I didn't watch. He's a leftist, and his policies are explicitly anti-American. I am thankful he is getting some feedback from the electorate that they didn't actually want him to make good on his words from 2008, "I want to FUNDAMENTALLY change this Nation."
The man is arrogant beyond belief. His agenda going into office was to destroy this country. The election shocker in Massachusetts was a wake up call that the country soundly rejects his policies. Taking that into effect, he then attacked in a different direction, going full guns after the banks. His speech was last night was heavy on pie in the sky ideals, with no specifics whatsoever. Wall Street, however, was so thrilled at his remarks, that it's presently in a nose dive.
This fall, there's going to be a bloodletting at the polls. It's a reversal of what the pundits said a month ago-that the GOP is finished. Actually, it's the dems that are finished.
No, Dudester, the dems are not finished. People are allowed to vote even if they are ignorant of the evils of leftist tyranny. And the more the dems have been able to engender dependence upon the federal government, the more voters they've secured by promising more of someone else's money. Couple that with the facilitating of their agenda and ideas from most media, movies, music, professors, etc... They ain't finished yet...
"that they didn't actually want him to make good on his words from 2008, 'I want to FUNDAMENTALLY change this Nation.'"
My goodness "how", you're still droning on & on about that nonsense at this late date after you've been *clearly shown* that you were completely & totally wrong in your interpretation of Obama's words?? Give it up man...you're living a warped fantasy world where your side can do no wrong & everyone else is the devil...
"His agenda going into office was to destroy this country."
Please, no it wasn't. It was all about cleaning up the mess that was left behind by GWB, which is still under way. I swear, some of you whiners would have never survived the Great Depression. It took the USA the better part of a *decade* to get out of that mess, and this recent financial meltdown was the next biggest mess that this country has been through since then! To expect that only a year after Obama's election that everything would be fixed is a pipe dream...nothing more, nothing less. The U.S. economy is well on its way to recovery right this very moment...watch & learn...
"Wall Street, however, was so thrilled at his remarks, that it's presently in a nose dive."
LOL...the stock market goes up or down based on rumors alone, and it's waaaay up from where it was when Obama first took office...so quit whining about nothing...
I'm surprised at the hate the Dems get around here. The very fact that we're here shows that we're on their side of the culture war and not the religious elements of the Republican party's side.
My favorite part was when he said "oh you know that $20 billion in spending cuts I was talking about, well, of course, that won't happen until 2011, of course, pretty obvious should go without saying, right?".
Anyone here want a bet that come 2011 it's "gee, you know what, we really didn't see this coming, but we reckon the economy is still not strong enough, so why don't we just make that 2012."
Of course, as per usual, blanket denials with ZERO proof are simply meaningless. You really have descended into madness "how"...I pity you...
"I'm surprised at the hate the Dems get around here. The very fact that we're here shows that we're on their side of the culture war and not the religious elements of the Republican party's side."
In fairness, this issue has been hashed out here in the distant past, and it appears that at least a few of the Right-wing dolts around here are really of a more Libertarian strain. The fact is that both of the extremes on the Right and the Left are against strip clubbing.
"Hell, in 2011 maybe we'll go back to the good old days of PAYGO."
PAYGO is already back, as of 2007, due to the Dems putting it back in place.
MG claimed that PAYGO is back since the dems put it back in place in 2007. (superficially accurate but meaningless)
Yesterday, every dem senator voted to raise the debt ceiling again, by another $1,900,000,000,000.00.
MG also "pities" me, because I have "descended into madness," and am therefore clearly out of touch with reality.
The real state of the union--I loved this when I first read it here or maybe somewhere else, just a short while back. It pretty much sums up Obama and liberals with this great anology:
Two kids young kids are running for elementary class president. The first student says: "vote for me and I'll represent you fairly and make the best decisions for all of us."
The second kid said "vote for me and I'll give everybody candy."
Obama, oops, I mean student number 2, won the election.
The ignorance and blind ideology of some people is truly staggering. And the funny thing is, everyone who reads this will agree but think I'm talking about the "other" side.
"Yesterday, every dem senator voted to raise the debt ceiling again, by another $1,900,000,000,000.00"
...due, unfortunately, to the FACT that the previous administration successfully took a budget surplus that were handed & turned it into budget deficits for as far as the eye can see. "Personal responsibility"?? Nah, those are just words for the GOP & their followers.
-----------------------------
No Snake, it's not just "in name only"...it's in reality. Also, the reality is that the GOP-controlled Congress let PAYGO expire so that they could pass tax cuts (for mostly rich people) & a HUGE expansion of Medicare prescription drug benefits...neither of which were ever paid for...along with two wars that were mostly funded on supplementals. As per usual unfortunately, the GOP runs up an enormous federal deficit & then they leave the mess to the Dems to clean up...just like always...ugh...
Misterguy, I'm well aware of all of the stupid stuff so many Republicans did, but that doesn't give the Democrats license to do it too, to an even greater extent.
You don't fix a budget deficit with an even larger budget deficit. The Democrats' "fixes" are a bunch of debunked Keynesian nonsense.
Like I've told people, I don't blame Obama for starting the fire, I blame him for throwing nitroglycerin on it.
And don't forget, the so called budget "surplus" was just a proven accounting gimmick. There have only been balanced budgets during my voting life (and that isn't a surplus) when the Republicans controlled the pocketbook of the US.
