are. I get no pleasure out of pointing out how wrong you are. I'll just post the following and hope you not only read it, but sit down and actually try to understand it.

From Wikipedia:

Today the term "depression" is most often associated with the Great Depression of the 1930s, but the term had been in use long before then. Indeed, an early major American economic crisis, the Panic of 1819, was described by then-president James Monroe as "a depression", and the economic crisis immediately preceding the 1930s depression, the Depression of 1920–21, was referred to as a "depression" by president Calvin Coolidge.

However, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, financial crises were traditionally referred to as "panics", e.g., the 'major' Panic of 1907, and the 'minor' Panic of 1910–1911, though the 1929 crisis was more commonly called "The Crash", and the term "panic" has since fallen out of use. At the time of the Great Depression (of the 1930s), the phrase "The Great Depression" had already been used to refer to the period 1873–96 (in the United Kingdom), or more narrowly 1873–79 (in the United States), which has since been renamed the Long Depression.

Common use of the phrase "The Great Depression" for the 1930s crisis is most frequently attributed to British economist Lionel Robbins, whose 1934 book The Great Depression is credited with 'formalizing' the phrase, though US president Herbert Hoover is widely credited with having 'popularized' the term/phrase, informally referring to the downturn as a "depression", with such uses as "Economic depression cannot be cured by legislative action or executive pronouncement", (December 1930, Message to Congress) and "I need not recount to you that the world is passing through a great depression", (1931).

You can do it,

He is competing with Roy Wilson for the ....

Thanks for putting me in the company of Roy Wilson.

Have you never refuted anything he ever posted either?

Give it try sometime ..... you can do it!

They were told to HATE....and did so, just because!

Bigoted lockstep works, as Hannity is pleased to note...

Electability v Ideology is a false premise. We are still 11 months from the general and we haven't even begun the primaries. As of today both Gingrich and Romney poll ahead of Obama in the swing states. It's noteworthy that these are also where Democrat registered/leaning voters are down 4%, and Republican registered/leaning voters are up 5%.

The 2 biggest issues of this campaign are the economy and Obamacare. The bottom line on the economy, no matter how they spin numbers in DC, is that there are still millions more people of out of work today then there were when Obama took office. Advantage Republicans. And the latest polls show 2/3 of voters want Obamacare repealed. Again, advantage Republicans.

Blob Beckel made the idiot comment of the week last night when he was presented with these facts and tried to sugar coat them by saying that at this point in the '80 Campaign, Reagan trailed Carter. The critical difference was that Reagan had yet to receive a single Primary Vote and Carter was the one in the WH, with the Bully Pulpit. Now Obama, who like Carter, has high unemployment, inflation, and out of control spending around his neck, is already the one trailing before a solitary Republican ballot has been cast.

A week in politics can be an eternity. So many things can and will happen. But Obama knows he loses, just like Carter, if he runs on his sorry record. Either Newt or Mitt beats him if they make 'are you better off now then you were $5 TRILLION ago' their Campaign Slogan. James Carville got it right: "it's the economy, stupid."

Truman beat Dewey, Clinton beat Bush and his post GWI 90% approval rating (with a little help from Perot) and ANY of the Republican field can beat Obama.

Skip,

This country has not been this divided since the American Civil War, 150 years ago. As intelligent, rational, American citizens of the 21st Century don't you think we could do better?

Your points are well taken, and I especially like the paragraph above.

I have a theory that began to develop a few decades ago. The present internal strife we are experiencing today has to do with diminishing world resources combined with a growing world population, combined with increasing wealth among the general populace in other countries--and their demand for a share of the resources, whether it be on a national level or the quest for "electronic gadgets" prevalent among all ages in this country. Corporations have gone multi-national to maximize their profits, and in the process are gutting the countries which gave them birth. Our consumer society is like a speeding locomotive that hasn't consciously realized that the end may be near, but intuits it.

All of this is pitting us one against the other. And the politicians are taking advantage of it.

We are at a point in history where we are going to have to choose--once again--what kind of nation we want to be. Is it going to be a greedy, winner-take-all nation, or a moral one where the imperative is to provide for the common good?

Four decades ago, during the anti-war days of Viet Nam, my best friends were a young couple my age whose fathers were each VPs of major oil companies in the U.S. (One was Standard Oil, and I forget the other.) At Thanksgiving that year the two families got together, and in a heated political exchange over dinner about wealth and poverty, one of the fathers said, "One day all this is going to end--this country will be comprised of the very wealthy and the very poor. Which do you want to be?" And the other father said, "We're going to get it while we can."

The very root of the republicans problems stem from their complete lack of honor. It simply does not reside within them anymore and they have no one to choose from at this point to restore it. Pityful and shameful.

@Joe-738652 -

You have several problems with your porpositions:

1. The ultimate factor in the defeat of Carter, who was, indeed, hobbled by poor economic conditions, was the Iran hostage crisis. And that was criminally manipulated by Ronald Reagan. In a back-door deal with the iranian revolutionaries, the Reagan team agreed to supply arms to iran if they would hold the hostages until Reagan became President. Within an hour of his inauguration, the hostages were in Algeria. For that alone, not to mention the steady succession of serious crimes committed by Reagan's cabinet members and senior officials, the crooked old man should have been impeached.

2. "Obamacare" may be a big issue to you, but generally not to the nation. In the 2010 election it was not among the top five issues motivating voters. In fact, the abysmal betrayal of the voters by the Tea Party/GOP in this year is one of the most difficult issues those officeholders will have to answer for: The top issue, by far, was the economy and jobs - and guess what? The right wing has utterly failed to take any steps whatsoever to deal with that. Only 22% of voters said any Tea Party issues affected their votes - 56% said the Tea Party was irrelevant to them. Yet the GOP foolishly allowed the rigid ideologues to drive their misguided bus.

Every freshman Tea Party officeholder up for re-election in 2012 is horribly vulnerable, and the Democrats are already sharpening their skewers. President Obama is in far, far better position than you claim. From my perspective, I think the GOP is already dead. Its carcass has been animated by Tea Party maggots.

John A.,

I don't think Joe is old enough to remember what actually happened during the election. You are correct that it was the Iran hostage crisis, combined with Reagan's back door move, that ultimately took him down. The timing couldn't have been better for Reagan.

Sometimes there is a defining moment in a candidate's campaign that also dooms them, a seemingly minor slip-up or portrayal that turns the public against the candidate. For Dukakis, it was riding in a tank. For Carter, it was saying, "Yesterday I asked my daughter Amy . . . ." I can't remember now whether he had asked her about her opinion regarding nuclear proliferation or the environment. But it was one of those things that galvanized the public against him.

Look, I'm not going to get into pointing out how savagely misinformed you are.

Would it be too savage of me to point out that you have not refuted one thing, other than to offer a pathetic cut-in-paste opinion that simply suggests things could have been worse based on deeply flawed modeling.

I get no pleasure out of pointing out how wrong you are.

That would probably be because you haven't. You haven't refuted one point.

Btw - I got mild pleasure pointing that out to you.

I'll just post the following and hope you not only read it, but sit down and actually try to understand it.

Couldn't find anything else to cut-in-paste? Do you not even realize how irrelevant the little Wiki diddy was?

Do you ever understand when you are out of your depth?

Jack and John - If you ever have a spare moment you should reread Carter's famous "Malaise Speech."

Hindsight being 20/20, Carter looks like freaking Nostradamus.

John A --

The ultimate factor in the defeat of Carter, who was, indeed, hobbled by poor economic conditions, was the Iran hostage crisis. And that was criminally manipulated by Ronald Reagan. In a back-door deal with the iranian revolutionaries, the Reagan team agreed to supply arms to iran if they would hold the hostages until Reagan became President. Within an hour of his inauguration, the hostages were in Algeria. For that alone, not to mention the steady succession of serious crimes committed by Reagan's cabinet members and senior officials, the crooked old man should have been impeached.

Thanks for the reminder that "Morning in America" was actually nothing more than the new dawn of dishonorable dirty-tricks politics.

Daily doses of dirty tricks of the sort that now result in people merely shrugging their shoulders and saying "What can you do?" when all around them pseudo-conservatives are stealing their money, robbing them of their Constitutional rights, including the right to vote, and imposing all the trappings of the ultimate police state --

-- all in the name of upholding "capitalism" as if it was the new theocracy.

Because it is.

Someone please show me where "capitalism" is even mentioned in the Constitution, let alone established as the state religion.

Au contraire. When Ronald Reagan said that government should get out of the way, he was dead wrong, if only as measured by the framer's original intent.

Because the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate commerce, and NOT the other way around.

Poor Bob, America's education system really let you down.

Since you insist on a point by point rebuttal to your idiocy:

Bob blurts out in utter ignorance: "...that there never was a "Great Depression" until the 30s"

Incorrect, as I've pointed out - At the time of the Great Depression (of the 1930s), the phrase "The Great Depression" had already been used to refer to the period 1873–96 (in the United Kingdom), or more narrowly 1873–79 (in the United States), which has since been renamed the Long Depression.

Would the Great Depression have been "Great" if not for government intervention?

Actually, government intervention is why there hasn't been a depression since the "Great Depression."

Couldn't find anything else to cut-in-paste? Do you not even realize how irrelevant the little Wiki diddy was?

Why should I? History has already proven you wrong. You don't know what a depression is, didn't know there were several in American history and don't understand that the reason the last depression was almost a century ago is that we now have regulation and government (under both parties leadership) routinely intervenes to stop recessions from becoming depressions.

Bob, I know you are proud of your ignorance. I have no doubt you work hard to maintain your epistemic closure. But you aren't living in reality. The things you think you know are only true in a rightwing fantasy universe.

PS - Before making a claim like, "there never was a "Great Depression" until the 30s," you should probably look it up and make sure you aren't spouting ignorance.

nisl,

Carter was way ahead of his time, with solar panels on the roof of the White House--which Reagan promptly removed upon taking office.

Actually, I've got that wrong. He wasn't ahead of his time; he was right on time. If the nation had followed his lead we wouldn't be playing the "catch up" game we are now, in terms of energy efficiency, no longer relying on oil as our primary source of energy, climate change, etc.

You are correct that it was the Iran hostage crisis, combined with Reagan's back door move, that ultimately took him down.

_____________________________________________________

Yeah, Carter's Misery Index (unemployment rate plus inflation rate) numbers approaching 22% and home mortgage interest rates of 13% and a prime rate of 20% in 1980 had nothing to do with his losing the election.

It was all external forces and the evil Ronald Reagan's fault.

It's the economy, stupid.

LMAO!!!!

New Gallup Poll:

What are you more afraid of?

Big Business 26% Big Government 64%

You would have thought with the great “success” of the Occupy Movement and President Pay Your Fair Share those numbers would be flipped. And speaking of the Occupiers, please google yesterday’s front page of the Boston Herald. The pictures of 16 Occupiers arrested over the weekend are quite telling. I haven’t seen a crew of brilliant lefty thinkers like this since the Manson Clan got busted for the Labianco and Tate Murders.

@ Albany Joe --

If you have a REAL answer to John A's point about Reagan, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

The manipulation of the hostage crisis -- a blatant act of treason -- is an open secret. So, too, are the Constitutional crimes of Iran-Contra, for which Presidential pardons were necessary to keep the lid down, as presidential intervention was more recently required again with regard to the Valerie Plame matter.

For all you know, the economic numbers during the Carter administration were also manipulated.

Given what we know for sure about other things, why would we put it past Reagan and his puppetmasters to do such a thing?

Or do you really think that it's just a coincidence that the Bush family has always been so friendly with the Saudi royal family?

Perhaps we're seeing the same thing today, in the same way that large corporations and wealthy investors are manipulating the economic numbers by sitting on mountains of cash and refusing to invest in America, suppressing the vote, and robbing the middle class of any economic leverage.

Think about it, Joe.

Jack, thanks for saying EXACTLY what I would have said to the 'only wishes he could be a chimp'. But saying it more timely and more cutting. Bravo!

David Walker, the clueless crusader. Walker, you start out by telling the readers that you THINK we “don’t seem to know” a lot of things. In essence, what you’re saying is, you think the readership here is pretty stupid.

Like most left wing nut jobs, you seem to think that you’re better than us, and that you can think for all of us dumb asses, i.e. we’re incapable of thinking for ourselves. Well, thank you Walker for coming down from Mount Olympus and sharing your personal chic with us peasants. But you know what I find funny about your rant, for all your self-righteous sermonizing you don’t seem to know whether you’re coming or going.

To begin with, you complain that: “a cadre of posters […] show(s) up here, day in and day out without fail, telling us that the President is ALWAYS wrong”, then you tell us that President Obama makes mistakes……………OK…………. So, what’s your point? Obama makes mistakes, and everyday, someone is here to tell us about it. What is it about this simple event that sends vacuous screeds up your ass? Humm?

“The President keeps insisting Democrats and Republicans can work together. Is he wrong about that too?” Apparently, the community organizer is in way over his head.

Obama’s idea of Republicans working with Democrats is for the Republicans to abandon their constituents, to abandon their core beliefs, and to do the things that they believe will harm the country. Obama does not possess the people skills necessary to facilitate compromise between Democrats and Republicans. He does, however, possess the skills to polarize people, which is plain to see from your original post and this response.

The pictures of 16 Occupiers arrested over the weekend are quite telling. I haven't seen a crew of brilliant lefty thinkers like this since the Manson Clan got busted for the Labianco and Tate Murders.

This is exactly the kind of despicable bomb that Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh are fond of throwing.

To prove my point, just let me add that I've never seen such brilliant right-wing thinking since Timothy McVeigh.

And by the way, it's LaBianca.

Maybe you should read skip Nicholson's post. You have plenty of room to learn.

