"We want our money back"

Wait'll Obama and Louis Winthorpe thwart the Duke brothers. That'll show 'em.

"Now President Obama's approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46 percent -- and his disapproval rating is the highest ever recorded by Gallup at the beginning of an (elected) president's second year"

Now they figure it out....

All the smart folks knew Hussein was an inexperienced empty suit from the start.
.

"Into an empty vessel, of which he (Obama) was the greatest representative in recent American history...."

This Krauthammer fellow is a piece of work. What an unself-examining loon. "History" appears to have begun about one year ago.

If this gentleman were weighted down with the dog tags of all the American soldiers he has helped kill, he might at last get some idea of the challenges his stupid ideas have created for thousands of persons much more real and useful than he is.

Ask Ronald Reagan about his 35% approval thanks to an economy that was better off in real terms than ours is now....

Krauthammer

That would've been a great name for a tank in WWII.

While were at it, send the ex-Empty Suit in Chief (Bush) down to Haiti to see what he can do. The SOB needs to start working for a living.

I love it when they point out that Obama's approval rating is 20 points higher than Bush's and about 40 higher than Shooter's.

Front page stuff for sure.

Zed's faith is unshakeable! Go Zed!

"Go ZED...."

Glad to. Charles Krauthammer has personally hurt this country more than many, many of it's avowed enemies. He's helped bloody my friends and neighbors. Give the man a shovel and let him shovel shit. He'd be more honest, more productive, and far less dangerous.

Not even 10 posts in and already 3 defelections to Bush and Reagan......

Good luck with that......Face up to the obvious fact that your boy Hussein is in way over his head
.

Why are Obama's poll numbers 20 points higher than Bush's?

Ask Ronald Reagan about his 35% approval thanks to an economy that was better off in real terms than ours is now....

#5 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY
* * * *

Right. Just before the Republicans got annihilated in the midterms. Thanks for the memories.

Of course, Reagan began aggressively cutting taxes and deregulating, and interest rates started to fall from 21%, crashing about 1200 basis points before the end of his second term--which he won easily. Harder to see how big-government bills, big taxes, and interest rates already at zero will be able to bring about the kind of recovery Obama would need to win 49 states.

But what's an economic miracle to a water-walker like Obama? The planet has already started to heal, the war on global warming demonstrably won, so get ready for 4% unemployment, any day now!

"Face up to the obvious fact your boy Hussein is in way over his head...."

Then I and Thou are well and truly fucked. Because eight years of "in over his head" (2001-2008) followed by the four more years you anticipate is going to just drown a lot of people.

Then I and Thou are well and truly fucked. Because eight years of "in over his head" (2001-2008) followed by the four more years you anticipate is going to just drown a lot of people.

#14 | Posted by Zed
* * * *

Most of us can live successful lives without politicians. Just because Obama is running massive deficits doesn't mean you have to. Just because Obama is a liar doesn't mean you have to be. And so on. My family and I will do just fine, irrespective of the slow-motion disaster that the Obama administration is proving to be.

RiR

Cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans did nothing but massively increase deficits and debt under both W and Reagan. Too bad we're paying hundreds of billions a year now just to service the national debt, especially when tax revenues are down due to the deep recession.

Debt to GDP was 24% under Carter, rose to 70% after Reagan/Bush 41, and rose to over 80% under W.

I know you've argued in the past about how that didn't matter. Change your tune yet?

Correction: 35% Debt to GDP under Carter (should have been looking at the keyboard).

BTW, it fell under Clinton, just as it was falling under Carter. Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans have led to nothing but falling revenues and higher deficits and debt.

Too much reality for you? You must know that the second worst thing that happened to this country since Vietnam was George W. Bush's election to president, and the most worst was his re-election.

So let's say you are completely and utterly correct in your assessment of "Hussein". History teaches that some countries never recover from a succession of incompetent rulers.

Let's emphasize the "never". Some nations simply go away. Much as you'd like to see all of this shit slide since 2001 as an abstraction, I'm talking about you and what might happen to your silly ass.

#14 | Posted by Zed

I prefer to see the glass as being half full...

Hussein has only got 36 months before he is shown the door out and the mid terms should be an absolute blow out limiting the amount of further damage he can do to the country.
.

"My family and I will do just fine...."

Well, I hope so. But I imagine there were people saying exactly that one day before a German slave showed Alaric the back door into Rome.

The planet has already started to heal, the war on global warming demonstrably won, so get ready for 4% unemployment, any day now!

Funny that when they compare unemployment rates under Obama, it's always under Reagan that they were this bad since the Great Depression.

the unemployment rate under Reagan went from 7.6% to 9.7-9.8% in the summer after his inaugural, and remained at that level for two years, before it began to decline in the summer of 1983. In "Obama-time", that would be the equivalent of the summer of 2011. Moreover, the economy did not begin improving until the Spring, 1983, in "Obama-time" that is Spring, 2011.