Make us wacko...lol...
---------------------------
"I'm well aware of all of the stupid stuff so many Republicans did, but that doesn't give the Democrats license to do it too, to an even greater extent.
You don't fix a budget deficit with an even larger budget deficit. The Democrats' 'fixes' are a bunch of debunked Keynesian nonsense."
My goodness, one does not try to deal with a huge budget deficit while one is in the middle of the biggest economic meltdown since literally the Great Depression my friend. As for "debunked Keynesian nonsense", some of the same actions that Obama took last year aided the USA in pulling itself out of the Great Depression under FDR.
The point is that all the GOP fuss over the nation's debt & deficit is pure bunk, since they had plenty of time to fix those issues when they were in power...but they chose to implement policies that only made them much, much WORSE.
----------------------------
"And don't forget, the so called budget 'surplus' was just a proven accounting gimmick."
"Proven" by no one that is, moron...LOL!
"President Clinton announces another record budget surplus"
"There have only been balanced budgets during my voting life (and that isn't a surplus) when the Republicans controlled the pocketbook of the US."
LOL...what a joke, and now the REAL facts of the matter:
The Clinton balanced federal budgets (with no annual deficit) in the late 1990s were the first since the federal fiscal budget year of 1969, when the Dems were in control of the federal government & set the budget for that fiscal year.
MG is impervious to facts. I could find quotes to say exactly what he claims, and I could find quotes to say the opposite. The key is discerning the truth.
The truth is supply-side economics (roughly, "capitalism") works and demand-side economics (roughly, "socialism") fails. Individuals tend naturally to spend their limited resources first on their own needs (including those of their families) rather than first giving everything to strangers and hoping for the best. Supply-side economics assumes that, and since it is consistent with reality, that works. Very simple.
"World War II pulled us out of the Depression, not FDR's wasteful programs."
Both the New Deal (and other FDR programs) AND the eventual onset of the USA's involvement of WWII (even before we were attacked at Pearl Harbor) helped end the Great Depression.
--------------------------------------------
"and I could find quotes to say the opposite"
...and they'd all be from debunked, far Right-wing sites, period.
"The truth is supply-side economics (roughly, 'capitalism') works"
...at ballooning the federal debt & deficits and dramatically widening the gap between rich & poor, period.
---------------------------------
"Many notable economists these days realize that FDR extended the problems for up to TWELVE YEARS and fixed none."
No, they really don't, moron, but keep pretending that the lies that you constantly spew here are "true".
MisterGuy is...
A. Really as ignorant as his ridiculous statements suggest.
B. Not really that stupid, just a damned liar.
C. Both ignorant and a liar.
There must be SOME explanation for his rantings. No one could actually be as he presents himself here, could they?
I said it before and I do believe it is just an act. Has to be! I don't think anyone or anything could truly be so stupid, ignorant or a combination of the two, or lie so often.
First of all there is no doubt that MisterGay is very dumb. However, on this board he has found people so fanatic about their politics that even MisterGay is able to come out on top in most of the flame wars here. MisterGay certainly doesn't win these debates all the time, but certainly more often than he loses.
Now on the downside, MisterGay will never, ever admit he is wrong no matter how strong the evidence. Sometimes it is just because he is too dumb to see he is wrong, at other times he knows it but will not admit it, and, hence, is a liar by maintaining he is right. This is one of MisterGay's biggest weaknesses.
MisterGay's has three other big weaknesses. First he will never concede the other side a valid point, and he can often end up making himself looking quite ridiculous because of this. His second big weakness is to deliberate misstate others positions (when he can't deal with their real position) to something he can deal with. His final big weakness is that he has no strategic sense. He just grabs what is front of him if he thinks it will mean a "win" for him, even if it contradicts everything else he has ever said.
In summary, MisterGay is a very weak troll, but some of the right wing fanatics here are so dumb that he is able to come out on top in his debates with them.
"Really as ignorant as his ridiculous statements suggest."
"Not really that stupid, just a damned liar."
"I don't think anyone or anything could truly be so stupid, ignorant or a combination of the two, or lie so often."
You two Right-wing sock puppets are projecting yet again...give it up...you both, as per usual, have absolutely ZERO objective, verifiable facts on your side, period end of story.
----------------------------------------------
"Is there anything Obama could do that you would criticize?"
Sure. He's hasn't been specific or forceful enough with his efforts to reform our health care system, and the cap & trade scheme that's being pushed is pure bunk.
"And it is true for reasons I previously elucidated so brilliantly"
Not quite "how". Cap & trade is silly, whether one believes that CO2 is a "pollutant" or not (and I don't think that it is myself), because it allows plenty of companies to "pollute" while other companies gain monetarily from these so-called "polluters". If one wants to reduce a compound from the atmosphere that is deemed to be harmful, then one simply needs to set a limit on how much of that compound can be emitted & then gradually, over time, reduce that limit until the issue is resolved. This is much of what was done to get a handle on the gases that were causing ozone depletion, and there is still plenty of time before those gases are scoured out of the atmosphere.
The cap & trade system will likely yield hundreds of billions of dollars, but I have my doubts that the money that's generated will be used properly or that the "problem" that it aims to fix will, in fact, be fixed.