Arkius --

Obama does not possess the people skills necessary to facilitate compromise between Democrats and Republicans. He does, however, possess the skills to polarize people, which is plain to see from your original post and this response.

And what do you think your poorly reasoned and mean-spirited response shows about you?

Do you have some misguided belief that Newt Gingrich possesses such skills, all evidence to the contrary? And how about Mitt Romney, who can't even stand up to mild questioning in an one-on-one interview without going all condescenscion and derision on the interviewer.

Maybe you should also go back and read skip Nicholson's post.

the narrative has changed more and more people are seeing particularly right now that it's Obama and the Democrats that are holding the country hostage.

Obama with his pocket vetos is an obstructionist to job creation!

NISL -

Would the Great Depression have been "Great" if not for government intervention?

Actually, government intervention is why there hasn't been a depression since the "Great Depression."

There are a number of outstanding books on this subject that the diehard right-wingers, whose grandpappies spewed hatred about FDR and his programs (and set the basis for the idiotic platform of the Tea Party), ought to consult before they open their yaps around here. A great start would be Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal: 1932-1940 by William Edward Leuchtenburg. If they could bring themselves to consult another great American thinker, economist and author, they should also look up The Great Crash 1929 by John Kenneth Galbraith.

As you pointed out, it wasn't until the right wing began unraveling the protective structures established in the Roosevelt Administration that the u.S. suddenly began returning to the bad old days of the 1920's Republican ascendancy - corporate accounting scandals, massive business frauds, massive Ponzi schemes, looting of thrift and banking institutions depositors' funds, and the myriad other misbehaviors that landed the world in its present mess.

Thanks for posting your excerpts from Wikipedia. I'm an historian who works a lot with American history, especially economic history, and it horrifies me to read the cockamamie proposals of the Libertarian and Tea Party ideologues. It wasn't until the 1890's that American currency was finally regularized, for example, and eventually it was under FDR that international currency relationships were brought into some kind of stability. Those two factors alone contributed far too much to the "panics" that wrecked lives and fortunes right up into the 1920's. Now some of these nutcases think we should revert to specie for money.

The right wing has no use for history because it entirely upsets their ideological certainty. Newt Gingrich, who claims himself an historian, is simply a liar of historic proportions who just fabricates propaganda he trots out as "history."

Keep up the good fight, nisl!

Another news story out of the liberal paradise of Massachusetts is EBT (welfare) cards. A year ago the legislature was pressured into making restrictions on the cards when it was discovered that a big chuck of charges were for booze, lottery tickets, cigarettes, and strip clubs instead of for necessities. Well, just last week we found that one small convenience store in Lynn had over ½ million dollars in charges. Almost twice the charges of the major supermarket down the street. Seems if you went to this store they would deduct $100 from your EBT card and hand you $50 in crack cocaine.

I’m sure Anna Molly and her lefty friends will tell you that fraud does exist but that 98% of those receiving government assistance truly need it.

Yeah Right! HAHAHAHA

John A - Thanks.

It really is a shame that Bob won't read your post, and if he did he wouldn't understand it any more than he understands my posts. His very world view depends on him not understanding things. It is sad.

You keep posting well thought out, well researched, well written posts and I'll keep fighting right beside you.

Rob in MA -

I haven’t seen a crew of brilliant lefty thinkers like this since the Manson Clan got busted for the Labianco and Tate Murders

I was a newsman covering the long ordeal occasioned the the (correcting you here) Tate-LaBianca murders.

There was absolutely nothing "leftist" associated with that horrific crime. It was a semi-fascist racist cult led by a maniac who wanted to provoke a race war.

Your use of that comparison is vile, irrelevant, unjustified and far beyond the pale. Reported, and you go directly to "ignore."

Clara,

Jack, thanks for saying EXACTLY what I would have said to the 'only wishes he could be a chimp'.

If he were smarter than a chimp, he wouldn't have positioned himself so perfectly for my comeback.

John,

Your supposition about Reagan being 'criminally' involved with Iran is as baseless as the allegation of Bush 41 having a mistress in Paris. But with Democrats it about "the seriousness of the charge," not the facts in evidence.

If you think that "2/3" of voters wanting Obamacare repealed isn't big, then that would put you in the other 1/3. And Obamacare is already having a tremendous negative effect on the economy.

Like most Congressmen, the Tea Party Representatives are in very good standing in their own districts, which is all that matters. Obama, on the other hand faces 50 statewide races. And the polls presently show that if the election were now he would lose the swing states and therefore the election.

Joe --

Your supposition about Reagan being 'criminally' involved with Iran is as baseless as the allegation of Bush 41 having a mistress in Paris.

You know, it's a funny thing you should bring that up. I read that allegation about Bush 41 in the newspaper, although I don't specifically remember Paris. But I do remember CLEARLY that, right after I read it, all the previously vicious Republican sniping about Bill Clinton's sex life suddenly ceased, and it became a non-factor in the 1992 election campaign.

Deal between the devils? Quite possibly.

I'm not just making this up. I commented on it at the time, and many times thereafter, to people that I knew.

I'm a Democrat, and I don't rule it out. You shouldn't either.

Raab...

I would say MA has an enforcement issue when it comes to EBT cards. Here's a few suggestions:

1. If you don't like the way things are, then run for office and correct them.

2. Start a letter writing campaign to your State officials and hold them responsible for making much-needed changes to the procedures for using that EBT card.

But you won't do anything of the sort...you would prefer to sit back and wring your hands in feigned outrage, and point out how ALL social programs should be abolished because it is much, much easier to punish every one of your fellow Americans that actually rely on these programs then to go after the few that abuse the system.

[HAHAHAHA]

What's truly disturbing is that you find poverty amusing.

Congrats...you've earned your wings...

Joe -

Make up any statistics you choose, you're still WRONG.

Unfavorable views of the health reform law may be a proxy for more general disillusionment with the state of the country and Washington politics. A plurality (44 percent) of those who view the law unfavorably say their negative view is more about their general feelings about the direction of the country and what’s going on in Washington right now, while just a quarter say it’s based on what they know about the law; another three in ten (28 percent) volunteer that it’s equal parts of both.

Published Nov. 30 at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/30/1041211/-Kaiser-Poll:-Affordable-Care-Acts-lack-of-popularity-a-reflection-of-anger-at%C2%A0government.

A different version of story, on the same date, is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/americans-still-dont-know-whats-in-the-health-reform-law-they-may-not-care-either/2011/11/29/gIQAh5Z89N_blog.html. Here's a clip:

More than 18 months after passing health reform, Democrats are struggling to educate the country on what’s actually in it. A new Kaiser Family Foundation poll out this morning finds most Americans think it includes a government-run health plan (it doesn’t), that it won’t eliminate co-pays for preventive care (it will) and that, for many, the actual content of the law may not even matter: Americans don’t like health reform because they don’t like Washington.

Let’s start with what Americans think is in the health reform law. The majority of Republicans and Democrats believe it includes a government-run health plan. Despite a lengthy debate over a public option, no such insurance plan was part of the law Congress passed. The country does not, however, seem to know that ...

Yeppers, and characters like you LOVE keeping the public mis-informed, using terms like "government takeover of healthcare." Yet it's 100% private, from the insurance companies providing the coverage to the professionals delivering the care. but hey, if you can lie about statistics, why not also lie in general?

Oh, and by the way - the Reagan-Iranian collusion is well-proven. Just WHY do you think Ollie North violated American law to round up a batch of advanced weapons from Israel and have them sent to their buddies in Iran? Reagan led the MOST corrupt Administration in American history. And you don't know crap about politics, either.

nisl,

So you decided to dig the etymology lint out of your navel, uh?

Well at least you tried.

So why isn't the Long Depression known as the First Great Depression?

You have two world wars, the first world war is known as the First World War or WW I. Why never a reference of Great Depression I?

If we allow Obama to take us where FDR did, will the Great Depression be changed to the Really, Really Long And Bad Depression and Obama's depression become the Great Depression?

Sheez.

The point I was making is that if there had not been such massive intervention by the government, would it have even been 6 years like the Long Depression, much less DOUBLE the Long Depression.

Unemployment had peaked at 9% and fallen to 6% by around June of 1930 when the first intervention was made. WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF SMOOT HAWLEY - UNEMPLOYED SOARED TO DOUBLE DIGITS AND REMAINED THERE FOR A DECADE.

Are you an embecile that cannot even fathom the validity of at least proposing the question?

You too, John A.

Raab -

The following article was produced by 'Vine member jumpshotjarrod. He was speaking to YOU:

http://jumpshotjarrod.newsvine.com/_news/2011/08/01/4155152-debunking-conservative-lies-about-welfare

DEBUNKING CONSERVATIVE LIES ABOUT WELFARE

Anyone who has been on Newsvine for more than a cup of coffee has seen this before; a person who insists on pitching myth after myth about welfare in order to sidetrack substantive debate about social welfare policy and spending, as well as to demonize Democrats and President Obama in general. In fact, these myths don't just occur on the Vine; they are also prominently displayed on television, in books, and on various websites, as well as heard on radio and in direct conversation. They tend to go something like this: "lazy people looking for handouts are ruining the country", "lazy people are taking my tax dollars", "welfare makes people dependent", "welfare queens have more children in order to get more money", "the poor refuse to work because they will be supported by the rich", "Obama wants to take from the 'haves' and give to the 'have nots'", "Obama supporters want a handout", "Obama wants everyone dependent on the Government". If they aren't worded exactly like this, they are simply different variations of these types of statements.

As it turns out, according to the TANF statistics on welfare recipients, these statements - all of them - are quite simply false. That's right, every single one of them isn't supported by anything not produced by the Heritage Foundation. As often as these myths get thrown around, you'd think they'd have been proven to the degree that the Pythagorean Thereom has. But, a rather peculiar thing occurs each time one of these welfare gems is thrown out; it never seems to be accompanied by any supporting evidence. It's just tossed out there as if everyone knows it to be true. Well, let's take a look at the numbers:

In the fiscal year of 2009, there were an average of a little over 4 million people on welfare in any given month. With a population of over 300 million people total, 4 million's a pretty miniscule number to act as if a large portion of someone's tax dollars are going to 'some lazy person on welfare' link. Not to mention, About 75% of all 'lazy' recipients were children (link pg. 86).

That last fact provides a nice segue for another welfare myth: that people have more children in order to get more assistance - welfare queens, as they are generally referred to. Well, the average number of recipient children in a welfare family -1.8 (link pg. 86) is actually less than the national average for number of children in a family - 1.86 (link pg. 1). In fact, one in two recipient families only had one child and only one in ten recipient families had more than three children (link pg. 86). How could that possibly be if welfare recipients have more kids in order to receive more assistance? Quite simply, it couldn't.

Oh, and in regard to that 'welfare creates dependency' diatribe? The average stay for a family on welfare was 35 months, with only 6.6% of families exceeding the limit for benefit assistance (link pg. 8). According to the 1996 House Ways and Means COmmittee, half of families on assistance exited assistance in less than 24 months link. Not to mention, the average assistance - cash and noncash combined - was $370 a month (link pg. 12). Dependence? On $370 a month?

In terms of tax dollars, USgovernmentspending.com lists 2009 expenses budgeted for Family and Children programs at $80.1 billion, which was around 2% of the federal budget link.

Say we throw in unemployment as well, even though unemployment is seperate from welfare in eligibility criteria and application - 106.5 billion, still under 5% of the Federal budget when combined with Children and Family expenditures link.

Hopefully, everyone is starting to get the picture. The welfare landscape that is consistently created primarily by Republicans and Conservatives is that welfare is bankrupting the nation; that lazy people are draining society because they refuse to do for themselves and would rather take from everyone else. The Conservative story goes that Barack Obama and his Administration are trying to grow the 'lazy, handout wanting pool' so that they can gain some form of diabolical control of the people. All of that plays well on FOX News, but statistically speaking, it's just not true.

The fact is that welfare rolls grow when the jobs go; it's that simple. As these NPR and WSJ articles point out link, link State welfare rolls have increased - some rather substantially - since the economy (and thus employment) went belly up. This suggests rather succintly that people were working and taking care of themselves and their families until they lost their jobs, primarily through no fault of their own.

Since Clinton's 1996 Welfare Reform Act, welfare rolls had been on a steady decline until the recent economic turmoil. That 1996 legislation essentially capped the amount of money each state would receive for assistance and capped the time a family could spend on assistance. Also, that legislation provided incentives for States which proved effective at helping transition families from welfare to work. As the Wall Street Journal noted, these changes resulted in welfare rolls decreasing by over 60% since 1995 (roughly 5 milllion families to 1.6 million before the recession) link:

Welfare cases peaked at above five million in 1995 and declined sharply after the 1996 law put time limits on benefits and emphasized moving recipients from welfare to work.

The numbers speak for themselves. However, too often, people utilize their own anecdotal experiences to generalize millions of people. They say something like "my neighbor has a big screen TV, 20 inch rims on her car, and a brand new cell phone but she's got six kids and still receiving welfare" - as if that story somehow means that every person on welfare MUST be exactly the same. It's a classic case of comparing the ant with the elephant and acting as if they are the same size simply because they both exist.

Contrary to what each individual's anecdotal experiences may suggest, the collective numbers paint a much, much different picture. Of course there are always going to be a small portion of individuals who abuse various systems. However, generalizing that small group as justification for not paying attention to the facts of the situation is recipe for disaster.

So here's a gentle plea that if people are going to discuss welfare, why not keep the discussion within the ballpark of factual and reliable?

Bob - You've proven you don't know what you are talking about. You've proven you have the intellect of a cheap door knob. You've proven you cherish your ignorance like most people cherish their children.

We know who you are, you don't have to prove it again.

NISL -

By the way, some on the Right constantly hand out the the Large Male Cow excreta that if FDR had left things alone, as Hoover did, why, then the Depression would have been over in snap time, and that it took WWII to do what FDR failed to accomplish.