Reality and the right....

#19 | Posted by 2008AT

Midterms during the first term of a President have always led to losses in Congress.

ESPECIALLY during a recession.

"Reality and the Right...."

They live in a bubble. I've been seeing this since 2001. Life is something that happens to other people.

OOpsy:
The peak post WW II unemployment rate was in 1982 when it peaked at 10.8% and averaged 9.7% for the year.

"Obama-time" that is Spring, 2011

Oh Yeah Right....

Did your new supply of mushrooms arrive today?
.

"Go ZED...."
Glad to. Charles Krauthammer has personally hurt this country more than many, many of it's avowed enemies. He's helped bloody my friends and neighbors. Give the man a shovel and let him shovel shit. He'd be more honest, more productive, and far less dangerous.

#10 | POSTED BY ZED

I would have to whole heartedly agree.. I despise the man.

Shouldn't we be waiting until after the election in MA to start pronouncing the fall of Obama?!

Cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans did nothing but massively increase deficits and debt under both W and Reagan. Too bad we're paying hundreds of billions a year now just to service the national debt, especially when tax revenues are down due to the deep recession.
* * *

And yet, Obama hasn't done a thing to raise taxes. He'll just let them sunset, sometime next year. Maybe he doesn't think it's a problem. Maybe he's not really a man, and doesn't want to take on wealthy Dems who will be standing in his way.

Deficit spending is okay as long as it's for long-term assets. And I've never changed my tune on that. But it's funny how you libtards were heavily invested in pay-as-you-go a couple of years ago. There was about ten minutes there, when I was wondering whether or not you might be serious.

But no. Now that it's Obama kiting the checks, you keep bringing up the Reagan-Bush deficits, while ignoring the fact that Obama's bigger than theirs combined. Let me know when you decide not to be part of the problem anymore. Until then, Obama needs you to be stupid, for a little bit longer.

Shouldn't we be waiting until after the election in MA to start pronouncing the fall of Obama?!

No. If not this year, then next. If not next year 2012

- The Right

It is pretty sad that leading PNAC neo-cLoWn Krauthammer still has a job writing for anyone. The man shouldn't be allowed to scribble on a big boy restaurant place mat with crayon.

Like Krystol, he is easily covered in the blood of tens of thousands.

Harder to see how big-government bills, big taxes, and interest rates already at zero will be able to bring about the kind of recovery

Taxes are already way lower than under Saint Reagan. As for big government bills, see Reagan's deficits.

And yet, Obama hasn't done a thing to raise taxes.

For starters, he's lowered middle class taxes more in 1 year than W did in 8

"Hey, pal, we EARNED this"

- Dick Cheney to former Sec Treas O'Neill when O'Neill asked why the middle class wasn't getting a tax cut ... only the wealthiest Americans

Oh yeah, FOX has Obama at 50% and Ipsos at 52 in more current polls than CBS'.

Sorry Chuckie, like the Iraq war, you're on the wrong side of history again.

RiR

When you add up the two tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, unfunded GOP passed bills and perennially reoccurring GOP passed obligations, the hundreds of billions in new debt service, and falling tax revenues because of a deep recession, what would you expect? Surpluses?

"Shouldn't we be waiting until after the election in MA to start pronouncing the fall of Obama?!"

Why Wait

The smart folks knew Hussein wasn't fit for the job long before he was ever sworn into office....

Now many of those who voted for him are simply waking up to the truth.
.

"Not even 10 posts in and already 3 defelections to Bush and Reagan.."

Which is exactly 9 posts longer before Clinton was used as a deflection during the Bush administration.

You people have either short memories or an amazing ability to ignore your own reflection!

This just cracks me up!! LOL

"Smart folks" to refer to the president as "hussein" constantly.

It's transparent.

"Smart folks" DON'T refer to the president as "hussein" constantly.

"Obama-time" that is Spring, 2011

It means comparing term to term.

Sigh, reality and the right....

Now that it's Obama kiting the checks, you keep bringing up the Reagan-Bush deficits, while ignoring the fact that Obama's bigger than theirs combined.

Link please.

When you add up the two tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, unfunded GOP passed bills and perennially reoccurring GOP passed obligations, the hundreds of billions in new debt service, and falling tax revenues because of a deep recession, what would you expect? Surpluses?

#35 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY
* * * *

If all those things are big problems, then Obama should be doing something about it. Is he? Is he doing anything about entitlement spending? How about tax hikes on wealthy Americans? What is Obama doing--right now--to reduce future government spending? Or closing the revenue gap?