"Could MG be coming around?"
No, I've never claimed to be an Obamaton. Heck, I voted for Hillary in the primaries. I also have no problem saying that I've been a life-long Democrat, but that does not mean that I've never voted for someone other than a Dem or that I think that the Democratic Party is always right on everything that they do. You on the other hand "how" are just a sock puppet for the GOP, and no objective facts can ever pull you off of your religious-like political beliefs, period.
--------------------------
"Of course 'pure bunk' would include EVERYTHING tried or done by this 'administration'"
...in your own stupid, wildly partisan mind that is moron...
Just tried to give you credit for being correct, MG. Only fair, I figure.
You're correct again (!) that CO2 is no "pollutant." Props.
As for me being "just a sock puppet for the GOP," that is a baseless observation. I care about liberty and our constitution. If certain GOPers do the right things in accordance with such basic principles, I'm for them. If not; not. Party affiliation is unimportant.
He is most always correct. We just need him to point out the errors in our thinking.
I agree with party affiliation, but for me, is is the Republicans that I mostly agree with, but certainly not always. And, of course, each individual Republican can different views on the same issue. I doubt anyone would ever find one of any party they complete agree with, although the obamanicks are as close as I've seen in my lifetime..
As for the "budget surplus" mentioned above, which WAS BS, see below some of the "book cooking" done during clinton's administration leading up to the 2000 election cycle. Of course the idiots of the world will point out that the FACTS are presented by a conservative, so those FACTS are not FACTS! Go figure!
August 8, 2002
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
The Commerce Department's painful report last week that the national economy is worse than anticipated obscured the document's startling revelation. Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election. Did the federal government join Enron and WorldCom in cooking the books?
Through all of President Bill Clinton's last two years in office, the announced level of before-tax profits was at least 10 percent too high--a discrepancy rising close to 30 percent during the last presidential campaign. Most startling, the Commerce Department in 2000 showed the economy on an upswing through most of the election year, while in fact it was declining.
Although a political motive for Democratic cooking of the government's books is there, nobody--including Bush administration officials--alleges specific wrongdoing. Nor is there any evidence. Estimation in 2000 was conducted by career public servants who are doing the same jobs today (working under a highly political Democrat in the Commerce Department). Nevertheless, such discrepancy in earnings statements by corporate executives today would warrant a congressional subpoena.
The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates before-tax profits of domestic nonfinancial corporations quarterly. Revised figures last week showed profits were really lower by 10.7 percent, 12.2 percent, 15.2 percent and 18 percent for the four quarters of 1999. In 2000, this gap became a chasm. The revised quarterly profits for the election year are lower than the announced figures by 23.3 percent, 25.9 percent, 29.9 percent and 28.2 percent.
Most startling, original estimates showed a generally rising profit outlook for the two years preceding the election. Starting with $503.7 billion in the last quarter of 1998, the quarterly estimates rose steadily to $543.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 1999 and then took off in the first two quarters of 2000 to $574.9 billion and $606.6 billion, leveling off to $602.9 billion in the third quarter (before falling to $527.3 billion in the fourth quarter after the election).
Last week's revised returns reflect not only different numbers but a different trend (starting at a much lower level of $473 billion). Profits actually fell through much of 2000, dropping from $449.7 billion to $422.4 billion for the second half (before slipping to $372.8 billion).
How could there be this big of a discrepancy? How could the government have reported steadily rising profits when they actually peaked in 1998?
''The gap is a bit larger than usual, but not really out of line,'' Brent Moulton, associate director at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, told me. Moulton, who was in charge of both the old figures and the new revision, said the problem was the two-year delay in obtaining corporate tax returns (reflecting changes in telecommunications and business services).
Moulton's boss in 1999-2000 was one of the Clinton administration's most politically astute economists: Undersecretary of Commerce Rob Shapiro, a pioneer ''New Democrat'' and early friend and supporter of Bill Clinton. I asked him flatly: ''Did you cook the books?''
Shapiro laughed it off, asserting that the Bureau of Economic Analysis is ''the most nonpolitical, nonpartisan agency in the government.''
That begs the question of whether the bureau's very political, very partisan management chief should have known the bureaucrats were on the wrong track.
''No,'' said Shapiro, ''2000 looked very good to us.'' He dismissed the early reports as ''an econometric projection based on estimates.''
The result: headlines in 2000 spewing false information of corporate profits growing at 25 percent, bolstering the stock market and holding up the state of the economy as the election approached. That is the underpinning for the Democratic myth that a growing and vibrant American economy has been sabotaged by President Bush's tax cut. (''We lost the opportunity for long-term economic growth,'' says House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt).
If the government's books were not purposely cooked in the same way as corporate accounts, there still remains the question of how the government could be so wrong.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis may well be free of partisan tilt, but its incompetence can cast a long political shadow.
And then there are these gems from this very same piece:
"nobody--including Bush administration officials--alleges specific wrongdoing. Nor is there any evidence."
"Shapiro laughed it off, asserting that the Bureau of Economic Analysis is ''the most nonpolitical, nonpartisan agency in the government.''"
This OPINION PIECE also has NOTHING to do with the federal budget surplus at all! The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis routinely re-evaluates all of the PRELIMINARY economic indicators that it tracks, whether a Democrat or a GOPer is in office. This is nothing special at all...it happens all the time.