The histories show that this is yet another lie by conservatives - whose only use of history is to lie.

In fact, had Roosevelt not turned "conservative" in 1936-37, when he pulled back on speding, the Depression almost surely would have bended between 1938-39. Just at the right wing wants to do now, the interruptionof government activity to boost economic growth resulted in a double-dip recession after FDR pulled back.

Certainly, war spending, conscription, and other factors after 1940 indeed helped the country return to virtually full employment. But the Depression was not extended by pursuing FDR's policies - except when those policies were dampened. Hoover, by the way, wanted to at first be more aggresive than FDR, but was held back.

If anything, this country needs a bigger, more aggressive stimulus package rather than trimming $1 trillion from the federal budget now.

But the right wing ideologues, whose policies are KNOWN to be utter failures, persist on shooting the country in the head.

Republicans = TAX CUTS for the rich, PAY CUTS working class Americans.

In fact, had Roosevelt not turned "conservative" in 1936-37, when he pulled back on speding, the Depression almost surely would have bended between 1938-39. Just at the right wing wants to do now, the interruption of government activity to boost economic growth resulted in a double-dip recession after FDR pulled back.

Certainly, war spending, conscription, and other factors after 1940 indeed helped the country return to virtually full employment. But the Depression was not extended by pursuing FDR's policies - except when those policies were dampened. Hoover, by the way, wanted to at first be more aggresive than FDR, but was held back.

If anything, this country needs a bigger, more aggressive stimulus package rather than trimming $1 trillion from the federal budget now.

But the right wing ideologues, whose policies are KNOWN to be utter failures, persist on shooting the country in the head.

John - All very true, but Bob doesn't have the intellect to wrap his flat head around any of it.

@ Albany Joe --

If you have a REAL answer to John A's point about Reagan, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

The manipulation of the hostage crisis -- a blatant act of treason -- is an open secret.

AM: “An open secret” among LWNJ conspiracy theorists doesn’t impress me at all. And i'm also surprised you would believe it. As I recall it, the Iranian’s never even announced they would free the hostages until Reagan’s inauguration day. Reagan had won the election 2and ½ months before that. My take on the Iranian’s motives at the time, and today, is they took a publically embarassing shot at Carter by sticking it up his ass one last time. Both houses of Congress later investigated the conspiracy claims and both found no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Reagan campaign. Both investigations took place with the Dems controlling both houses of Congress:

Senate investigation

The US Senate’s 1992 report concluded that "by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages".^[16]

House of Representatives investigation

The House of Representatives’ 1993 report concluded “there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign—or persons associated with the campaign—to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran”. The task force Chairman Lee H. Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence". The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke,^[18] who claimed to be a CIA agent

For all you know, the economic numbers during the Carter administration were also manipulated.

AM: If Carter was manipulating the economic numbers, he was low-balling them. Or is this another LWNJ conspiracy theory that Reagan’s people had “infiltrated” the Carter admin??

It’s the economy, stupid.

Think about it, AM.

Maybe Raab and booby should try a little social experiment of their own:

Try living on the $31.50 in food stamps an individual receives per week...that just might put things in persepctive for them.

Sigh.

There's more than one way to manipulate numbers, Joe.

Think about it.

I'm not quite sure where you dream up that number Mick but in MA EBT card holders can get $300 in cash a month from any ATM and that doesn't even count the left over balance for "food and clothing". Then figure the section 8 housing, subsidized child care, fuel assistance, and free cell phones (that ones a new perk).

Then maybe you can talk about SSDI and how 98% of those folks are truly in need of those benefits.

Since Clinton's 1996 Welfare Reform Act

John A,

Save the cut & paste will ya?

Clinton??? It was Newt's Welfare Reform Act.

And according to the silly liberals of the time it was going to result the death by starvation of 1 million american child but in reality 2 million layabouts got jobs!

John A.

Your blatant, irresponsible use of facts doesn't change the fact that Obama is a communist, socialist, fascist, foreign-born muslim!

JohnNY,

Your blatant, irresponsible use of facts doesn't change the fact that Obama is a communist, socialist, fascist, foreign-born muslim!

Wow, you sure are one bright guy, JohnnyBoy!

I'm surprised you didn't add some racist and homophobic epithets.

Why don't you go play in the traffic. Run along now.

JohnNY-3623017 -

For a moment there, you had me goin' .....

Shouldn't we also throw in Monarchist, Ba'athist, Francoist, Peronist, throwback who wants to resurrect the Townsend Plan?

Jack in Portsmouth - When you read the list, the ironic inversion in his post becomes clear ... and "blatant use of facts ...." yeah .... he's funnin' us, and he got you!

Sigh.

There's more than one way to manipulate numbers, Joe.

Think about it.

____________________________________________

I'll take your silence on the issue as your retraction of your belief in the Reagan-hostage LWNJ conspiracy theory.

Just how do you think the dismal Carter economic numbers were manipulated??

One of them there "vast right wing conspiracies"??

If you say yes, I'll even tell you one of the small secrets about how we do it without leaving any proof that can be exposed by lefty liberals.

BTW, you might want to check your car's rear view mirror a bit more often. Especially if you are on your way to a libsrus meeting.

John A.,

yeah .... he's funnin' us, and he got you!

If you're right, I'll go out of here with a smile on my face. But suppose he's a triple agent?

Hey, Jack, let's sit down over a Triple Sec and think about it ....

Hey, Jack, let's sit down over a Triple Sec and think about it ....

Would love to--haven't had a Triple Sec in so long I can't remember when the last time was! But my son has a pitching lesson and I've got to run. Rain check?

P.S. I had noticed the "blatant misuse of facts" but figured he was just one of those guys who inadvertenly always twists their words into pretzels.

From the article: "Newt Gingrich has electability issues, while Mitt Romney isn't viewed as a true conservative."

Translation: Gingrich doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell and the Republican Party doesn't want anything to do with Romney at all.

It'll be Obama in 2012 by default. The GOP just doesn't want to play.

nisl,

I stated ....

Unemployment had peaked at 9% and fallen to 6% by around June of 1930 when the first intervention was made. WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF SMOOT-HAWLEY - UNEMPLOYMENT SOARED TO DOUBLE DIGITS AND REMAINED THERE FOR A DECADE.

I then ask ...

Are you embecile that cannot even fathom the validity of at least proposing the question?

And your response was ...

Bob - You've proven you don't know what you are talking about. You've proven you have the intellect of a cheap door knob.

#1 - It was a statement of historic fact followed by a question.

So you couldn't challenge the historic facts, you couldn't address the question and had nothing but "door knob" ad hominem.

#2 - Thanks for at least answering the question about your being an embecile.

For Anna Molly-The Queen of Bleeding Hearts.

Anna, it’s one thing to accuse me of posting a “poorly reasoned” response; it is, however, something else entirely to PROVE that my post is “poorly reasoned”, which is something that you have not done, and frankly Anna, after reading many of your posts here, I don’t think you’re capable of doing it. And as for being “mean-spirited”, I think YOU should read David Walker’s post of: Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:27 am EST. If anyone is “mean-spirited”, it’s Walker, and in case you haven’t noticed, he also disparages YOUR intelligence along with everyone else’s; he doesn’t single you out and give you a free pass. As far as he’s concerned, you’re just as stupid as everyone else here.

Anna, in many ways, I think you and David Walker are a lot alike, i.e., you both assume that many things are true, when in fact; you can’t possibly know what the truth is with absolute certainty, because you haven’t asked, and that makes you look very, very foolish. With every silly and immature post you submit here, you lose more and more credibility.

Anna, I respectfully suggest that you re-review my response to David Walker. If you do so I’m sure you will recognize that it is a text focused, semi academic critique of his Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:27 am est., post. I say semi academic, because I didn’t observe all the rules; after all this is only an Internet forum, and not a university forum. I’m not grading you, promise.

After you re-review my response, you will find that I can only argue against Walker’s objective remarks. I’m sure you’ll agree, or at least I hope you’ll agree that to argue against someone’s subjective opinion is folly, which brings me to skip Nicholson’s, Andy Rooney imitation.

Anna, I’m sure you find Nicholson’s ramblings very impressive; I don’t. I’ve read better cultural insight from second year anthropology students. His observation that “This country has not been this divided since the American Civil War,” was especially amusing (apparently skip is too young to remember the 60’s). Clearly, Mr. Nicholson has no background what-so-ever in political science, or political history or he’d know that, the “vitriolic tone of the discussion”, “the rhetoric” (meaning the angry rhetoric, I guess), “the name-calling”, etc, etc, has been part and parcel of American politic for almost 200 years.

Anna, I wrote in response to David Walker: “Obama does not possess the people skills necessary to facilitate compromise between Democrats and Republicans. He does, however, possess the skills to polarize people, which is plain to see from your original post and this response”.

Anna, this is a subjective opinion, and I had hoped that anyone with half a brain would recognize it for what it is, and just laugh at it and leave it be, but you challenged it. Tsk, tsk, tsk…..Anna, it is a subjective opinion, leave it alone and it will go away. OK?

Anna, I have just been told that this response was posted on another thread. I don't know why or how that happened. So I'm re-posting here....where is belongs.

Nisl, in response to Bob’s post of Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:48 pm EST, you wrote: “You've proven you don't know what you are talking about”.

Could you elaborate please? Just what is it that Bob doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

Bob wrote: “Unemployment had peaked at 9% and fallen to 6% by around June of 1930 when the first intervention was made. WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF SMOOT HAWLEY - UNEMPLOYED SOARED TO DOUBLE DIGITS AND REMAINED THERE FOR A DECADE”. Is there something inaccurate about this statement?

Please, enlighten me…..if you can.

booby.

If we allow Obama to take us where FDR did, will the Great Depression be changed to the Really, Really Long And Bad Depression and Obama's depression become the Great Depression?

LOL!!! You believe anything you are fed.

Revisionist history shoved down your willingly ignorant throught, jr.

Unemployment had peaked at 9% and fallen to 6% by around June of 1930 when the first intervention was made. WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF SMOOT HAWLEY - UNEMPLOYED SOARED TO DOUBLE DIGITS AND REMAINED THERE FOR A DECADE”. Is there something inaccurate about this statement?

Yes jr.

Booby is trying to revise history to fit the delusion you both have bought into.

FDR's policies helped, all the numbers indicate this. In 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff is what is what some historians have credited with deepening the depression. Somehow, the conservative game of telephone led booby to the above conclusion.

Booby is confused, as usual.

Fairfax Bill & Albany Joe are going to sing different tunes when they leave their first Rodeo, and it's quite obvious that THIS is their 1st one. Betting the Farm that Newt or Willard is going to THUMP Obama is a high price to pay for a short term fantasy or for shorter term stature among the Reader Comment habituates .

IF the CONservatives had ANY chance at all of winning in 2012 they would have ALL supported the single best candidate from within their ranks.... funny thing is THERE AINT ONE ! They are shopping everything that will fly from a flag pole and America is YAWNING .

They are typical conservatives tho, in the most important regard, believing that BS, prevarication & WISHING REAL HARD will provide a miracle "NEW REALITY" that will be better than what they have now....which is a total loss come 2012 - POTUS, Senate & House.... all gone & the seats filled with Indies & Liberals...

The BEST part is that once the GOP has disintegrated it will be from within & all the Liberals had to do was sit back and watch them destroy themselves !

Albany & Fairfax Boys will continue to ride at the back of the herd, where the smell is more familiar to them & the future less visible .

Electability vrs ideology... its neither... people voting republican believe that getting Obama out will magically fix everything that was broken before he even stepped into office.... They don't even care that whatever GoP candidate they elect has promised nothing other than more of the same.... or Much less knows that the country need rational, mathematical , logical solutions.... GOP has offered no solutions what so ever just a bunch of mud slinging.... we need solutions... not radical ideology and manufactured wars on religion.

Gee, IR---did you have to mention the "junk"? Seriously, I hope we don't have to hear any of this "cut and run" as we leave Iraq---we never should have been there in the first place but we can be so proud of our troops and their families and the sacrifices they have made. They deserve our thanks and also our assistance as they transition to civilian life.

Goose reporting for duty this morning... ;o)

IR, perfectly said. Bush did act like Tom Cruise.

I still see Bush strutting around like a banty rooster that day declaring we had succeeded in Iraq; that our mission was accomplished. Finally, 8 1/2 years later President Obama and our First Lady will acknowledge that we are coming home; and we are coming home because of the job well done by our military personnel.

I hear a remake of Top Gun is in the works.

@GOPisextinct

Heard that too. Who will they tap to play "Maverick"?

Maverick: I feel the need...
Maverick, Goose: ...the need for speed!

Woo Hoo! Fly Navy! (That was for Mr. phinephancy)

Great Point IR. We can thank Bush and Cheney, for all of the lies and deceit and for starting an illegal war that has killed thousands of our soldiers and thousands of other innocent people.

IR.....beautifully stated. President Obama and Mrs Obama, truly understand the price of war and the sacrifices the troops and their long suffering families pay for our freedoms.

They understand what the price of freedom entails, mentally. physically and financially as the troops and the nation struggle to get back on track.

I hope and pray that it will be a long, long time before we ever embark on such missions again. The Bush administration has much to be ashamed for what they have done to this great country and its citizens. Some from that administration have not learned any lessons, they still advocate, Dick Cheney recently, war and bombing Iran. Mitt Romney's campaign recently announced his hoped for administration would be filled by Bush rethreads. NO, NEVER AGAIN.