I'll know he's serious when he starts going after libtard tax shelters, the kind that Kennedy and Buffett and Gates and Rockefeller have set up, so they can avoid taxes for the next thousand years. Let me know. Looks to me like Obama agrees with Bush on all those things.

#39 | Posted by Alexandrite

Why Not?

Hussein sure used the hell out of it on his Mideast 'Sho Time apology tour...
.

I listed factual reason why we're running those deficits. Inherited reasons and a recession with lower tax revenues ....

It's not as thought the GOP CUT spending one iota when they were in power. In fact, they nearly doubled the national budget and more than doubled the national debt in 8 short years. A big chunk of any future deficit will be debt service, lower tax revenues (thanks to W's tax cuts and the recession), and trillion dollar, unfunded new spending the GOP did all on their own.

We live in a Democratic Republic, where the Democrats have control over all three branches of government. They can reverse the GOP spending, right now. Today. They can de-fund Bush's No Child Left Behind, the two Middle East wars they once pretended to dislike, and reverse the Bush tax cuts. No need to wait.

But they're not. For all their posturing, all their rhetoric, they've taken all of Bush's horrible shortcomings, and doubled down on them. Admit it. The Democrats are either liars, or pussies.

All the smart folks knew Hussein was an inexperienced empty suit from the start.

Oddly enough, those "smart" people probably voted for Dubya. Twice.

Do you see the internal inconsistency with that?

Admit it. The Democrats are either liars, or pussies.

#45 | Posted by rightisright

Or Both....
.

#46 | Posted by jpw

Bush is long gone and I could give a rats ass who dir or did not vote for him

Husssein's nose dive however surely reflects that many of those who voted for him have turned against him in less than a year....
.

"Many of those who voted for him have turned against him in less than a year...."

I had thought someone up-thread posted polls for Obama above 50%? No matter, it's the sort of simple fact that, if if were a kitten, you'd strangle.

ANYONE taking this term as president was in for about the same ride. Times are rough. They've been rough for a while.

RiR needs to buy a mountain for self and family, and hope that no one save him ever cared to develop alpine skils.

"Bush is long gone...."

He lives in a cul-de-sac in Dallas. His ranch in Crawford, if it were a woman, is screwing around on him out of neglect.

RiR

Start by adding up everything above $1.9 trillion every year since Clinton left office. 'Spending increases' brought courtesy of the "less government" GOP. How they managed to rack up $7 Trillion in debt must include 'off the books' spending, right?

The Treasury Dept. spent $700 Billion last year servicing the national debt. $249 Billion up on smoke for interest alone.

# 2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
# 2008 United States federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
# 2007 United States federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
# 2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
# 2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
# 2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
# 2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
# 2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
# 2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)

Again, let me know when Obama plans to do something about the trajectory of the spending.

Liar or pussy. "Pay as you go!" Seems kinda quaint now. Funny what happens when they win an election.

They can de-fund Bush's No Child Left Behind, the two Middle East wars they once pretended to dislike, and reverse the Bush tax cuts. No need to wait.

Uh, huh. The Bush tax cuts will sunset. Good. They were irresponsible when they planned on going into a trillion dollar war in Iraq. No President has been so reckless as to cut taxes in a time of war. No Child Left Behind wasn't funded anyway. Readdressing the illegality of negotiating drug prices in the largest drug program in world history - Medicare Part D - would be a good start.

You were the same man saying how debt wasn't so bad just a couple years ago.

"Now President Obama's approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46 percent"

OMG!!! Another 20 points and he'll be in Dubya territory!!!

Something -- I'm sure -- Krauthammer was never worried about during the last administration.

"Bush is long gone and I could give a rats ass who dir or did not vote for him"

But oddly, JPW...he wants to talk about those who voted for Obama! Go figure!

"Husssein's nose dive however surely reflects that many of those who voted for him have turned against him in less than a year"

And what does that say?

It says, unlike the republicans of the past 8 years those who voted Obama care more about their country since the only time republicans turned against Bush while he was tearing apart this country, was when republican politions were up for re-election and when republican citizens were supporting those up for re-election!!!

Until that point, they couldn't be honest enough to criticize Bush out of party loyalty. They just kept walking in lockstep!!!! Woo hoo!!! Great Americans!!!

I will say this for those who are stepping away from Obama at this point....at least their priorities are in the right place!!!

Republicans could learn a lesson from them!!

Wow. Zed is out there. Obama voter, I'll bet?

RiR want to know how I know you are a crybaby? Well the post I made was about you and nobody else. The post more than dumped it got deleted and my ability to post was removed. I'll bet you were the soldier that everyone hated for being a snitch. Even if it was a hot plate in the barracks you were running to tell the CQ.