Again, as stated in the above piece:
"He dismissed the early reports as ''an econometric projection based on estimates.''"
And now for some more unbiased & completely verifiable FACTS:
The early 2000s recession started in March 2001 & ended in November 2001.
The 1990s were the longest period of growth in American history.
All you've tried to do clubber is to obscure the unvarnished FACTS with Right-wing rhetoric...just like always! And, of course, just like always, it isn't working...now run along with your tail between your legs old man...LOL!
There seems to be endless discussion of Republican vs Democrat and democracy vs socialism. All politicians are at fault regardless of party affiliation, they are not working for the good of the people.
Regarding solcialism vs democracy, lets examine the real world.
Ben & Jerrys, a fairly liberal company with socialistic beliefs, ran into early financila problems do the the socialist way they ran their. company. To raise funds, they could have increased prices (kind of like a tax on the consumer), instead they solicited investors. (Capitalism). They continued to grow, but ran into further financial problems due to their liberal spending. Once again, raise prices, or go to the capital markets. They knew raising prices(taxing) would kill their business, so they elected for the capital markets.
So even a liberal company knew taxing is bad, but capitalism is good.
Let's look at liberal states like California and liberal/unionized states. They sure as hell do not appear to be doing as well as conservative states like Texas. Texas, isn't that where Bush was from?
"There seems to be endless discussion of Republican vs Democrat and democracy vs socialism"
...*started* by those from the Right-side of the political spectrum...on a strip club discussion site no less! That's the point...these kind of silly, drive-by political posts (with NO facts to back them up) have ZERO place here on this board! All those that are doing them here are simply trying to get away with some free shots at the other side, in a completely & totally inappropriate forum for such discussions. I personally am having none of it. It needs to end IMHO, but some people just won't learn.
"Ben & Jerrys, a fairly liberal company with socialistic beliefs, ran into early financila problems do the the socialist way they ran their. company. To raise funds, they could have increased prices (kind of like a tax on the consumer), instead they solicited investors. (Capitalism). They continued to grow, but ran into further financial problems due to their liberal spending. Once again, raise prices, or go to the capital markets. They knew raising prices(taxing) would kill their business, so they elected for the capital markets."
This isn't the case at all. The founders of Ben & Jerry's were able to combine ice cream making with social activism by creating a three-part mission statement that considered profits as only ONE measure of success. Their mission statement has three parts: a Social Mission, a Product Mission, and an Economic Mission. Their Social Mission describes the company’s need to operate in a way that recognizes their influence on society, and the importance of improving the quality of life all over the world. Their Product Mission states that they will always strive to make the finest quality products, working to use natural, wholesome ingredients. It also states that they will advertise business mannerisms that respect the Earth. Their Economic mission describes their promise to operate their company on a "sustainable financial basis of profitable growth, increasing value for stakeholders and expanding opportunities for development and career growth for employees."
In 1988, the Ben & Jerry won the title of U.S Small Business Persons Of The Year, awarded by none other than President Ronald Reagan.
In April 2000, Ben & Jerry's announced its acquisition by multinational food giant Unilever. Unilever said that it hoped to carry on the tradition of engaging "in these critical, global economic and social missions." After this event, Ben & Jerry basically retired. They do not hold any board or management position and are not involved in day-to-day management of the company.
"So even a liberal company knew taxing is bad, but capitalism is good."
That's a strawman argument, since the choice is NOT between taxes & "capitalism". Taxes are necessary in order to have a functioning government, period.
"Let's look at liberal states like California and liberal/unionized states"
...where people that form unions consistently get higher wages & benefits?? Sounds good to me!
"They sure as hell do not appear to be doing as well as conservative states like Texas."
LOL...in 2008, TX had a gross state product of $1.245 trillion, the second highest in the USA. The first? CA!
The TX state sales tax rate is *above* the national medium, with localities adding even more! TX property taxes are generally at rates *above* the national average and are among the highest in the nation!
Once again you let the facts elude you. Based on an analysis by the Tax Foundation of statistics published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2008, Texas ranked 43rd in total state and local taxes, a full 1.3% below the national average. For the past 30 years, they have ranked near the bottom for total taxes.
So I guess you are saying Ca went from #1 in gross product to near bankruptcy in only 2 years, while Tx is still growing and prospering. Where was Bush from again? Where is Pelosi from?
BTW, I live in a very nice community just N of Houston and my sales tax rate is 7.25% w/no income tax. How many communities in the NE liberal states can say the same? How about Ca?
Re, the high wages and benefits of unionized staes worked so well, we exported a majority of those jobs overseas. A high wage is useless if you are unemployed.
"Based on an analysis by the Tax Foundation of statistics published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2008, Texas ranked 43rd in total state and local taxes, a full 1.3% below the national average."
LOL...ahhhhh, the ole "Per Capita" tax dodge. Too bad that there's no one named "Per Capita" to pay those per capita tax rates eh?? BTW, how's that gross receipts tax (one of only 5 states that even have such a tax!) working out for ya? How about those car, boat, and airplane taxes? I haven't paid a yearly car tax in many decades...lol...
"So I guess you are saying Ca went from #1 in gross product to near bankruptcy in only 2 years, while Tx is still growing and prospering."
Really?? There's be NO recession at all in TX during this entire time?? Do tell wing-nut...do tell...