What the Republican Party said to Ron Paul.........."Negative Ghost Rider the pattern is full"

What the American People will say to Newt ........." Son, your ego is writing checks your body can't cash"

What Goose would say to Cain "You live your life between your leg's Mav"

h/t Andrew Sullivan:

“I’m just going by my gut. I shook the guy’s hand, looked him in the eye and he has no soul. I don’t see a conviction. I don’t see a leader. I feel like I’m talking to a robot. I’ve talked to all the other candidates and none of them gave me the vibe that Gingrich did. He is not a guy you want to go have a beer with,” - Judd Saul, a Tea Party member and GOP activist from Black Hawk County.

It sure sounds like Michelle Bachman was onto something with her "Newt Romney" line.

Neither Mitt nor Newt are true to their ideology. Only Ron Paul has been consistent in his beliefs and voting record, and is not in the pocket of Wall Street & Corporate America.

The question is, is Dr. Paul electable?

I agree we will not "embark" on missions such as this again. Your absolutely correct. Look out your front door up and down the street, what you will see is where the next defense of our country will be. Be ready to bake cookies so they will have something to eat while they move from house to house. The catalyst is set all that needs be done is for the Arab spring to turn into the American Fall. Feisty I will pay for your ticket to Saudi if you promise to drive or walk down King Abdul Aziz Rd in a tee shirt. It would make for a great You Tube video.

lynseypug - Nice post.

As Jon Stewart said, "Ron Paul can definitely win his party's nomination, but the Republicans are NOT his party."

Ron Paul can't win the Republican nomination, but he could win as a third party candidate. But I doubt Paul will run as an independent.

Our NBC/WSJ poll shows that bringing home the U.S. troops from Iraq ranks as Obama’s No. 2

except he forgot about 17,000 of them and the ones in Kuwait. This is not an accomplishment, nothing was ended, give it a minute we'll be back.

Your correct Ms Sgtswife, I hope you have a wonderful holiday and that you have your family reunited. I remember the holidays were the worst part. And that was back in the day, where all we could do is line up and wait to use a ham radio to talk to people for 5 mins. Now with the advent of the Internet and skype communications is much better. I had several years where I did not see my wife or daughter for 6 to 8 months. Unless I could catch a MAC flight home. We have a large contingent of service people in Saudi that would agree with you.

REPUBLICANS = TAX CUTS for the rich, PAY CUTS working class Americans.

Democrats= free @!$%# for the lazy, and illegals, pay cuts for the hard working Americans

Dear Independent Redneck, I believe I remember seeing something about that on CNN, however, I think the junk jangling thingy is your own shopping cart, man fantasy.

I recall that President Bush walked rather normally, as he stopped to shake hands with the Airmen and deckhands who manned the flight deck that day. He seemed very proud of the work they had done, and of the courage they had shown in combat.

For you to compare President Bush to a fictional character, and then to assume that his appearance was somehow staged, does a tremendous disservice to the men and women who served in that conflict. How you could choose to be so callous and shallow at the expense of those service men and women, just to prove some stupid political point is just repulsive and lacking in good moral judgment.

You cry “just ask the widows”, without realizing that your insensitive and moronic political comparison between two different presidents here, would do nothing but hurt the widows feelings and dishonor their dead husbands. The widows don’t give a damn who the president is, because the ceremony is not about the president, you incredibly thoughtless little sh!t, it’s about their men. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Since it is all about power and increasing personal wealth my bet ideology will take a back seat.

The Republican Party stopped caring about ideology 10 years ago.

It's all about getting tax cuts for the wealthy and stealing the Social Security nest egg from the middle class.

What ever happened to Boehner’s promise to not attach non related items to any key/important bills?

He's a serial liar like the rest of the right wing nuts!

I guess Boehner's promise went to the same place as Obama's promise not to sign any bills with earmarks. They are both serial liars.

Dennis - he never had any intention of doing anything that did not support the lifestyles of the upper 1% and now his actions come home to haunt him, silly man that he is, he too is up for relection - let's hope and pray he is out of a job come Nov. 2012!

Dennis, kudos for the reminders. Boehner's House started breaking their promises the day after they made them. Another promise was every bill must quote the section of the Constitution applicable.

REPUBLICANS = TAX CUTS for the rich, PAY CUTS working class Americans.

I'm a little surprised that the President doesn't get more support from seniors, Jody---he is the strongest supporter of Medicare of any candidate and the health care reforms will help the seniors' children and grandchildren.

Say, Jody, how about re-upping in the Republican Party and voting for Gingrich in the Iowa primary for us? I know you only just got off the Republican-robo-call list, but it would be worth it to help us run against the Newt!

My opinion (with a little help from my senior mentors), right now the entire focus is on the GOP. Wait until there is a definite GOP nominee - with a clear vision of what they see, and the President fully engaged with his ideas. Think you will see those numbers change.

Maybe the "seniors" are all ignorant FOX NEWS viewers? Or maybe they've been around long enough to grow smarter and wiser than others and know a fraud when they see one.

Oh, poor sweet delusional Damage. What I would give to put you in a room with 18 of the best, brightest seniors I know. You would learn a thing or two.

Hey Damage, What's with the gun igun in your bio pic?

Amy, that's a thought; the GOP in Iowa keeps insisting I'm registered as one of them.

SF, I think that seniors will recognize that once the GOP has one nominee, President Obama's position on social security and medicare matches theirs. That's when President Obama can make his case and the truth about Romney or whomever is the GOP nominee's plan to kill medicare and social security becomes more focused.

phinephancy, that's true. Right now the news is nearly all coverage of the GOP. It stands to reason that poll numbers reflect that.

@Jody

Could you imagine either Damage or one of the GOP nominees in the same room with the "Senior Gang"? We could sell that on pay for view!!!!!!

Proceeds to breast cancer research :)

I do so enjoy sticking pins in the balloons of your delusions

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19800524&id=UJ8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UfwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4947,4885062

Now, my memory might be off-but I do believe that Reagan won in a landslide.

Damage123

I am a senior. I know a fraud when I see one. They all have an R behind their name.

Well Devie, I'm not sure I know what a "gun igun" is. Is that a new Apple creation? It's a gun and a baseball for your info, and the logo for the great American band, Lynyrd Skynyrd. Like the Tea Partiers, I enjoy displaying a gun simply because it makes liberals uncomfortable.

I have no idea what the "Senior Gang" is. I'm guesing some sort of First Read liberal offshoot group. It's funny how, when polls show how older people lean conservative, many of you rant and rave calling for them to "hurry up and die" so the younger, smarter (read: liberal) generation can take over and FINALLY make the world a better place. You dumb fux (Feisty Redhead can use it, right?) seem to forget that young people do....what? GET OLD, and thus, more conservative. Oh well. Your ignorance and elitism has shot you liberals down on many previous occasions and I'm confident it will again next year.

@Damage

If you must know, Damage, the "Senior Gang" is a wonderful group of 18 senior citizens that are all extremely bright, energetic that live in an assisted living center (they all have their own apartments, with nursing checking on them daily). They are all in their 80's. And one of them is MY mother. So, watch, very carefully what you say, because the next time I hear one hint of a derogatory remark about my mother and her friends, my tone will NOT be friendly - and neither will what I have to say.

phinephancy - we all have your back on any derogatory remarks regarding the "senior gang"!

@Jody

Damage is now on my list! And it is NOT a good list to be on! Thanks for having my back on this, too. I need all the help I can get! :)

I cannot wait ot hear a Gingrich and Obama debate! Newt will be providing never-ending solutions and ideas that can change our economy and the way Washingtonworks and Obama will be uttering "Ughh... Tax the rich and keep spending " with no solutions in sight. It will be the fully informed Newt against the empty suit! The people will quickly see that without a teleprompter, Obama is completely devoid of any solutions or ability to implement anything! OR we can have a completely boring debate between two catch phrase throwers if Romney gets the nomination. Why does the liberal press keep pushing Romney? ... because that is only chance they see to keep Obama in office!

FedUP

Newt isn't even fully informed on how much he owes Tiffany's!

Sandy,

As a senior, you should be able to tell us about the Democrat plan to ensure that Social Security and Medicare remain solvent. I'm sure that everyone here would love to hear the details.......

Hey Damage, you maybe on to something... the new iGun it never turns off.

Fed up,

Obama is completely devoid of any solutions or ability to implement anything!

Okay, so what is it a slow news day over on Fox? Nice talking points. Ah you know... telepromter blah, blah, blah... Tax the Rich blah, blah, blah... empty suit blah, blah, blah...

Keep up the good work you friends at Fox should be proud.

Obama / Biden 2012.

Newt will be providing never-ending solutions and ideas that can change our economy

If that's the case, why doesn't he start now? lol

So far, all I've heard out of the bombastic slob, is the same crap the Republican's have been spewing for 30 years!

PhinePhancy--- Maybe you need to get your eyes checked? Are you a senior too? NOWHERE did I say say anything "derogatory" about your mother. Maybe you need to stop putting words in my mouth and stick to putting things in your OWN mouth. Like say, um.....your foot. Or.....other things. I'm sure your mom is a very nice lady. In fact, I'm sure she would appreciate it if her daughter spent a little less time on the internet and a little more time tending to her needs. As hateful as you are on here I can't imagine what it's like to be your parent. Ugh. (It's so cool when Feisty Redhead and others make nastiness acceptable, isnt it?)

So far, all I've heard out of the bombastic slob, is the same crap the Republican's have been spewing for 30 years!

I guess that means you prefer the even worse crap the Democrat's have been spewing for the past 100 years.

Damaged in the brain

How, or why or anything I do with my time is none of your concern. You are the lowest form of life as far as I am concerned. Also, since you do not even have a clue to my age (hint, I am a grandmother, myself), I would suggest you shut yourself up and go back and play somewhere else.

Your stupidity is not appreciated.

lmao......shes delusional, she thinks she runs the place.

REPUBLICANS = TAX CUTS for the rich, PAY CUTS working class Americans.

I really hope so! The cost of health insurance is a large reason we aren't competitive with other countries. If the individual mandate gets thrown out, and it may, it opens the door for Universal Healthcare. Or Medicare for all. I'm all for that. Death to the mandate!

Amy,

the short answer is no, the country is moving right, based on the total failure of Obama's leftist economic policies.

In all fairness the Gingrich isn't a pure right-winger, he is an opportunist.

Gingrich's appeal has little to do with the policies he has come up with. His appeal is rooted in his numerous appearances on Fox News where he routinely feeds the wingnut base red meat.

Prune juice, Bobofallthenumbers?

Amy, great question. Personally, I think the country has leaned center left for sometime. Many people have liberal views but when polled, define themselves as conservatives, not because they are real conservatives but because it sounds better. It sounds better because the word "liberal" has been so successfully demonized by republicans for the last 30 years.

Big B-ob lotsanumbers. Then how do you explain Ohio voters rejecting and over-turning Kasich and the GOP's anti-collective bargaining laws? How do you explain the recalls in Wisconsin which prove those citizens reject the right's idea of governing? Think about it.

AnaBanana,

The cost of health insurance is a large reason we aren't competitive with other countries. If the individual mandate gets thrown out, and it may, it opens the door for Universal Healthcare. Or Medicare for all. I'm all for that. Death to the mandate!

I couldn't agree more. The economy would skyrocket if we had a universal healthcare system. Employers would be relieved of the burden of providing healthcare for their employees--the annual increase in costs is one of the uncertainties that negatively affects businesses. We'd be a healthier, more productive nation.

When it comes right down to it, universal healthcare is a moral issue. We can't really call ourselves a "great" nation until we take care of our citizenry.

Jack, you realize that in replacement for employer provided healthcare, you would need to tax corporations and individuals to cover the cost of universal health care. I am definitely not against universal care but we need our politicians on both sides to provide honest set of facts for us to understand. First, in the aggregate, health care costs are a number paid for in a variety of ways but the primary method is via our employer and the covered individual. We also pay via tax for medicare and medicaid and within the cost all of us pay is an imbedded cost for those who are uninsured. So when we add 45 million uninsured to the health care delivery system, dont forget thats 15% of the total, somebody has to pay the additional cost for upgrading the current quality of their insurance. If its universal care, then it will come by tax. In addition, we have all kinds of differences in the quality of care based on our individual plans, its a guarantee that by adding 45 million and creating universal care, that the other 265 million are going to reduce the quality or quantity of their current benefits. Primarily the quality of benefits that union employees currently receive would dramatically be reduced for example.

So the economy is not going to skyrocket and in fact, its likely to hurt the economy in the short run. If the aggregate cost currently is $1 trillion and we want to keep it 1 trillion and add 45 million people, then we absolutely hurt the quality of care of the othe 265 million. If we want to keep the quality the same for everyone, then $1 trillion will become $1.5 trillion and that additional 500 billion of annual medical costs will have to come in the form of tax to corporations and individuals which will clearly hurt the economy.

Again, I am not against universal health care but we need to go into it with our eyes open and understand that we all might need to sacrifice for the benefit of the whole. But the concept that its going to help the economy is very unlikely as I cant see how any plan isnt going to increase the overall cost dramatically.

Jody, I disagree on the left leaning center at any time let alone now. In some ways its too bad. For example, the gay marriage referendum that passed in California one of the most liberal places in the world. They just banned happy meals and circumcisions and they couldnt get that passed. However, I wish this country would become socially moderate but unfortunately its not yet. But on fiscal matters its definitely a right leaning and not even center leaning right country which is why Obama is so unpopular on fiscal issues right now same thing with Congress. I think Kasich over played his hand and should have made the issue more about choice and not force government unions on employees rather than take benefits away certainly for police and fireman. He should have focused on the abuses rather than on collective bargaining as a whole and just said lets have the same system as the feds. He got outspent and outmanuevered but certainly didnt reflect whether we are a left leaning country.

Kirk,

Jack, you realize that in replacement for employer provided healthcare, you would need to tax corporations and individuals to cover the cost of universal health care

No, Kirk, I'm too stupid to realize that. Sheesh!