"ZED is out there...."

Of course I'm out here. Are you posing some sort of Zen riddle?

"You were the same man saying how debt wasn't so bad just a couple years ago."

But..but...but...that was when the President had an (R) after his name, so it was okay!

"Pay as you go!"

The GOP didn't have a single bill scored by the OMB for revenue neutrality. They didn't cut a penny of spending despite their running as the party of 'less government'. No doubt you'd like the focus to be elsewhere now, but the GOP got us in all this mess debt and deficit spending with trillions of unfunded future obligations.

Again, you were really busy explaining how debt wasn't a bad thing just a couple years ago with fancy explanations about Debt to GDP ratios. Of course, Democrats didn't control the WH then, so you sang an entirely different tune then. :-)

RiR want to know how I know you are a crybaby? Well the post I made was about you and nobody else. The post more than dumped it got deleted and my ability to post was removed. I'll bet you were the soldier that everyone hated for being a snitch. Even if it was a hot plate in the barracks you were running to tell the CQ.

#57 | Posted by jackass
* * * *

I didn't do anything to delete any of your stupid posts. I've never emailed Rcade for any reason, ever. You can post whatever you want, I don't care. You can insult me all you want, and I don't care. I never have. So quit your lying and bitching, and be a man for a change. Godalmighty.

I think what sickens me the most is that these same people who are now soooo concerned about the spending, didn't blink an eye when spending an enormous amount of money on a Bush personal agenda which not only started the economic problems we have now, but also took the lives, disabled and emotionally scarred our service men and women.

That was ok.

Of course, Democrats didn't control the WH then, so you sang an entirely different tune then. :-)

#60 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY
* * * *

If the Democrats announce tomorrow a trillion-dollar infrastructure program, I would be for it. Things like that actually add to the long-term wealth of the country.

Funny how it hasn't occurred to them to do that. They're too busy pretending health care spending is an investment, instead. Suits me. The Democrats in Congress are stupid, but not nearly as much as their supporters are.

And, thank God the Dems controlled Congress or the trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street would have been Paulson's one page plan with no strings attached.

You know (although you won't admit it) the GOP screwed America and left it in a heap. Trying to blame Obama and the Dems is really dishonest. Perhaps when we're on a level playing field and out of this recession your points will have more meaning if things haven't turned around.

Just yesterday it was announced that Obama had more spending cuts (in one year) than Bush's entire Presidency.

Jackass, go email Rcade and demand to know who deleted your dumbass post, if it bothers you that much. I don't believe any poster should be banned, or that any post should be deleted. I would rather have them up so we can ridicule them for all eternity. If one of your posts was considered too awful even by Jackass standards, it probably sucked beyond all comprehension, and we should all be able to read it.

So when are the libbies going to tell the Seniors the specifics of the $500 billion they are cutting from Medicare. What are they waiting for??????????????/

And, thank God the Dems controlled Congress or the trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street would have been Paulson's one page plan with no strings attached.

* * * *

Ummm . . . yes it was. And it was the Republicans in Congress that voted against it.

But I agree with one thing. If Bush had eliminated Fannie and Freddie like he one time promised to, we wouldn't be in this mess today. So, thanks for nothing Bushie. He caved in to the world's biggest dumbass retard, Bawney Fwank, and here we are. And it's a good thing that Schumer and Clinton and the NY and Connecticut congressional delegations are so deep in the pocket of the investment banks, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten a dime.

BTW--I wonder who Goldman Sachs, Citi, and Morgan Stanley gave most of their campaign dollars to? Hint: it wasn't McCain.

If the Democrats announce tomorrow a trillion-dollar infrastructure program, I would be for it. Things like that actually add to the long-term wealth of the country.

Funny how it hasn't occurred to them to do that. They're too busy pretending health care spending is an investment, instead. Suits me. The Democrats in Congress are stupid, but not nearly as much as their supporters are.

#63 | Posted by rightisright

Obama's poured hundreds of billions in infrastructure projects - far more than the 8 years of Bush. The middle class got a much needed tax break. Much needed.

The OMB has concluded the health care bill will lower deficits $100 billion the first 10 years and a TRILLION the next 10 years.

If Democrat supporters are stupid, what does that make GOP apologists who won't put the blame for our mess where it belongs? I vividly remember your shilling the fact deficit spending was a 'good thing', and how Debt to GDP ratios were blah blah blah ... not historically high. Not if you don't count World War II. How borrowing at lower rates was a positive when it would be repaid through economic growth spurred by borrowing. What does that make you, RiR? Certainly not right, and certainly not a 'smart' prognosticator.

"RiR needs to buy a mountain for self and family"

Run for the hills! Oh, wait, then homeland security will really think your a threat!