"I live in a very nice community just N of Houston and my sales tax rate is 7.25% w/no income tax. How many communities in the NE liberal states can say the same?"
LOL...you really are too funny TX boy! TX's state sales tax is above the national median of 6%, period.
Yea, you have no income tax, but you have some of the highest property taxes (which is a VERY regressive tax) in the nation. You can't get something for nothing yanno.
I used to live in NH (another "no income tax state"), and they would bleed people & businesses dry with all kinds of sales taxes, special tax rates for businesses, tolls, state & local fees, and very, very unfair property tax rates from town to town.
"Re, the high wages and benefits of unionized staes worked so well, we exported a majority of those jobs overseas"
...once again, in your own warped mind that is...lol...
61 comments
The child President.
This fall, there's going to be a bloodletting at the polls. It's a reversal of what the pundits said a month ago-that the GOP is finished. Actually, it's the dems that are finished.
My goodness "how", you're still droning on & on about that nonsense at this late date after you've been *clearly shown* that you were completely & totally wrong in your interpretation of Obama's words?? Give it up man...you're living a warped fantasy world where your side can do no wrong & everyone else is the devil...
"His agenda going into office was to destroy this country."
Please, no it wasn't. It was all about cleaning up the mess that was left behind by GWB, which is still under way. I swear, some of you whiners would have never survived the Great Depression. It took the USA the better part of a *decade* to get out of that mess, and this recent financial meltdown was the next biggest mess that this country has been through since then! To expect that only a year after Obama's election that everything would be fixed is a pipe dream...nothing more, nothing less. The U.S. economy is well on its way to recovery right this very moment...watch & learn...
"Wall Street, however, was so thrilled at his remarks, that it's presently in a nose dive."
LOL...the stock market goes up or down based on rumors alone, and it's waaaay up from where it was when Obama first took office...so quit whining about nothing...
"Actually, it's the dems that are finished"
...in your wild dreams that is...ugh...
Right tends towards liberty.
You should not be surprised that most on here favor the latter.
Anyone here want a bet that come 2011 it's "gee, you know what, we really didn't see this coming, but we reckon the economy is still not strong enough, so why don't we just make that 2012."
Hell, in 2011 maybe we'll go back to the good old days of PAYGO.
He is one of two things, a complete idiot, or one hell of a DickJohnson just putting us on. I think the former.
Of course, as per usual, blanket denials with ZERO proof are simply meaningless. You really have descended into madness "how"...I pity you...
"I'm surprised at the hate the Dems get around here. The very fact that we're here shows that we're on their side of the culture war and not the religious elements of the Republican party's side."
In fairness, this issue has been hashed out here in the distant past, and it appears that at least a few of the Right-wing dolts around here are really of a more Libertarian strain. The fact is that both of the extremes on the Right and the Left are against strip clubbing.
"Hell, in 2011 maybe we'll go back to the good old days of PAYGO."
PAYGO is already back, as of 2007, due to the Dems putting it back in place.
Run away now clubber...lol...just like always...
Yesterday, every dem senator voted to raise the debt ceiling again, by another $1,900,000,000,000.00.
MG also "pities" me, because I have "descended into madness," and am therefore clearly out of touch with reality.
Cannot make this stuff up, fine people!
Two kids young kids are running for elementary class president. The first student says: "vote for me and I'll represent you fairly and make the best decisions for all of us."
The second kid said "vote for me and I'll give everybody candy."
Obama, oops, I mean student number 2, won the election.
Haha, yeah, in the same way the USSR was a democracy and the segregated South gave black people the right to vote: in name only.
"The fact is that both of the extremes on the Right and the Left are against strip clubbing. "
True, one side is against it because Gloria Steinem says so, and the other because Jeebus says so.
...due, unfortunately, to the FACT that the previous administration successfully took a budget surplus that were handed & turned it into budget deficits for as far as the eye can see. "Personal responsibility"?? Nah, those are just words for the GOP & their followers.
-----------------------------
No Snake, it's not just "in name only"...it's in reality. Also, the reality is that the GOP-controlled Congress let PAYGO expire so that they could pass tax cuts (for mostly rich people) & a HUGE expansion of Medicare prescription drug benefits...neither of which were ever paid for...along with two wars that were mostly funded on supplementals. As per usual unfortunately, the GOP runs up an enormous federal deficit & then they leave the mess to the Dems to clean up...just like always...ugh...
http://www.hulu.com/watch/124876/saturda…
You don't fix a budget deficit with an even larger budget deficit. The Democrats' "fixes" are a bunch of debunked Keynesian nonsense.
Like I've told people, I don't blame Obama for starting the fire, I blame him for throwing nitroglycerin on it.
And don't forget, the so called budget "surplus" was just a proven accounting gimmick. There have only been balanced budgets during my voting life (and that isn't a surplus) when the Republicans controlled the pocketbook of the US.
Make us wacko...lol...
---------------------------
"I'm well aware of all of the stupid stuff so many Republicans did, but that doesn't give the Democrats license to do it too, to an even greater extent.
You don't fix a budget deficit with an even larger budget deficit. The Democrats' 'fixes' are a bunch of debunked Keynesian nonsense."