My apologies for the sarcasm. But if you have ever read my posts you wouldn't have asked that question.

its likely to hurt the economy in the short run

The ones who will be most hurt are the thousands of insurance company employees who will lose their jobs. And those who have invested in the stocks of those insurance companies. Because what I am talking about is a single payer system run by the government. Once you get for-profit insurance companies--who have absolutely no incentive to limit their profits, control costs, or keep the annual cost of heath insurance from rising--out of the picture, you will be able to control costs.

Further, there needs to be a triage system in health care. That's where the really tough choices lie, and they will need to be made by an informed, educated public. Getting the politicians out of the way will be the real challenge.

If individuals want to purchase health insurance above and beyond the basic coverage, they should have the right to do so.

I'm sure you'll come back with rejoinders, but this is a really BIG subject. But I'll close by saying that I've spent a number of years living and working overseas and have had nothing but good experiences in countries where there are single payer systems.

Ultimately, the economy will skyrocket.

REPUBLICANS = TAX CUTS for the rich, PAY CUTS working class Americans.

Jack, sorry havent read your prior posts so I apologize. I am not against universal care so dont label me because I have been critical of Obama's economic policies. I actually aplaud him for tackling this difficult issue although Obamacare struck out as a good bill from its original mission. If it were to lead to universal care that deals with the tough issues then I will be in favor.

The only rejoinder is that I disagree with the insurance company part. Insurance companies only administer the overall health care networks and generally charge revenues of 30% of aggregate network costs and after expenses have a profit margin of 7%. Yes they are profit driven but on administering the programs cheaply for themselves and employers. So we eliminate insurance companies and hand over the administration to the government who basically just hires these same employees. Yes profit margin of 7% is immediately eliminated and saved but if you really believe the government can run this program without incentives to keep administration costs down (the government does such a great job now doesnt it) I have some beach land in Illinois to sell you. Insurance companies have no incentive to limit their profits but they have incentives to invest in new technologies and keep administrative costs down in order to make or increase profits. The government doesnt and so wouldnt and costs would quickly get bloated and technology out of date eating up and surpassing those 7% profits in no time. Next if you were thinking the government would control expenses to providers and thus profits made by doctors, health care providers, drug companies etc, we would quickly lose the best and brightest as doctors, we would lose the research and development that creates the best drugs in the world (can you name another country that develops drugs besides the US), we would lose being the leader in medical instrument technology like heart stents, knee replacements etc. So I really doubt the government does that so I disagree that the economy takes off and I still would argue that universal care is actually a drag on the economy but that doesnt mean we shouldnt do it.

Kirk,

Interesting points. Not sure I agree with all of them, but interesting. One philosophical difference between your point of view and mine is that--as I said earlier--I believe in a triage system. And by necessity it might mean that "we would lose being the leader in medical instrument technology".

The biggest problem in all this is having an honest, open rational discussion as a nation. Which means that the people who vote would have to sit up and pay attention and educate themselves, and not allow themselves to be manipulated by those who have a financial interest in the outcome. We're on sensory overload, these days, with too much information coming from all directions. It must have been easier back in the days when the entire tribe sat around a fire in a cave and discussed options about what to do next. . . .

I would love to buy some beach land, but not in Illinois. Got to be on the ocean or it's no good to me.

Couldnt agree with you more about having an open and honest discussion as a nation while not being manipulated by those with a financial interest. I question whether americans are willing to give up their current high class medical delivery for 85% of the country from union recipients to wealthy executives to adopt the triage system but I agree that approach is necessary to make it work on a cost reduction basis. Not sure why we would want to give up being the leader in medical technology to another country while losing those jobs and related value but we seem to want to do that in all other industries to china these days so why not one more.

Not sure why you dont want to come here to Illinois its very nice this time of year ha

He is mjuch more intelligent than Obama and that is what matters! anacrazytbanana

Spend "mjuch" time on "anacrazybanana". Most people think banana is enough! But then you think Gingrich is "mjuch" more intelligent than Obama. I guess I have my answer.

Actually, Newt is NOT very intelligent. Yes, he uses all the right words, but his so-called knowledge is nothing if not revisionist and rarely accurate.

Newt is what stupid people think smart people sound like.

@nisl

Exactly!!!!!!

Ahhhh. Time to break out the "the Republican candidate is stupid and so are the Repub voters" crap again, huh? We Do know that Gingrich knows there are 50 states, knows the difference between Kansas and Texas, and knows how to pronounce "corpsman."

You people and your elitist BS are one of the reasons that the Republicans WIN so many elections. Do you all even realize that? Apparently not since you've been pulling it for decades now. In one sentence you praise the working man, the next you call him stupid and uneducated. Are you aware that the working class is mostly conservative?

We Do know that Gingrich knows there are 50 states

There are 50 states plus DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, the Texas caucus because someone thought it was a good idea to have both a primary and a caucus in Texas and split the delegates so it counts as two separate races, American Somoa, and finally voters abroad like soliders and diplomats that get all lumped together and treated as one separate race. 57. They count 57 races, they allocate 57 sets of delegates. During the primaries they focus everything on the 57 races that send delegates to the convention. Clearly he was thinking of races but said states

Time to break out the "the Republican candidate is stupid and so are the Repub voters" crap again, huh?

Well, it is the truth. Don't get mad at us for pointing it out.

Newt is smart but not intelligent. Ever listen to Newt answer a question or really pay attention to what he says? He says very little but uses a lot of big words and fancy footwork to dance around. He goes around the barn twice and by the time he reaches the door, the people have been convinced that he must have said something good when in reality, he has simply muddled his comment to the point where no one can figure out what he really said.

@Jody

I am repeating myself. "Exactly"

Damage 123

"knows how to pronounce "corpsman"

So you have never mis-pronounced a word.

In 1969, I married a Navy corpsman. At first I mispronouned "corpsman." Since they have to handle corpse.

CIC Obama has done so much more for the vets and the military.

His actions speak much louder than one words. Your gang is all words no action!

@Damage

I never considered myself an elitist, however, I recognize dumb when I see it. And I see it in your postings.

You never should have bad mouthed my mother and her friends. I am watching you.

phinephancy, works for me!

Ahh, Damage, do you think Romney and Gingrich are elitists, too? They fit the description perfectly. Anyone who has a half million line of credit at Tiffany's could be considered "elite". BTW, calling liberals elitists is a GOP talking point and apparently it worked because here you are. Google Vets.org (may not have that exactly right but you'll find it) and you will see that consistently democrats are graded higher than republicans when it comes to military support. McCain had a D in 2008.

One more thing to dispell the GOP's self-portrayed image of "supporting our military", it was democrats who passed and President Obama who signed into law the most expansive legislation for Veteran's since the GI Bill. That same legislation sat in Congress for nearly 4 years because republicans blocked it and Bush threatened to veto it--the very same folks who were perfectly willing to send the military to fight an unnecessary war refused to provide benefits for the effort.

@Jody

And didn't the saintly John McCain vote against it? Trying to remember.

The scariest part about Newt is that he is not only opportunistic, but he is also a Jihadist wrapped in a cloak of Christianity.

Ooo! I like that one, RedDev! Two thumbs up!

Thanks Phine - This is a great but somewhat dated article on the Newt bomb-throwing spews. Conservatives like to call Obama a divider, but after reading these, it is clear who is the real divider.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/newt-gingrich-greatest-rhetorical-hits?page=1

Not only is Newt a Jihadist wrapped in the cloak of Christianity, he is also leading the affront towards economic terrorism. As pointed out by Robert Reich:

This is why the more outrageous Newt can be, the better his polls. The more irresponsible his bomb-throwing, the more attractive he becomes to a sizable portion of Americans so fed up they feel like throwing bombs. http://robertreich.org/

And even Eric Erickson points Jihadism is now part of conservative politics in his column "

3 Weeks And Counting. Are We In a Suicide Pact?"

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/13/3-weeks-and-counting-are-we-in-a-suicide-pact/

It is a sad day in politics when conservatives can only be described in Jihadist terms of suicide pacts and bomb-throwing. Enjoy GOP/TP!!

Matt you sound like an empty drum........get a brain and use it sometime!

Matt, I am glad you have a brain and use it wisely. Seems the folks on the right have been hitting the eggnog a little early today.

mattpfl, ditto what phinephancy said.

As GOP presidential candidate Buddy Roemer put it, Romney represents the 1% and Gingrich is their lobbyist!

To suggest that Romney has no honesty, integrity or decency is simply absurd.

The GOP is its own worst enemy? Not as long as I'M alive!!

Auntie, while I want you to keep fighting the good fight, NO ONE could prove to worse than what they are doing to themselves. Just watch one of their debates! LOL

phine---the whole "cut and run" thing also ignores the fact that George Bush initially negotiated this withdrawal and that the Iraqis themselves would not give us the legal protections we would have needed to keep troops there.

I would love to have a morning on FR where civility reigned.

Thanks steeler fan. Hoped to have a few more folks on the civility band wagon. Will try and suggest it again.

phine---I think you should just pick a day, announce the theme and hope for the best! Getting things organized can be like herding cats!

I'll do that. FYI, I have two cats, Eleanor and Franklin. The only time I can "herd" them is when kitty treats or suppertime is involved!

Phine:

Well, I kinda have some good news. It's reigning here. I herd the thuds and looked out my window. Sure enough, it's reigning cats, but not dogs. Civility! You want civility? Just tell the drones here that you have an "R" after your name, and provided your tan isn't too dark, you're OK.

Thus does it go in Kansas - State motto: Kill a doctor to show respect for life.

phine -

Your plan reminds me of all the stories I've read over the years about soldiers from as far back as the Civil War declaring truces and sneaking across enemy lines on Christmas Eve to exchange what little food and drink and holiday spirit and goodwill they had with each other. I would love to believe that if they could, we could too. Not sure if I actually DO believe it, but count me in as one who's willing to try. Hey, at this point, I need all the peace and goodwill I can get and I don't care where it comes from.

Hope you're having a good day today. Hang in there!

Last night, they reported that 70% of the American people want all our troops home; only 29% think like the Cheney's, McCain and the other whining "cut and run" republicans. Perhaps the Cheney's and the 29% of their friends can demand taxes be increased on millionaires to pay for it--then we shall see how quickly they switch from "cut and run" to "mission accomplished".

Speaking of the Cheney's, odd they only come out from under their rock and attack as a tag team. Isn't one capable of functioning without the other? Even odder is the notion that the media accepts the Cheney-pushed idea that Liz Cheney is an "expert" on foreign policy and should be taken seriously and asked for her thoughts. Seems to me their lies about Iraq should have discredited them and banned them from public interviews.

On the next, new posting, I will try and get everyone to agree that next Wedneday morning's First Thoughts to be a "play nice" time - for at least an hour. It will be interesting to see what happens. Thanks everyone for your support!

Easy for me.....Im playing golf since its near 80 here in sunny Florida. In walking around my Sub here (about 150 homes) with my 3 yorkies I was surprised to be asked to attend a teaparty meeting at the club house on Friday. Since Im not a teaparty member I declined the invitation, two older women came knocking on my door with Christmas cookies as a "bribe" to read a document with their point of view. It got worse when I went to the local weapons store, my wifes disease has gotten so bad she cant rack a load in any of my hand guns, and says she wants a easy to use 12 gauge pump shotgun recommended by our neighbor police capt for Christmas (Manatee county) According to him anyone that hears the sound of a 12 gauge load racking will think twice before entering your home illegally.

You know, jolly, I bet Freud would have a field day with you and your lust for big guns.

Well at least jolly is golfing. I'm in sunny, hot, sticky Florida doing yard work (Yuk). The roof and the gutters all filled with leaves. At least we don't have to shovel snow.

jolly, maybe buy her a revolver, S&W Airweight is a nice one. I bought one for my wife, as I travel alot with my job. She actually went to the range and liked shooting it.

Phine, guns aren't bad, but, a lot of people are. the worse the economy gets the more desparate people will become. :)

She has a genetic osteo disease, her bones are slowly disintegrating, both knees and hips replaced, one shoulder. next other shoulder. Which I have just about saved up for. Since we both are adamant about paying for it our selves. And as unpopular as this is going to be, the new healthcare law has increased our insurance costs, so its taking me a bit longer to save it up. I have several small pistols that she has a hard time with, since We live in Detroit most of the year I need for her to have something that sounds fearful. The other day I racked the 12 gauge and all 20 some people in the store turned around. Thats the reaction Im looking for. I did look at the S&W (it comes in pink) she seems to like the shotgun best.

Big guns are great. And jolly is right about the sound...nothing makes a robber crap his pants like the sound of a 12 gauge racking a shot in the chamber.

What does Mary have to say about that?

Who are Peter and Paul? without Mary?

They are out on a jet plane looking for Puff the magic dragon (he lives by the sea, you know)

No......your wrong Puff lives out the rear side hatch of a AC-130 or in the nose of a A10 warthog.

I actually was thinking of you when I read that!

But Rick, I liked the movie Addams family Values. Can we pick another adjective for their fake family values?

You may be right but we need to get Obama out who do you suggest as his replacement? Ron Paul may be a good choice but he is too old so we will see!

... but phine, I can see Willard in the role of Morticia, they both speak French and Newt would be a great Fester.

Au, mon cher. Maybe Rick Santorum as Gomez, he does like to "kiss up" to the front runners.

goodytwoshoes,

That sort of mind set is what has led to such gridlock and inaction in congress. The number one priority being to get President Obama out of office is going back on the oath of office each one takes. The number one priority should always be the good of the CITIZENS of the country.

Ever notice that when the Repubs run someone for president that the liberals call a "right-wing extremist", he always wins and is elected to two terms? Nixon, Reagan, Bush II? Ever notice that when the Repubs run someone who the liberals consider a moderate, he loses? Ford, Dole, McCain?