Wife and I are going to watch a movie. You should really reach into your memory for the RiR of a couple years ago. Dead wrong you were ....

Better than Bush...

So isn't a brain injured drunked possum...

We need to aim a little higher than that!

Like a narcissistic wombat or some shit...

easy question,

NO CHANGE

Instead the same treasonous lobbyists have bought Congress and Rahm Emmanuel in order to insert oblique important language in every bill which renders financial and health care just another cash cow for the same greedfuckers.

Whether its continuing to trade derivatives in a closed market, letting citizens die and putting the savings into one person's bonus, or removing all royalties from Carribean oil drilling, Demowussie or Rethuglican, Enron, Exxon or Haliburton its corruption plain and simple. We are more like Mexico than we want to think.

"Ummm . . . yes it was. And it was the Republicans in Congress that voted against it."

Nice piece of bullshit revisionist history. Almost half of the Republicans voted for it. And the one common thread by those of both parties voting against it was running for re-election.

Had Congress been 100% Republican, the bailout would've passed. Bush & Paulson left no other choice, and there's no way in hell Rs would have allowed the economy to freeze up a few weeks before a national election. Once passage was ensured, members of both parties went scurrying to hide behind their skirts.

Well said Mr. K.

this is the problem when people vote with their hearts instead of their minds. The "between the 40s" Americans did not listen close enough to what Obama stood for. Maybe it was so unbelievable that a real Marxist would acutally get this far in a Presidential election. Maybe it was white guilt. maybe it was Obama's amazing ability to recite the words of Jon Favreau, a 27 year old gifted speechwriter. Either way, we wold you so...

Obama's poured hundreds of billions in infrastructure projects - far more than the 8 years of Bush.
* * * *

You're out of your mind, if you really believe that. No point in even reading the rest of it.

The level of self-delusion here is astounding. Believe whatever you want. It's obvious America has already moved on, admitted our mistake as far as this dumbass is concerned, and see him for what he really is. Eight months ago you morons were talking about a permanent liberal majority. Now Kennedy's Senate seat is a tossup, after losing Virginia and New Jersey. Maybe you'll come around eventually too. But hopefully not. You're more entertaining this way.

"If Democrat supporters are stupid, what does that make GOP apologists who won't put the blame for our mess where it belongs?"

Come, now...that would require a member of The Party of Responsibility to actually take some responsibility. Ain't gonna happen.

#72 | Posted by nutcase at 2010-01-15 08:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

"Ummm . . . yes it was. And it was the Republicans in Congress that voted against it."

The stimulus and TARP were two seperate things. Bush's TARP program is gonna yield the U.S. a small fortune while Obama's bailout of the car companies will lose us 20 Billions. Bush and aulson knew (or at least were semi certain) that Tarp would be able to recoup the money. Everyone knew that Detroit was not about to make a superior car at a lower cost. Not with the Union Cadillac plans weighing down the cost of every car.

Had Congress been 100% Republican, the bailout would've passed. Bush & Paulson left no other choice, and there's no way in hell Rs would have allowed the economy to freeze up a few weeks before a national election.
* * * *

You just think you know that. You don't, really. The Republicans saw the Dow sell off a thousand points the first time they voted, and they voted against it the second time, anyhow.

Your point's a good one, though. How's the economy doing since? Better? Good thing those Dems bailed out the investment banks. They're the only ones whose profits are up. Nice work. I wonder if they gave a lot of money to Obama?

Damn, time to put down the beer when you agree with a nutcase...

I've been thinking that incumbents from both parties might be in trouble in 2010. Only problem is the bench is filled with greedy ass monkeys too.

Don't knock Mexico, they have more CAT scanners per capita than Canada. Just wear your flack jacket.

we wold you so...

Wou wasicially wabbit.

Come, now...that would require a member of The Party of Responsibility to actually take some responsibility. Ain't gonna happen.

#76 | Posted by Danforth
* * * *

I assume full responsibility for believing Bush when he said he was a small-government conservative. My fault. He was an awful president. And Obama is more awful still. And you will vote to re-elect him. If you lived in Barney Frank's district, you would vote to re-elect him too. No matter how many trillions of dollars these guys piss away, you don't care.

we wold you so...

Wou wasicially wabbit.

#80 | Posted by YAV at 2010-01-15 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

LMAO

RiR

You don't know much about the Stimulus Bill, do you?

You also want to run from the RiR of the past who shilled that deficits were a good thing and Debt to GDP ratios weren't out of line, blah blah blah

You were wrong then, and proven doubly wrong by the current state of affairs. I pointed out to you then how you were wrong, how we were running massive debt with nothing in return that would suck out hundreds of billions a year from the Treasury. You argued with me to kingdom come. You couldn't have been more wrong then or now.