My goodness, one does not try to deal with a huge budget deficit while one is in the middle of the biggest economic meltdown since literally the Great Depression my friend. As for "debunked Keynesian nonsense", some of the same actions that Obama took last year aided the USA in pulling itself out of the Great Depression under FDR.
The point is that all the GOP fuss over the nation's debt & deficit is pure bunk, since they had plenty of time to fix those issues when they were in power...but they chose to implement policies that only made them much, much WORSE.
----------------------------
"And don't forget, the so called budget 'surplus' was just a proven accounting gimmick."
"Proven" by no one that is, moron...LOL!
"President Clinton announces another record budget surplus"
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS…
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/du…
"There have only been balanced budgets during my voting life (and that isn't a surplus) when the Republicans controlled the pocketbook of the US."
LOL...what a joke, and now the REAL facts of the matter:
The Clinton balanced federal budgets (with no annual deficit) in the late 1990s were the first since the federal fiscal budget year of 1969, when the Dems were in control of the federal government & set the budget for that fiscal year.
FACTS from a Right-wing website no less! -
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Fede…
World War II pulled us out of the Depression, not FDR's wasteful programs.
The truth is supply-side economics (roughly, "capitalism") works and demand-side economics (roughly, "socialism") fails. Individuals tend naturally to spend their limited resources first on their own needs (including those of their families) rather than first giving everything to strangers and hoping for the best. Supply-side economics assumes that, and since it is consistent with reality, that works. Very simple.
SP,
Many notable economists these days realize that FDR extended the problems for up to TWELVE YEARS and fixed none. That is why he is a liberal icon!
Both the New Deal (and other FDR programs) AND the eventual onset of the USA's involvement of WWII (even before we were attacked at Pearl Harbor) helped end the Great Depression.
--------------------------------------------
"and I could find quotes to say the opposite"
...and they'd all be from debunked, far Right-wing sites, period.
"The truth is supply-side economics (roughly, 'capitalism') works"
...at ballooning the federal debt & deficits and dramatically widening the gap between rich & poor, period.
---------------------------------
"Many notable economists these days realize that FDR extended the problems for up to TWELVE YEARS and fixed none."
No, they really don't, moron, but keep pretending that the lies that you constantly spew here are "true".
MisterGuy is...
A. Really as ignorant as his ridiculous statements suggest.
B. Not really that stupid, just a damned liar.
C. Both ignorant and a liar.
There must be SOME explanation for his rantings. No one could actually be as he presents himself here, could they?
I said it before and I do believe it is just an act. Has to be! I don't think anyone or anything could truly be so stupid, ignorant or a combination of the two, or lie so often.
MG,
Is there anything Obama could do that you would criticize?
First of all there is no doubt that MisterGay is very dumb. However, on this board he has found people so fanatic about their politics that even MisterGay is able to come out on top in most of the flame wars here. MisterGay certainly doesn't win these debates all the time, but certainly more often than he loses.
Now on the downside, MisterGay will never, ever admit he is wrong no matter how strong the evidence. Sometimes it is just because he is too dumb to see he is wrong, at other times he knows it but will not admit it, and, hence, is a liar by maintaining he is right. This is one of MisterGay's biggest weaknesses.
MisterGay's has three other big weaknesses. First he will never concede the other side a valid point, and he can often end up making himself looking quite ridiculous because of this. His second big weakness is to deliberate misstate others positions (when he can't deal with their real position) to something he can deal with. His final big weakness is that he has no strategic sense. He just grabs what is front of him if he thinks it will mean a "win" for him, even if it contradicts everything else he has ever said.
In summary, MisterGay is a very weak troll, but some of the right wing fanatics here are so dumb that he is able to come out on top in his debates with them.
"Not really that stupid, just a damned liar."
"I don't think anyone or anything could truly be so stupid, ignorant or a combination of the two, or lie so often."
You two Right-wing sock puppets are projecting yet again...give it up...you both, as per usual, have absolutely ZERO objective, verifiable facts on your side, period end of story.
----------------------------------------------
"Is there anything Obama could do that you would criticize?"
Sure. He's hasn't been specific or forceful enough with his efforts to reform our health care system, and the cap & trade scheme that's being pushed is pure bunk.
That is so true. And it is true for reasons I previously elucidated so brilliantly ;) . Could MG be coming around?
No.
Of course "pure bunk" would include EVERYTHING tried or done by this "administration", and I use that term loosely.
Not quite "how". Cap & trade is silly, whether one believes that CO2 is a "pollutant" or not (and I don't think that it is myself), because it allows plenty of companies to "pollute" while other companies gain monetarily from these so-called "polluters". If one wants to reduce a compound from the atmosphere that is deemed to be harmful, then one simply needs to set a limit on how much of that compound can be emitted & then gradually, over time, reduce that limit until the issue is resolved. This is much of what was done to get a handle on the gases that were causing ozone depletion, and there is still plenty of time before those gases are scoured out of the atmosphere.
The cap & trade system will likely yield hundreds of billions of dollars, but I have my doubts that the money that's generated will be used properly or that the "problem" that it aims to fix will, in fact, be fixed.
"Could MG be coming around?"
No, I've never claimed to be an Obamaton. Heck, I voted for Hillary in the primaries. I also have no problem saying that I've been a life-long Democrat, but that does not mean that I've never voted for someone other than a Dem or that I think that the Democratic Party is always right on everything that they do. You on the other hand "how" are just a sock puppet for the GOP, and no objective facts can ever pull you off of your religious-like political beliefs, period.