All the same things you liberals are saying about Gingrich are the same things you said about Reagan. And seeing how this site isn't so much a liberal site, but basically an Obama Groupie Forum, your opinions really don't mean s**t. When Michael Moore says he likes Huntsman, that's all I need to know that Huntsman does not belong in the White House.

If Gingrich goes on to get the nomination, cool. If not, we will rally behind Romney and watch him win.

Obama has nothing to campaign on except (Noun) (verb) bin Laden. His support among swing voters is slipping badly. FR should do a story on this (don't hold your breath). The economy is still in bad shape. His jerkoff attorney general is on a campaign to get as many illegal aliens as possible registered to vote. Should I go on?

Damage 123,

Could you provide a link to the "Gingrich Groupie forum"?

I would love to check it out.

Obama "improved the economy"?

"pretend like things are not a whole heck of alot better now than when President Obama was sworn in"?

Delusional much?

Since Obama was inaugurated:

2 million more unemployed

unemployment rate from 7.6% , up over 10%, still at 8.6%

misery index up 45%

record food stamp recipients up 45%

home values down 11%

Americans in poverty up 6.4 million

I could go on, but you will blame Bush anyway, no matter what.

Bob . . . you are a master of misinformation . . . I don't blame Bush . . . I blame sheep like yourself who get so wrapped up in "persona" that you ignore "persistent greed and coruption being propogated by the faux representatives in the GOP".

It's cool . . . keep believing that cutting taxes is a magic cure for all ills and that the "invisible hand" is gonna save us all if we just keep doing what we are told. . . riddle me this . . . who was President when the housing, job, and stock market collapsed simultaneously and taxes were cut while fighting two wars?

I rest my case.

I still think the unpopularity of the Teapublican governors elected in 2010 will be a key factor in defeating the Republican presidential candidate. When Florida's governor has the lowest approval rating for a governor in the country, it's hard to make the case that right-wing policies are popular in practice.

@Amy

The fun part about 5th amendment Rick? You should read some of the letters to the editor and the comment section of the paper from tea party members about him. They hate him as much as rational people do!

Great post, Nash---hard to believe that people blame the President for the failure of the "trickle down" economics of the Republicans.

Bob 188:

I appreciate your help in proving my point. You see right-wingers and lefties can agree. In this case, you have posted useless statistics that back up my point.

I fear however, that they are not merely useless, but dead wrong. No, two million more are not unemployed. As a matter of fact, more people are employed now than in 2008. Government employment is trending downward though.

The unemployment rate does not have a great deal of relevance as the economy is undergoing a massive change. This has been going on for some time, but you already knew that, didn't you?

The misery index. Now there's a meaningful number. It may not have the value you think it does, because not only do Republicans ALWAYS feel more miserable than everyone else, they ARE more miserable than others.

No Bob, home values are not down 11%. Home PRICES are down 11%. That is a perfectly normal response to overinflated prices that occurred were completely out of control before President Obama took office.

Poverty is of course, a purely arbitrary measurement. I'm filthy rich for instance, and according to those statistic things, I'm well outside the income levels of the richest 10%.

Now come on Bob. You know damned good and well that the economy was plunging. GDP was down almost 8% in the last quarter before President Obama took office. Number cruncher that you are, you know that emp0loyers don't hire when economies crash. You also know that it takes a very long time to rebound, especially when you know - as certainly you must - that productivity is increasing. You know, fewer people do more work.

And look! Not once did I blame President Bush for the horrible state of the economy. Didn't have to. The facts point the finger at him.

Amy

How about the beloved Governors of Ohio and Wisconsin!

Nashville, straight to the point as always!

But they would never do that. Newt is their boy for the moment because he can debate Obama and Romney cannot carry the bible belt right now. When good ole Newt falls flat, Romney will be there to save the day.

Amazingly, these voters can overlook Newt's "family values" because he's been saved. But of course, Romney belongs to a cult so they cannot overlook that, and lets not forget Romney care. Then there is Cain....he made Newt look like a choir boy.

Like it or not, Republicans will end up with Romney. The question is, can he carry the bible belt? I dont think so.

There is another truth that is finally coming to light. We are going to pass our debt on to our children because no one wants to pay any taxes. Our generation has done the consumption but feels it is their right to pass it on to future tax payers.

We do this without even a kiss.

yet our current tax laws allow for people with more opportunity to make huge gains while the middle class pays their way. How is this the American Dream?

I understand that Rich People and Corporations have a higher Tax Base % to pay, the problem is that they don't pay it. Companies are taxed at 35% but after their accountants wiggle through all the loopholes and subsidies and breaks they average paying just under 13% of that 35%. If you combined Exxon Mobile, Citi, Wells Fargo, (I could name 12 more), if you combined what they all payed in Taxes in 2009, I paid more. They even got refunds of billions of dollars. Same with millionaires that can afford to pay someone to find the loopholes and breaks that us normal middle class working stiffs cannot afford much less find loopholes for.

I agree with you Robert. The tax code is a joke on the rest of us and written by the 1%.

2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

UAW Pleeeeeeeease

not to be argumentative but the numbers are, the top 2% hold 40% of the wealth in America, that means that 350,000 people holds more wealth than 160 Million do. The middle class pays the most % of taxes in the country, maybe the amount is not higher but the system is set up that you pay your %, everyone at every income level... The tax code allows for the rich to right off more than the middle class earns and it allows for the poorest to not have to pay themselves into being even more poor and even more below the poverty line...

I understand what you are saying Robert. But realize when a guy like Warren Buffett says "his secretary" pays more in taxes than him. He's leaving out the fact that his income comes from dividends that comes from businesses that were taxed prior to him getting his dividends. (I also own some shares of Warren's company) In effect that income is taxed twice. But the issue isnt really the taxes most people are concerned about. It's the perception that the government will just waste that extra money. Doling more unearned entitlements hasnt lowered the poverty numbers in the past and it's unlikely to lower it in the future. I would really rather see us increase taxes on Chinese foriegn imports so American companies can compete with them better. Leave our job creators alone...

Robert, you also have to realize that regardless of what you think is a fair share for the wealthy, you cant take a few exceptions and apply that to the whole. A working small business comfortably wealthy owner or doctor or entertainer is paying almost 45% on their last dollar earned and more in higher taxed states. The issue is really fixing the deductions, loopholes etc across the board to make it simpler, fair and progressive. Why should single people be penalized over single moms with children. The tax code shouldnt be about social engineering or welfare and government assistance as we have programs already to address those issues.

Second, the corporate tax rate is already too high as I have never understood why people always complain about corporate taxes when these taxes are disproportionately paid by the middle class. corporate taxes are paid in one of two ways, 1) they either are passed on as a cost of the good or service being provided or sold by the corporation or if they cant do so they 2) must reduce the value of the corporation by the exact amount of the taxes paid or assets leaving the corporation. For public corporations in your example of Exxon, Citi or Wells, these corporations are owned by public shareholders and primarily institutions which hold all of our 401(k) money or big pension plans primarily union pensions or endowments of universities. So you are basically taxing our pension plans, 401k plans and tuition for college. So why progressives argue for higher corporate taxes (I understand proposals for a fair equitable everyone pays tax) is beyond me.

Kirk.

Good post. (#93.7)

Your back? I suppose since I didnt provide you with a cite your going to start in and tell me why this post was wrong too? Thanks for the personal email and I have read other posts by you now on here and you realize you would be more credible if you stopped being an ass? Have you figured out yet why you were wrong yet on GM and Chrysler? Have you gone out and talked to anyone that would know? You always try to put someone down by acting as if they are right wing or get something from your pundits crap etc but many of us have actual personal experience and knowledge unlike your spewing of think progress notes.

The most interesting part of yesterday is your total lack of understanding of the Chapter 11 and Section 363 bankruptcy process and citing an article that compared it to a Chapter 7 plan of liquidation. There is no dispute by anyone democrat or GOP that Obama circumvented established bankruptcy law on behalf of the unions and you still argued that I was wrong factually. What you really should have said is damn right he made a politcal favor to the unions and he should have because its far better that we fund our union middle class employees unfunded pensions and retiree health care than give ownership to a bunch of banks who helped get us in this mess in the first place. Because you dont critically think through what you spew and have no real knowledge and experience in these matters, you would rather be condescending and see what this liberal blog said so I must be right and you must be wrong crap. Grow up dude and try to have a rational conversation with someone and you might learn that some of us are not either left wing looneys or right wing nut jobs but vote each election based on that individual candidates ability to address the concerns of the times. I have voted in total for more democrats (I do live in Illinois) than GOP by a long shot so your attempts at painting me and somehow thinking you are schooling me just fall on deaf ears.

Kirk.

Thanks for the personal email and I have read other posts by you now on here and you realize you would be more credible if you stopped being an ass?

Yes. However....I have little interest in appearing credible to you in an anonymous forum.

Have you figured out yet why you were wrong yet on GM and Chrysler?

No. I was not wrong. GM and Chrysler would not have been better off if they had gone through a regular Chapter 11 for many reasons. Regardless, I think it is safe to say they came out ok, no?

You always try to put someone down by acting as if they are right wing or get something from your pundits crap etc but many of us have actual personal experience and knowledge unlike your spewing of think progress notes

You allowed yourself to get pulled in. And, your position does not make any sense. Sorry.

If you actually did have such experience, you would have been much better prepared. You would have been able to back up your statements with something other then the claim of having said experience.

There is no dispute by anyone democrat or GOP that Obama circumvented established bankruptcy law on behalf of the unions and you still argued that I was wrong factually

This is why I mocked you. It is a purely ideological and partisan position to suggest that Obama did this on behalf of the unions. He did it to save the auto industry from shedding millions of jobs.

Because you dont critically think through what you spew and have no real knowledge and experience in these matters, you would rather be condescending and see what this liberal blog said so I must be right and you must be wrong crap

Now that is irony. You were the one who blindly bought into the crap about Obama bailing out the auto industry primarily for the unions, and displayed your pathetic misunderstanding of the issue.

You provided nothing to back up your ignorant claims other than to claim, repeatedly, that you were in the know. I posted analysis of the bailout. Analysis that showed you and the crap you blindly parroted was dead wrong.

-----------------------------

CAR’s May 26, 2009 memorandum produced estimates for two scenarios, as well: a quick, orderly Section 363 bankruptcy (which is what happened), and a drawn-out, disorderly bankruptcy proceeding leading to liquidation of the automakers. A summary of the 2009 and 2010 employment and economic impacts is presented in Table 1.

The difference between the two scenarios presented in CAR’s May 2009 memo represented the anticipated private and public benefits of avoiding the scenario of a bankruptcy liquidation of both General Motors and Chrysler. The "good bankruptcy" outcome was projected to have avoided a loss of 1.28 million jobs in 2009, and 267,300 in 2010. Personal income losses were expected to be $65.3 billion less in 2009, and $16.5 billion less in 2010. It was estimated that avoiding the worst case scenario provided a net government impact—in terms of changes in transfer payments, social security receipts and personal income tax receipts—of $25.8 billion in 2009 and $6.5 billion in 2010, a total of $32.3 billion.

http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf

-----------------------

First you claimed that it is extremely rare for a company not to emerge from Chapter 11. I then pointed out to you that the circumstances were not normal at the time, and there was no one to provide them with the credit they needed. You then waffled back and forth both somewhat agreeing with me, and then claimnig someone would surely have offered them credit. You also claimed repeatedly that "there was plenty of liquidity" at a time when the banks also had to be bailed out because their was NO LIQUIDITY in the markets.

You also stated in the same post that without government fincancing something drastic would have happened, and then turned around and claimed there was no chance for massive job losses.

I agree that without assistance from the government which is called debtor in possession financing (do you understand what this is?), something drastic might have happened but I am not sure a full liquidation would have occured.

It is just patently falso that millions of jobs would have been lost and suppliers out of business. I am not putting faith in any pundits, as I know this from my actual knowledge and experience what about you?

The amount of times you contridicted yourself on the issue alone left you open to be mocked. The fact that you failed miserably to back up a single thing you posted was just all the more reason.

Grow up dude and try to have a rational conversation with someone and you might learn that some of us are not either left wing looneys or right wing nut jobs but vote each election based on that individual candidates ability to address the concerns of the times.

Listen dude. I paid you a compliment because that post today seemed reasonable. That does not mean what you were posting yesterday was also. You did get schooled, and you are obviously still poed about it. Sorry.

Study up, and next time you will be able to back up what you post, and won't be left so frustrated that you cannot take a compliment in stride.

I have voted in total for more democrats (I do live in Illinois) than GOP by a long shot so your attempts at painting me and somehow thinking you are schooling me just fall on deaf ears.

Who you voted for in the past is irrelevant. Like I said, your posts today seemed reasonable, and, admittedly, I may have been a bit harsh on you yesterday....goading you into a fight I knew you could not win.

Whether or not you admit you got schooled doesn't mean you didn't. The fact is, you did....so just let it go, and move on.

Cheers.

Kirk.

The most interesting part of yesterday is your total lack of understanding of the Chapter 11 and Section 363 bankruptcy process and citing an article that compared it to a Chapter 7 plan of liquidation

Just noticed this. Amusing.

The study I provided, not article, compared the Section 363 bankruptcy with what would have happened had the government not stepped in. Because there was no credit at the time, because lending was essentially freezing up, GM and Chrysler would have ended up liquidating.

By the time they needed the government, they were beyond Chapter 11. GM specifically was about to run out of money. They would have had to file Chapter 7 and been liquidated....which is why the study studied what it did.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=azEnfDF7aB0s

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/12/will-gm-file-for-chapter-7-or-chapter-11/

Seriously. For someone who claims to know so much about this issue, you sure do post a whole lot of stuff that doesn't add up.

Just sayin.....