The OMB has concluded the health care bill will lower deficits $100 billion the first 10 years and a TRILLION the next 10 years

THe OMB concluded the bill will only lower deficits with $500 billion in Medicare cuts. What are the specifics of the medicare cuts????? What are the Dems waiting for. The can engotiate $60 billion in subsidies for union member but they can't figure out what they are going to cut. Face it they aren't going to cut anything. Dems can't win elections without Seniors voting for them. It is kind of funny. The Dems have scared Seniors for decades into voting for Dems by telling them Republicans are going to cut Medicare yet they are the ones who will now be doing it.

I like how the bill calls for 10 years of taxes to pay for 5 years of health benefits. This bill is crap on a stick and the voters will be shoving it up the libbies ass in November

RiR

Hint:

Quit buying Taiwanese calculators from Vernon too.

BTW--I wonder who Goldman Sachs, Citi, and Morgan Stanley gave most of their campaign dollars to? Hint: it wasn't McCain.

#67 | Posted by rightisright

I'm raising my hand ---I think I know the answer to that question---return question---who do you think they'll give most of their campaign dollars to in 2012?

THe OMB concluded the bill will only lower deficits with $500 billion in Medicare cuts.

From Medicare 'Advantage', Bush's 'private Medicare' the insurers promised they wouldn't charge the exorbitant rates to administer they are presently.

The medicare cuts are largely to defund Medicare Part C (Med Advantage). This would force hundreds of thousands of senior off of plans that have low or no premiums (unlike Med B) and low out of pocket (unlike Med B) and pay doctors at insurance company market rates instead of Medicare's rates (market - 20%).

Don't worry, no one going to be forced to change their plan though (there are currently 94k members on Med C in NC).

"You just think you know that. You don't, really"

Bullshit. if you believe Rs would have allowed the economy to crash a few weeks before the election, you're delusional. Correction...even more delusional.

"And you will vote to re-elect him. "

Run somebody better, who doesn't believe Scalia should be the most powerful man in jurisprudence, and I'll vote for him. I have no penchant for the Democrats. I do, however, have a serious aversion to the worst governance of my life, and that's exactly what Republicans gave me last time.

In a December poll, Obama won a preference poll over George Bush by 6 points, 50-44. Only Barack Obama could have resurrected Bush to 44%.

Maybe he's a miracle worker after all. Who would have believed that less than a year into his presidency, nearly half of Americans would wish his predecessor were back?

No shortage of faith here though!

AU-

Hate to tell you, ins. co's are charging more largely because they pay physicians more. I know that doctors are just "greedfucks" and don't deserve it, but your going to upset a precious "group".

The medicare cuts are largely to defund Medicare Part C (Med Advantage). This would force hundreds of thousands of senior off of plans that have low or no premiums (unlike Med B) and low out of pocket (unlike Med B) and pay doctors at insurance company market rates instead of Medicare's rates (market - 20%).
* * * *

That's fine with me. The AARP wanted Obama, let them pay for it. The seniors who voted for Obama believed that he would be giving them more free stuff, paid for by me. Serves 'em right.

I assume full responsibility for believing Bush when he said he was a small-government conservative.

By 2007 one would have thought you could have seen the light, but you were still shilling about Debt to GDP ratios and borrowing being a good thing.

Perhaps you should consider taking a few seconds a day to place blame for where we are on those who got us in this mess the last 8 years. I never see it. It's always some anti-Dem, anti-Obama rant. He inherited a mess of historic proportions. Let's get out of this recession by whatever means necessary, get unemployment down and tax revenues back to normal levels and then we'll be talking apples to apples instead of apples to oranges - economy in good shape vs economy in shambles.

In other news, I also think it's funny that New York and California will be paying Nebraska's Medicaid payments for the next thirty years. New York wanted Obamacare, and they need Nebraska's vote to get it, let them pay for it.

Too funny for words.

You hear that Nelson wants to give it back... This after he and the mrs were summarily thrown out of a pizza joint by the other patrons.

Wonder if he's sticking with the "9 of 10 spank me for my bribe"?

In other news, I also think it's funny that New York and California will be paying Nebraska's Medicaid payments for the next thirty years.

Catch up on your reading ....

Wait, Barney gets spanked, Nelson gets "thanked"

By 2007 one would have thought you could have seen the light, but you were still shilling about Debt to GDP ratios and borrowing being a good thing.
* * *

You're just being deliberately stupid now. Are you and Danforth the same person?

If the borrowing is for infrastructure, then looking at debt to GDP is the same as doing a LTV calculation when buying a house. Ditto for fighting wars--we've always borrowed money to fight wars. So what. Borrowing for health care reform and education spending is stupid. Borrowing to give the money to Goldman SachsAIGJPMorgan and GM is not only stupid, but criminal.