--------------------------
"Of course 'pure bunk' would include EVERYTHING tried or done by this 'administration'"
...in your own stupid, wildly partisan mind that is moron...
pwned again old man...just like always...LOL!
You're correct again (!) that CO2 is no "pollutant." Props.
As for me being "just a sock puppet for the GOP," that is a baseless observation. I care about liberty and our constitution. If certain GOPers do the right things in accordance with such basic principles, I'm for them. If not; not. Party affiliation is unimportant.
He is most always correct. We just need him to point out the errors in our thinking.
I agree with party affiliation, but for me, is is the Republicans that I mostly agree with, but certainly not always. And, of course, each individual Republican can different views on the same issue. I doubt anyone would ever find one of any party they complete agree with, although the obamanicks are as close as I've seen in my lifetime..
August 8, 2002
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
The Commerce Department's painful report last week that the national economy is worse than anticipated obscured the document's startling revelation. Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election. Did the federal government join Enron and WorldCom in cooking the books?
Through all of President Bill Clinton's last two years in office, the announced level of before-tax profits was at least 10 percent too high--a discrepancy rising close to 30 percent during the last presidential campaign. Most startling, the Commerce Department in 2000 showed the economy on an upswing through most of the election year, while in fact it was declining.
Although a political motive for Democratic cooking of the government's books is there, nobody--including Bush administration officials--alleges specific wrongdoing. Nor is there any evidence. Estimation in 2000 was conducted by career public servants who are doing the same jobs today (working under a highly political Democrat in the Commerce Department). Nevertheless, such discrepancy in earnings statements by corporate executives today would warrant a congressional subpoena.
The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates before-tax profits of domestic nonfinancial corporations quarterly. Revised figures last week showed profits were really lower by 10.7 percent, 12.2 percent, 15.2 percent and 18 percent for the four quarters of 1999. In 2000, this gap became a chasm. The revised quarterly profits for the election year are lower than the announced figures by 23.3 percent, 25.9 percent, 29.9 percent and 28.2 percent.
Most startling, original estimates showed a generally rising profit outlook for the two years preceding the election. Starting with $503.7 billion in the last quarter of 1998, the quarterly estimates rose steadily to $543.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 1999 and then took off in the first two quarters of 2000 to $574.9 billion and $606.6 billion, leveling off to $602.9 billion in the third quarter (before falling to $527.3 billion in the fourth quarter after the election).
Last week's revised returns reflect not only different numbers but a different trend (starting at a much lower level of $473 billion). Profits actually fell through much of 2000, dropping from $449.7 billion to $422.4 billion for the second half (before slipping to $372.8 billion).
How could there be this big of a discrepancy? How could the government have reported steadily rising profits when they actually peaked in 1998?
''The gap is a bit larger than usual, but not really out of line,'' Brent Moulton, associate director at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, told me. Moulton, who was in charge of both the old figures and the new revision, said the problem was the two-year delay in obtaining corporate tax returns (reflecting changes in telecommunications and business services).
Moulton's boss in 1999-2000 was one of the Clinton administration's most politically astute economists: Undersecretary of Commerce Rob Shapiro, a pioneer ''New Democrat'' and early friend and supporter of Bill Clinton. I asked him flatly: ''Did you cook the books?''
Shapiro laughed it off, asserting that the Bureau of Economic Analysis is ''the most nonpolitical, nonpartisan agency in the government.''
That begs the question of whether the bureau's very political, very partisan management chief should have known the bureaucrats were on the wrong track.
''No,'' said Shapiro, ''2000 looked very good to us.'' He dismissed the early reports as ''an econometric projection based on estimates.''
The result: headlines in 2000 spewing false information of corporate profits growing at 25 percent, bolstering the stock market and holding up the state of the economy as the election approached. That is the underpinning for the Democratic myth that a growing and vibrant American economy has been sabotaged by President Bush's tax cut. (''We lost the opportunity for long-term economic growth,'' says House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt).
If the government's books were not purposely cooked in the same way as corporate accounts, there still remains the question of how the government could be so wrong.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis may well be free of partisan tilt, but its incompetence can cast a long political shadow.
...which, of course, is backed up by loads & loads of your previous shilling for them on this very website, period end of story.
-------------------------------
"so those FACTS are not FACTS!"
LOL...using a Bob Novak OPINION PIECE to try & present "facts"...classic clubber nonsense!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/7…
And then there are these gems from this very same piece:
"nobody--including Bush administration officials--alleges specific wrongdoing. Nor is there any evidence."
"Shapiro laughed it off, asserting that the Bureau of Economic Analysis is ''the most nonpolitical, nonpartisan agency in the government.''"
This OPINION PIECE also has NOTHING to do with the federal budget surplus at all! The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis routinely re-evaluates all of the PRELIMINARY economic indicators that it tracks, whether a Democrat or a GOPer is in office. This is nothing special at all...it happens all the time.
Again, as stated in the above piece:
"He dismissed the early reports as ''an econometric projection based on estimates.''"
And now for some more unbiased & completely verifiable FACTS:
The early 2000s recession started in March 2001 & ended in November 2001.
The 1990s were the longest period of growth in American history.