Republicants--its nice that you seem more civil today and I appreciate that but again you continue to mix apples with oranges and I never contradicted myself except for possibly sloppy typing. Lets put aside partisan views and opinions for a second and just like last time, I provided with you step by step facts and even identified conclusions or opinions that I made that could be subject to debate. There is nothing to study up because your attempts at proving me wrong were never accurate and I was never schooled. I even gave you the appropriate responses you should have made. In the interests of trying to put this to bed lets avoid the name calling over the stupid stuff (and no I am not going to go research and try to cite something to back it up as most of this is common knowledge) and just discuss a few items.

1) The circumvention of established bankruptcy law to provide the union unfunded pension plans and retiree medical plans with GM shares over the secured lenders. So far you have not once disputed this fact but try to cite some article about if they didnt do a Section 363 reorg instead of a plan of liquidation millions of jobs would have been lost. Again this is irrelevant and not on point to the issue. Under Section 363, the secured creditors have the highest priority which includes the banks as part of the revolving line of credit and the bondholders. The union pension plans would have been lumped with all other unsecured creditors and trade suppliers and would have likely received very little if anything without the government's intervention and funding the plans had nothing to do with future operations and saving jobs. It was a political payoff clear and simple and I have already explained to you what you should have said in response. This is not a disputable fact regardless of what you keep saying to me. How GM exited Chapter 11 has nothing to do with who ended up owning GM shares, I just dont get unless it is intentional, why I have to keep repeating myself on this. It may not be consistent with your political views and how you consider Obama but its the truth. By the way my knowledge and experience comes from being a lawyer, CPA for 30 years and dealing with bankruptcies all the time.

2) your supposition that Obama saved the auto industry. the facts are not in dispute but differing people with different agendas can interpret what happened and come to a partisan conclusion that supports their political agenda. I dont think we necessarily disagree on the significant facts but both have differing "opinions" on what might have happened. That means neither of us can claim to absolutely correct. So your condescending attitude yesterday and views that you were "hard" on me to school me are irrelevant because its just not accurate. So lets go back and explore again because you seem to be hard headed on this. First, you are correct the banks might not have been able to provide debtor in possession financing, I told you that I didnt have any problem with the government providing debtor in possession financing but there is no connection with them doing that and circumventing bankruptcy law to provide the union pension plans with GM stock. Those are two seperate issues that you seem to lump together and get confused by. Where you also seem to get confused is that I indicated that I believe that instead of the government providing such financing a private equity firm or other entity would just like Buffet did with Goldman Sachs. But in any event, regardless of who did, it is not connected to the union payoff.

3) So, you rest your entire argument on Obama saving millions of jobs with providing debtor in possession financing and that is your opinion and fits Obama's campaign rhetoric and quite frankly I would do the same if I were in his shoes because he doesnt have any economic successes to brag about and this has the populace appearance of one. But if you have been in the financial world like I have and have experienced very similar situations like GMs with Chicago companies, its just not very likely ie, the more objectively persuasive argument, that a company that is making an operating profit (remember the simple math I provided to you) but cant service its debt would have been liquidated and put completely out of business along with the supply chain etc. That scenario although used by the rank and file unions to get government benefits was not very likely to happen. Once GM filed Chapter 11, the company's plan of reorganization would eliminate the current debt allowing GM to exit bankruptcy making the exact or even greater profit than they would have without the government bailout and certainly the exact same amount whether the lenders owned 10% and government/unions 90% or the lenders 100% as prescribed by bankrutpcy law. The jobs would have been kept regardless of who ultimately owned the company, just the debt needed to be extinguished. So again, if it makes you sleep better at night to feel like you schooled me, go ahead but you didnt.

Republicants--again you are confusing two completely different issues. Yes if someone didnt provide GM with debtor in possession financing they would have run out of money and would have had to file Chapter 7. I have said over and over that I never disagreed with the government providing such financing although I did caveat that I think someone else would have stepped in because GM was making an operating profit. Ok, I get your entire saving the millions of jobs rests on this sole point I just dont agree that the ultimate outcome would have been chapter 7 because there would be no reason to dismantle a company earning an operating profit. But that said, that issue is totally different from the circumvention of bankruptcy law to give the Union plans ownership--no connection with the debtor in possession issue. So yes as I have said over and over, I do understand the facts.

Kirk.

There is nothing to study up because your attempts at proving me wrong were never accurate and I was never schooled

Yes, actually you were. And if you forgot, re read the thread:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/12/9392656-mr-bombastic-vs-mr-cautious

-----------------------------

In the interests of trying to put this to bed lets avoid the name calling over the stupid stuff (and no I am not going to go research and try to cite something to back it up as most of this is common knowledge) and just discuss a few items.

Yea, well, that was most of the problem, Kirk. You never once cited anything. You did a whole lot of claiming to be knowlagable. And much like this claim of something being common knowledge - that isn't, teh claim didn't hold up. Not mention, common knowlege says little about the accuracy of the subject.

The circumvention of established bankruptcy law to provide the union unfunded pension plans and retiree medical plans with GM shares over the secured lenders. So far you have not once disputed this fact but try to cite some article about if they didnt do a Section 363 reorg instead of a plan of liquidation millions of jobs would have been lost. Again this is irrelevant and not on point to the issue.

No offense, but these statements are just delusional.

#1. The reason for going through a Section 363 had NOTHING to do with the unions. I have no idea why you keep harping on this. The only thing I can come up with is that you need some reasoning to deflect from addressing a few facts. I will get to them. (BTW, you have not provide on lick of evidence that this was the reasoning. I should not have to prove a negative, especially when there are clear reasons why they did a Section 363 that had nothing to do with the unions.)

#2. The STUDY, not article, I provided is relevant. It, simply put, destroys your argument. The argument, btw, you got from WSJ OPEDs. Most likely why you do have such a hard time supporting it with ANYTHING.

Yes if someone didnt provide GM with debtor in possession financing they would have run out of money and would have had to file Chapter 7. I have said over and over that I never disagreed with the government providing such financing although I did caveat that I think someone else would have stepped in because GM was making an operating profit

This is why your argument about the unions is asinine.

You (or the WSJ) think someone would have stepped in with financing. Yet, you glossed over a few facts in order to maintain that assumption.

#1. There was no credit at the time. The markets were frozen, and despite your claims of liquidity in the previous thread, THERE WAS NO LIQUIDITY. This is the reason the banks also needed a bailout.

#2. Both GM and Chrysler ASKED FOR GOVERNMENT ASSISTENCE. Ever think to wonder why? (The unions? LOL!!!) The reason they asked for assistence is because they were about to run out of money, and thus would have been forced into Chapter 7. Therefore, the STUDY is relevant, for that was where both companies were headed (unless someone magically came up with financing......)

#3. Ever wonder why Ford testified that GM and Chrysler needed a bailout? (Probaly not...past unions anyway.) The reason Ford testified is because GM and Chrysler were both headed for Chapter 7 and liquidation. Ford knew that if GM and Chrysler went into Chapter 7, all of the suppliers that supply Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, etc in this country would have been hurt, and hurt bad. Many would not have survived. That would have caused HUGE problems for all auto manufacturing in this country.

But that said, that issue is totally different from the circumvention of bankruptcy law to give the Union plans ownership--no connection with the debtor in possession issue. So yes as I have said over and over, I do understand the facts.

I think it is apparent you did not understand the facts at the begining of this discussion, but have become a bit more educated on the issue. You appear to be trying to save face (on an anonymous forum???).

There was no circumvention of bankruptcy law to give Unions plans of ownership. The government stepped in because they were asked to. This silly union conspiracy garbage is just that, partisan garbage.

And I agree, there is no connection with your conspiracy, because it is a conspiracy, and nothing more. However, the debtor in possession issue does make your conspiracy laughable. The cornerstone of that conspiracy requires that there was another viable option that was avoided to benifit the Unions, and there was not. Speculating that someone woud have probably, maybe, hopefully stepped in, when no one was offering and credit was frozen, is just a rationalization.

GM and Chrysler asked for a bailout for a reason. Ford testified they needed one for a reason. The reason was, GM and Chrysler were about to go under...and be liquidated. This would have destroyed auto manufacturing in this country. Risking the auto industry for the blind assumption someone would have stepped in is irresponsible, and I am glad more responsible people then those at the WSJ were in charge.

So yes as I have said over and over, I do understand the facts.

Clearly, on this issue, you do not.

And as I said, you can repeat that you do, over and over again. Perhaps if you click your heals together three times, and wish hard enough, reality will dissipate and your wish will come true.

Seriously dude are you that stupid? You provided all this evidence and rhetoric supporting why the government needed to "step in" when I told you at least 15 times or more that I had no problem with the government providing debtor in possession financing. Man is your brain wired with no logical progression skills. I never said there was a conspiracy because there is nothing new or not well know about what I told you. Who cares about who testified or how you came to the conclusion that the government stepped in to provide financing. Yes I said that others if the bank hadnt stepped in and I even gave you an example of Warren Buffet saving Goldman Sachs around the same time with $10 billion of rescue financing. Same thing dude and others might and could have done it with GM but your right we will never know. However, providing financing has nothing to do with how you exit a bankruptcy. I keep harping on it because you dont seem to understand that the method of exiting bankruptcy and who receives ownership in the surviving company is based on established law. Is there something about this that you just cant comprehend? Again this has nothing to do with the WSJ or anyone else as its just a fact. Because you are unable to comprehend logical progression and understand basis principles I am done. You are arguing now for argument sake and just ignoring what is right in front of you. You keep harping on the initial financing as your crux for saving the industry and I keep explaining how GM exited with the union plans with ownership in the company which has nothing to do with the government.

Kirk.

Seriously dude are you that stupid?

Seriously dude. This is your best argument on this subject as of yet. LOL!!!!

You provided all this evidence and rhetoric supporting why the government needed to "step in" when I told you at least 15 times or more that I had no problem with the government providing debtor in possession financing.

What the hell are you arguing then? Oh. That unions were the reason why the government stepped in.

Who cares about who testified or how you came to the conclusion that the government stepped in to provide financing.

Eeeh....it sort of kills the delusion, you can't let go, that the the Obama administration stepped in because of the Unions. Of course you don't care about it. You made it clear you have the ability to ignore all that does not reinforce what you already believe.

Yes I said that others if the bank hadnt stepped in and I even gave you an example of Warren Buffet saving Goldman Sachs around the same time with $10 billion of rescue financing. Same thing dude and others might and could have done it with GM but your right we will never know.

Again. Why didn't they step in? Why did GM and Chrysler go to the government? LOL!!!

Ya see what happens when you parrot an argument you never thought through?

I keep harping on it because you dont seem to understand that the method of exiting bankruptcy and who receives ownership in the surviving company is based on established law.

And you keep ignoring the fact that in order to go though the Chapter 11 bankruptcy GM and Chrysler would have needed financing, but there was none. You rationalize your parroted position by speculating someone would have stepped in, while ignoring the fact that no one had, and both companies were about to run out of money, and thus would have been forced into Chapter 7.

You keep harping on the initial financing as your crux for saving the industry and I keep explaining how GM exited with the union plans with ownership in the company which has nothing to do with the government.

Your original statements on the subject in the other thread were to defend another delusional poster who claimed the unions were the reason the government stepped in.

You failed MISERABLY to provide any evidence of that, and repeatedly danced around all of the things that made that position laughable.

You have been all over the map on this issue dude, never once providing a single thing, beyond claims of knowledge, that supported your positions. Not to mention, your unsupported arguments repeatedly contridicted themselves.

Is there something about this that you just cant comprehend? Again this has nothing to do with the WSJ or anyone else as its just a fact.

This shouldn't have anything to do with the WSJ. However, since your entire argument seems to be parroted from their OPEDs, it does....unfortunately. You let the extent of your ignorance on the issue slip when, likely out of frustration, you told me to go read the discussion there and educate myself. LOL!!!

Because you are unable to comprehend logical progression and understand basis principles I am done. You are arguing now for argument sake and just ignoring what is right in front of you.

The only progression was the progression of your rationalization....

So I understand why you are done, having lost this argument very, very badly. Instead of rationalizing, you should have put your fragile ego aside and taken the time to learn something. Even though, granted, judging from the shifting of your arguments, I think you did learn something. So at least something good came out of this, even if you won't admit it.

Run away from your ignorance....maybe you should change your name since your "credibility" on an anonymous forum is so important to you. You certainly damaged it here.

Kirk.

logical progression

Let's go over the progression of your rationalizations to preserve your orignial delusion, shall we?

This entire discussion started with this statement from you:

Its really not just public unions as the so called GM and Chrsyler bailouts were nothing more than political payoffs to the private sector unions as the government circumvented established bankkrutpcy law to eliminate the secured lenders as owners and gave a big portion of the ownership to the unions.

Not once did you EVER provide any evidence of that. All you did was ignore the real reasons for the governemt stepping in, which I explained in detail above.

I then pointed out your were delusional, at which point you responded:

So clearly you dont understand what you are talking about. You realize that GM and Chrysler were not saved by the government right? They did file bankrupcty and they didnt "save" the auto industry. They filed chapter 11 with a plan of reorg.

I responded that GM and Chrysler would not have survived if not for the government intervention.

To which, you again claimed I didn't know what I was talking about, said the only thing Obama did well was to provide debtor in posession financing, and again repeated the partisan delusion that the motive for the auto bailout was the unions.....and also claimed they circumvented the law....

The one thing the government did well and I Obama should take credit for was provide debtor in possession financing while the banks were unable to do so.

. . .

He didnt need to provide his union campaign contributor nepotism by circumventing the law.

So essentially, you agreed with me that the government intervention was necessary, but you didn't like how they did it. You kept insisting that the unions were the reason for what the government did, but never provided a scrap of evidence supporting this delusion. You also kept ignoring that it was GM and Chysler who asked the government to step in.

At this point your postition was that the government did right by providing financing when their was no other financing, but somehow, they didn't save the auto industry....????