The gig is up on Obama. Took a lot less time than I thought it would. But it's still fun to come here and watch the diehards thrash about.

Spanking Barney is thanking him. He's into that.

#91 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD

There's work afoot to change 'fee for service' to results-based medical care in Medicare and Medicaid. Other countries that use results-based fees have had good success in bringing down costs and increasing positive medical results.

Wife has brownies in the oven and ready for movie. Later.

I do, however, have a serious aversion to the worst governance of my life, and that's exactly what Republicans gave me last time.

#89 | Posted by Danforth
* * * *

No. That's what the Democrats gave you. Nobody in public life is a worse person than Barney Frank, and all those things you pretend to hate about George Bush have multiplied themselves in the persona of this retard running the show now.

But he's a Democrat, and you'll vote for him anyway. And Barney Frank will be sent back to Washington again and again and again, because his district is full of people just like you.

Yes, pilot programs at BCBSNC have found that incentive payments for quality standards drastically reduce long term costs and are the first in the country to implement this on a state wide basis. Hope you didn't think Congress came up with that? That was the evil profiteer's way of making more profit!!!! AAARGH! Its Harry the one eyed butt pirate! (again, too much beer?)

I wonder if Medicare will choose incentive or punishment? Two guesses on that one.

Hate to tell you, ins. co's are charging more largely because they pay physicians more. I know that doctors are just "greedfucks" and don't deserve it, but your going to upset a precious "group".

#91 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD

That's a pretty strong generalization and stereotyping---that's like saying anybody with the name of Barack shouldn't run a country since they're all unqualified, inexperienced, and con artists.

Hmmmm.... had another thought today... will self funded insurance plans that are immune from state to state coverage mandates (ERISA) have to comply with the national panel's recommended health plans, coverage levels, etc.

All you schmucks working for big employers (food lion, us air, goodrich, home depot, lowes, etc) are going to be surprised if this passes...

It will be sooooo much fun... "WTF my premiums are doubled.... oh well.... at least they cover enema's and accupuncture now"

Sorry, I guess stereotyping is a side effect of the high life?

"No. (The worst governance ever is) what the Democrats gave you."

I was wrong earlier. Your IQ dropped 50 points last January.

"But (Barney Frank's) a Democrat, and you'll vote for him anyway. "

No, never did, and never will.

But don't let facts get in your way.

I think Franks a product of the single party ballot.... We have it here in NC, a slew of dems were elected and then found out the outgoing gov. was a complete crook, along with half the state gen assembly hacks...

ooops.

he OMB has concluded the health care bill will lower deficits $100 billion the first 10 years and a TRILLION the next 10 years.

#68 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-01-15 08:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Really. The WH doesn't think so....AmericanUnrinator why do you continue to spread lies?

Unity's gone to doink his wife, he'll be with you when he's sobered up from her "special" brownies

;)

Sorry, I guess stereotyping is a side effect of the high life?

#106 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD

No problem---just wrote that since I'm in the healthcare system and know some physicians (especially, family docs, internists, pediatricians) that work their hind-ends off, are honorable and don't make the big bucks like the specialists---those are the ones that could be paid less.

I was on the practice side of the fence, now an industry analyst shill. The comment was tongue in cheek and meant for AU mostly.

I try to spread a little info about how ins actually works - sometimes - but on the DR its like talking to a stone wall. Nothing but insults usually...

Right now, specialist salaries are really dependent on market forces (i.e. shortages) whereas primarys are left to the bargaining of ins. companies.

Yes, we need reform, but the CDHP's and HDHP's allowed by the health insurance reform of 2003 that no one knows about have been VERY successful at reducing costs by putting the purchasing power in the hands of the individual while keeping OOP the same as PPO plans for the most part - yet Congress ignores them.

Guess that's why they are "congress" instead of "progress"..

I was on the practice side of the fence, now an industry analyst shill. The comment was tongue in cheek and meant for AU mostly.

#113 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD

Now that is interesting---I would love to learn some more from you---I've been on the practice side in the past as well and have a daughter that has just taken a significant job at CMS--boy, is she giving me some intereting info.

Deficits are likely to remain elevated even after the economy recovers, averaging more than $800 billion a year through 2019

Why should that surprise you with $383 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt. $700 billion a year total going to service the national debt that needn't have been?

If Democrat supporters are stupid, what does that make GOP apologists who won't put the blame for our mess where it belongs?

#68 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-01-15 08:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your obsession with assigning blame is quite amusing.

Nobody here is denying Bush's responsibility, so you are just obsessing on this for no reason. But, I'm a nice guy, so I'll help you out.