There was indeed a federal budget surplus that was handed to GWB by Clinton - http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/GovV…
The U.S. economy continued to grow through the end of the Clinton administration - http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Tabl…
All you've tried to do clubber is to obscure the unvarnished FACTS with Right-wing rhetoric...just like always! And, of course, just like always, it isn't working...now run along with your tail between your legs old man...LOL!
Oh no, it's a weinner, er, winner.
And again ANOTHER record set. I think I shall try something in a new post in a bit.
Regarding solcialism vs democracy, lets examine the real world.
Ben & Jerrys, a fairly liberal company with socialistic beliefs, ran into early financila problems do the the socialist way they ran their. company. To raise funds, they could have increased prices (kind of like a tax on the consumer), instead they solicited investors. (Capitalism). They continued to grow, but ran into further financial problems due to their liberal spending. Once again, raise prices, or go to the capital markets. They knew raising prices(taxing) would kill their business, so they elected for the capital markets.
So even a liberal company knew taxing is bad, but capitalism is good.
Let's look at liberal states like California and liberal/unionized states. They sure as hell do not appear to be doing as well as conservative states like Texas. Texas, isn't that where Bush was from?
...*started* by those from the Right-side of the political spectrum...on a strip club discussion site no less! That's the point...these kind of silly, drive-by political posts (with NO facts to back them up) have ZERO place here on this board! All those that are doing them here are simply trying to get away with some free shots at the other side, in a completely & totally inappropriate forum for such discussions. I personally am having none of it. It needs to end IMHO, but some people just won't learn.
"Ben & Jerrys, a fairly liberal company with socialistic beliefs, ran into early financila problems do the the socialist way they ran their. company. To raise funds, they could have increased prices (kind of like a tax on the consumer), instead they solicited investors. (Capitalism). They continued to grow, but ran into further financial problems due to their liberal spending. Once again, raise prices, or go to the capital markets. They knew raising prices(taxing) would kill their business, so they elected for the capital markets."
This isn't the case at all. The founders of Ben & Jerry's were able to combine ice cream making with social activism by creating a three-part mission statement that considered profits as only ONE measure of success. Their mission statement has three parts: a Social Mission, a Product Mission, and an Economic Mission. Their Social Mission describes the company’s need to operate in a way that recognizes their influence on society, and the importance of improving the quality of life all over the world. Their Product Mission states that they will always strive to make the finest quality products, working to use natural, wholesome ingredients. It also states that they will advertise business mannerisms that respect the Earth. Their Economic mission describes their promise to operate their company on a "sustainable financial basis of profitable growth, increasing value for stakeholders and expanding opportunities for development and career growth for employees."
http://www.benjerry.com/activism/mission…
In 1988, the Ben & Jerry won the title of U.S Small Business Persons Of The Year, awarded by none other than President Ronald Reagan.
In April 2000, Ben & Jerry's announced its acquisition by multinational food giant Unilever. Unilever said that it hoped to carry on the tradition of engaging "in these critical, global economic and social missions." After this event, Ben & Jerry basically retired. They do not hold any board or management position and are not involved in day-to-day management of the company.
"So even a liberal company knew taxing is bad, but capitalism is good."
That's a strawman argument, since the choice is NOT between taxes & "capitalism". Taxes are necessary in order to have a functioning government, period.
"Let's look at liberal states like California and liberal/unionized states"
...where people that form unions consistently get higher wages & benefits?? Sounds good to me!
I won't repeat what I said about the CA mess here:
http://www.tuscl.net/br.php?BID=51
"They sure as hell do not appear to be doing as well as conservative states like Texas."
LOL...in 2008, TX had a gross state product of $1.245 trillion, the second highest in the USA. The first? CA!
The TX state sales tax rate is *above* the national medium, with localities adding even more! TX property taxes are generally at rates *above* the national average and are among the highest in the nation!
So I guess you are saying Ca went from #1 in gross product to near bankruptcy in only 2 years, while Tx is still growing and prospering. Where was Bush from again? Where is Pelosi from?
LOL...ahhhhh, the ole "Per Capita" tax dodge. Too bad that there's no one named "Per Capita" to pay those per capita tax rates eh?? BTW, how's that gross receipts tax (one of only 5 states that even have such a tax!) working out for ya? How about those car, boat, and airplane taxes? I haven't paid a yearly car tax in many decades...lol...
"So I guess you are saying Ca went from #1 in gross product to near bankruptcy in only 2 years, while Tx is still growing and prospering."
Really?? There's be NO recession at all in TX during this entire time?? Do tell wing-nut...do tell...
"I live in a very nice community just N of Houston and my sales tax rate is 7.25% w/no income tax. How many communities in the NE liberal states can say the same?"
LOL...you really are too funny TX boy! TX's state sales tax is above the national median of 6%, period.
Yea, you have no income tax, but you have some of the highest property taxes (which is a VERY regressive tax) in the nation. You can't get something for nothing yanno.
I used to live in NH (another "no income tax state"), and they would bleed people & businesses dry with all kinds of sales taxes, special tax rates for businesses, tolls, state & local fees, and very, very unfair property tax rates from town to town.
"Re, the high wages and benefits of unionized staes worked so well, we exported a majority of those jobs overseas"
...once again, in your own warped mind that is...lol...