You then, amusingly, began to waffle back in forth between the government needing to step in, and the government not needing to...

For example, if the government had not provided such financing, it is still highly likely that someone within the private sector would have

You also never did answer the question as to why no one else stepped in, or why the courts accepted the government's argument that there was no one else to do so...

---------------------------

You also stated that you didn't believe GM would have been liquidated, even in the worst case....and, again amusingly, stated this:

Second, even in a worse case, I dont believe GM would have liquidated, various businesses would have bought their assets

That is liquidation.....LOL!!!!

----------------------------------------------

Seriously dude.

You made it painfully obvious that you couldn't support the partisan opinion that the bailout was done for the unions. Your arguments were inconsistent, and followed not logical anything, much less a progression. There was plenty of digression, usually following one of your contridictions.

Kirk.

BTW....

The reason I took you to task on this issue is because of your original partisan statements that the motive for the bailout was the unions.

There is no real evidence of that, beyond the WSJ OPED section and cable news, and you failed to provide any. (Hell, you failed to provide anything to support what you posted...)

You (or more accrately, the OPEDs you parrot) attempted to reduce one of the largest successful bankruptcies and corporate reorgs in U.S. history to a union giveaway. Despite the complete lack of any evidence to show this, you couldn't let it go. You held onto this delusion despite the true and logical reasoning for the things that happened.

Truely an example of the psycological effects politics have on the mind.....

Thank you for being such a willing subject.

I could give a crap about the anonymous forum and I am happy to provide my name and we can discuss it in person. You write these long responses filled with venom and hatred and condescension but no critical thought. Why you focus so much on trying to make me feel bad but in at least 20 responses you still havent once disputed nor been able to dispute that union pension and retiree medical plans received GM stock in the reorganization plan when the secured lenders should have. You continue to focus on facts irrelevant to this. I never said the government's motive to provide debtor in possession financing was union based. I said the government circumvented established bankruptcy law to provide union ownership in GM and that is the subtle distinction your brain hasnt been able to wrap itself around yet. This was the original point of contention. I went on to dispute Obama's saving of the industry which by the way is an opinionated conclusion that cant be proven or disproven by either of us but financial history is on my side. An inexperienced person with no financial background or understanding like yourself could easily be swayed by Obama's political rhetoric because it sounds good but it unfortunately doesnt make it true.

Again, if we were debating whether providing the initial monetary relief saved millions of jobs at least I can understand your partisan views but the fact that you still dont understand how law was circumvented is beyond me because its not even a disputable fact. Lets turn it around, can you tell me why the union benefit plans as unsecured lenders were given GM stock in the reorg plan over the secured lenders? Did the government do that for no other purpose and no political reason other than it created a better business operating model for GM? Is any of this sinking in yet?

Again thanks for the personal email highlighting your ignorance. I dont know what your fascination with cable news or the word parrot but its really odd. Did you have a bad experience listening to Chris Wallace or Rachel Maddow etc? For the rest of us who understand and have actual knowledge and experience, we arent quite as mad and angry at the world as you. I dont need to let anything go as I am and have been correct and you still havent corrected me yet. The part that is fascinating is that you are the partisan one as I dont care. I might disagree with Obama's economic policies but this is just about correcting you on the facts. Not once during this entire debate did you ask me whether the administration should have done what they did and was it a good thing which shows your rose colored true partisan views. I was just correcting your facts. Thats the most telling aspect. You just didnt understand and still dont get it.

Maybe you should get out of your bubble of partisan campaign rhetoric and try to critically think and not just believe everything you hear. I am sure when AA comes out of Chapter 11, they can explain how it works for you and maybe something will click in your mind and you will say wow I remember when that guy explained that to me and now I get why he was right and I was wrong.

Kirk.

I could give a crap about the anonymous forum and I am happy to provide my name and we can discuss it in person.

Then you truely are a fool if you are willing to give your information to an anonymous poster on the internet.

You write these long responses filled with venom and hatred and condescension but no critical thought.

LOL!!!! I think you are confused again....

Seriously dude are you that stupid? (15.15)

-------------------

havent once disputed nor been able to dispute that union pension and retiree medical plans received GM stock in the reorganization plan when the secured lenders should have

Ehhhh....right...sort of.

I never disputed that the health care trust of the UAW recieved GM stock in the reoganization plan.

As far as the secured lender should have getting anything, that is an opinion. The fact is, they didn't under the legal plan, approved by the courts, that was implemented.

I never said the government's motive to provide debtor in possession financing was union based. I said the government circumvented established bankruptcy law to provide union ownership in GM and that is the subtle distinction your brain hasnt been able to wrap itself around yet.

LOL!!!!

The motive being, acoording to the your WSJ fed conspiracy, the unions. And you never once provided a scrape of evidence to support this conspiracy. (Well, other then when you let slip who fed you your opinion.)

I went on to dispute Obama's saving of the industry which by the way is an opinionated conclusion that cant be proven or disproven by either of us but financial history is on my side

You went on to ignore reality, you mean.

Or waffle in and out of it.......both stating the government had to step in, and speculating someone maybe probably would have, and dancing around the fact no one did.

In addition, financial history is not on your side. You simply have as weak of an understanding of history as you do of bankruptcy law.

Had you had a better understanding of history, you would have understood that a the time, things were not normal, and normal historic comparisons usless. There was one historical comparison you could have used, and that was the Great Depression. Of course, that doesn't really make the point you were fed, for like in the Great Depression, credit was frozen. Since credit was frozen, the only entity able to provide the fincancing for GM and Chrysler bankruptcy was the government.

Ergo, the administration saved the auto industry.

Logic, jr. You do need a class.

An inexperienced person with no financial background or understanding like yourself could easily be swayed by Obama's political rhetoric because it sounds good but it unfortunately doesnt make it true.

LOL!!! Says the poster who has displayed a pathetic inability to logically follow the events, as well as a complete lack of understanding of the issue, and the atmosphere surrounding the auto bankruptcy.

Amusing.

Again, if we were debating whether providing the initial monetary relief saved millions of jobs at least I can understand your partisan views but the fact that you still dont understand how law was circumvented is beyond me because its not even a disputable fact

Indisputable fact....that you never provided any evidence for, and that I easily disputed.

Not too mention, the law was not circumvented. Everything was done legally.

Indisputable indeed. LOL!!!

Lets turn it around, can you tell me why the union benefit plans as unsecured lenders were given GM stock in the reorg plan over the secured lenders? Did the government do that for no other purpose and no political reason other than it created a better business operating model for GM?

LOL!!! Unable to prove your delusion......you ask me to prove a negaitve. Very amusing.

It is more then a stretch to suggest the union ownership stake was political. It is baseless, and really only displays a partisan or spoon fed point of view. You would only reach this conclusion if it is one you wanted to reach.

The decision to give the unions an ownership stake in GM was not a bad one, for they got some concessions that made the bankruptcy proceedings go easier. The unions agreed not to strike....which is huge, because some major concessions had to be made.

In addition, the unions don't even have representation proportionate to their holdings.

And, as a matter of fact, the unions having an ownership stake is likely better for bussiness. They now have a much greater stake in the company. Think it through.

Is any of this getting through the WSJ wall in your head yet?

------------------------------------

Is any of this sinking in yet?

What isn't sinking in is an understanding as to why you are questioning one of the largest successful bankruptcies and corporate reorgs in our history....second guessing the outcome based on what the WSJ OPED section told you about the motive as it pertains to uninons.

The fact is, jr, what the adminstration did worked.

You can blather on all day long about what the WSJ told you they should or should not have done, or what the opinions of their partisans think was done wrong, etc, etc.....

But it only makes you look like the partisan you continually claim you are not....

Kirk.

Again thanks for the personal email highlighting your ignorance. I dont know what your fascination with cable news or the word parrot but its really odd. Did you have a bad experience listening to Chris Wallace or Rachel Maddow etc?

The email actually mocked your ignorance.....but, given your limited understanding and cognative abilities, I can see how you misinterpreted it.

My issue with cable news is not so much with cable news, it is with the blind parrots (like yourself) who don't realize it is not news. And when I mention cable news, I am referring to all opinion media....like the WSJ OPEDs that fed you your opinion.

I dont need to let anything go as I am and have been correct and you still havent corrected me yet.

Only in your mind. On these threads, however, you have been repeatedly shown to be incorrect, and have also failed miserably to support a single thing you posted. (Other then to claim, repeatedly, to be in the know.......after displaying an evolving ignorance about the issues...)

I might disagree with Obama's economic policies but this is just about correcting you on the facts. Not once during this entire debate did you ask me whether the administration should have done what they did and was it a good thing which shows your rose colored true partisan views. I was just correcting your facts. Thats the most telling aspect. You just didnt understand and still dont get it.

LOL!!!! That's just it dude. You didn't correct any facts. You provided no facts. You provided nothing to support what you called facts. You just don't get it.

You claimed the law was circumvented, yet the bankruptcy was approved by the courts. You claim the adminsitration's reasoning was political concerning the unions, but ignored the benifits of what was done. You claimed that someone might have probably provided credit, but ignored the financial environment.

All you did was claim. (I'm gonna start calling you O'Doyle.)

Maybe you should get out of your bubble of partisan campaign rhetoric and try to critically think and not just believe everything you hear. I am sure when AA comes out of Chapter 11, they can explain how it works for you and maybe something will click in your mind and you will say wow I remember when that guy explained that to me and now I get why he was right and I was wrong.

LOL!!! Wow indeed.

Perhaps one day you will climb out of the bubble the WSJ created for you when they spoon fed you your opinion.

Then perhaps you will be able to recognize the differences between American Airlines now, and GM and Chrysler then. Perhaps someday you will get that the financial climate today is far different then the financial climate in 2009. You might drop the wall you created just enough to recognize that because of that climate, without the government assistence, GM and Chrysler would have gone into Chapter 7, and been liquidated.

Perhaps when American Airlines is through thier Chapter 11, something will click, and you will wonder why AA never went to the government asking for help. Then, maybe, just maybe, you will be free of your delusion long enough to realize your spoon fed position on this issue was as stupid as you have come off in this discussion.....(and the one about the CBO report you never read.)

Kirk.

I wanted to thank you, once again.

I also wanted to appologize for being an arse.

Please do not take this the wrong way, and think this means I am saying you are correct in your misguided opinion.

To the contrary, I am thanking you for providing a study in the effects of politics on otherwise reasonable people. As I said before, you appear to be a reasonable person, just not when your buttons are pushed.

You are not like most of the ideological fools posting about politcs. They and their reactions are predictable and not very exciting to observe.

Some advise. Do not let these threads get to you in the future. It makes you vulnerable to manipulation.

Thanks again.

If you are serious about your apology, I am not sure why you took such a posture from the beginning especially since I said from the beginning I wasnt coming from a GOP idealogy standpoint. If you see some of my other posts on this site, I have given kudos to Obama for tackling healthcare and I wouldnt mind significant changes to our delivery system although I think Obamacare doesnt really address what we need and I think the political posturing on both sides doesnt tell the correct story. Same thing with how Obama has handled national security issues and the wars.

As for our discussion, its interesting now you admit that the union plans did receive GM shares but rationalize it because the judge approved it or because it was the right thing to do. I never once said it was the wrong thing to do but it was in circumvention of bankruptcy law and as a political favor. If you dont really believe politics played a role then I have land on the beach in Illinois to sell you. No different the GOP provides political favors to its constituents and its a dirty part of politics.

I am not manipulated by parrots or pundits, I view these things objectively and I fully recognize the state of the economy and liquidity at that time but I truly and I doubt many real expert financial people would tell you that GM was going to be liquidated and put out of business. It makes no common sense for a company to be liquidated with an operating profit so we will just have to differ on that.

From the beginning, my comment was on the political favor done to the unions (which arguably was the right thing to do but call it like it is) not whether the government acted appropriately in providing in providing financing.

If you are willing to tone down the attitude, we can start from the beginning and have respectful discussions on other topics.

Kirk.

Sounds good. Cheers.

Chuck Todd is an o'bama bootlicking sychophant...much like those who post here.

Dennis, I don't understand either why this bill is dead on arrival. Extending the payroll tax cut for the middle class? Including the Keystone Pipeline Project to go forward adding 20,000 more jobs and reducing cost of oil?? And Obama who fights for middle class tax cuts and vowing to increase jobs threatens to veto this bill? Am I the only one seeing a problem here?

Its an environmental issue, and if o'bozo lets it go thru, he will p*** off his sycophantic greenie libs and they will cry, cry, cry and not vote for him or his sorry agenda. So you see, its all politics to the messiah of the left...aka: LYING!

I believe its not really not an environmental issue. I believe its a matter of election donations. Mr Obama is playing both sides right now. Getting money from both sides. He will lose one of them as soon as a Rep. wins and he has to make a choice. For now he is enjoying money from both.

Reality Check-1104333 appears to be in the delusional state of believing that they KNOW what goes on in the minds of Liberals based on what Beck, Hannity & Rush spew as "truth".

The funny thing is that for the last 2 years the terrible 3 have been telling their audience that BHO has DESTROYED AMERICA........ so that would indicate that the Conservatives are now in a death match over something that no longer exists with themselves.

Which man is the BEST ONE for ruling the rubble that used to be America is their campaign war cry.

Funny thing is America is starting to look like the Clinton years once again, al the number are up & we are facing a better 2012 than we were just 6 months ago....!

Go look up sychophant and you're gonna love totalitarianism, aren't ya?

Hey, anoble! Your crazy is showing. I just thought you should know.

Pretty apparent isn't it.

Because affirmative action NEVER worked...

That comes from a person who is so secure in their grasp of reality that they allow Michael Moore to decide who & what they are voting for.... does the term "Knee Jerk Reactionary" strike anyone else here as fitting...?