1. Bush was a terrible president and bad for America in many ways. Fiscally reckless, Bush AND the Congress helped create the current mess.

2. Bush should have sent in a couple of Delta Force units to assassinate Saddam, start the inevitable civil war and let the Iraqis sort it out.

3. I voted for Bush the first time because:
a. I wanted to believe his Hope & Change bullshit -- Oh wait, I mean the Compassionate Conservative bullshit.
b: Algore is batshit insane

4. I held my nose and voted for Bush the second time because Kerry would have actually been worse.

It is easy, but wrong, to only cite the president when ALL spending bills originate in the House of Representatives.

5. Ronald Reagan did many great things, but failed to reign in spending by a Democrat Congress. His tax cuts increased federal revenue, but Congress spent that and more.

6. Clinton inherited expanding revenue from Reagan's tax cuts. Clinton then imposed a massive tax increase.

7. After the Republicans (led by Gingrich) took over Congress, they restrained Clinton's budget requests (the truth makes Danni cry). Clinton did not of his own free will have balanced budgets and paid-down debt.

There. Blame assigned. Feel better Buttercup?

Now, can we discuss the CURRENT occupant in the White House, or are you only capable of regurgitating your blind hatred for Bush?

"Assigning Blame" in this case is a slam dunk.

I don't have 'blind hatred' of Bush. Merely pointing out who created this mountain of debt and left the economy in the tank. Right wing attempts to paint this as Obama's doing are laughable.

What do you expect with $700 billion a year going to service the national debt during a recession with falling tax revenues? Surpluses?

$483 Billion of that debt service is interest only.

Nice going 'smaller government' GOP!

(That's according to the Treasury Dept's own figures for 2009)

$383 Billion, 2009 interest payments to holders of the national debt - typo

$483 Billion of that debt service is interest only.

Nice going 'smaller government' GOP!

#118 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-01-15 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Democrats have run congress for the last 3 years.

But continue on in imaginary land....

So as the Tarp money loaned to banks is being returned to the treasury, is this money being used to pay down the dept. Didn't think so.

BTW, when will the UAW return the money to the treasury that was used to save their jobs?

Congress has to pay our bills. Without hundreds of billions a year in debt service and unfunded trillion dollar GOP programs our budget would be nearer Clinton's $1.9 Trillion, not nearer Bush's 2009 $3.10 billion. Great going from the 'smaller government' GOP.

The GOP nearly doubled the budget and more than doubled the national debt ($700 in debt service payments last year). Own up to it. Then reread paragraph 1.

So as the Tarp money loaned to banks is being returned to the treasury, is this money being used to pay down the dept. Didn't think so.

It goes back into the U.S. Treasury.

BTW, when will the UAW return the money to the treasury that was used to save their jobs?

#122 | Posted by midtowncowboy

The UAW didn't get a penny, well, except for the tens of thousands of jobs of people collecting unemployment the GOP would whine about.

#125 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-01-15 11:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wrong, the only reason the money was given to the companies was to prevent them from entering into bankruptcy and voiding the union contracts.

Keep drinking your cool aid. You are going to need it to help explain why Obama is so ineffective in handling the Haiti disaster.

CNN current headline: WHERES THE HELP? Needless deaths....

God forbid we should have a 'working wage' in the U.S., eh?

The GOP would be whining about them collecting unemployment if they'd lost their jobs.

Someone could make a killing making cheese to go with the GOP's whine.

Keep drinking your cool aid. You are going to need it to help explain why Obama is so ineffective in handling the Haiti disaster.

Are you really as dumb as you let on?

What little infrastructure that existed was destroyed. The airstrips and piers aren't intact. Getting supplies into Haiti isn't as easy as, say, driving to Louisiana.

#129 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-15 11:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Driving to Louisiana. That would have been an accomplishment, considering the roads were underwater.

Remember the people on the roofs? Why didn't they just walk out. Idiot.

Zombie whines ...

Your stupid dolt of a president is *already* much later than Bush in providing aid to MILLIONS, not just thousands under Bush ...

You f'ing creep yellow dog intransigents are THROUGH ... you selfish parisan for votes vermin ...

I've mentioned this as opposed to your yellow dog efforts to manipulate society for votes, before ...

... now, Alexandrite can easily see who supports freedom and liberty and is contradicted by slavish alllegiance to party over reason ...

;.. you selfishk moneygrubbing, power hungry, fascist creep vermin ...

That would have been an accomplishment, considering the roads were underwater.

I guess you are even dumber than you let on. It is far easier to get supplies to a disaster area on our own soil than one in an island nation, even if there is local flooding.

Was the Superdome underwater, dipshit? Didn't think so. Why? The flooding severe, but localized enough that the city was still accessible. A bit of advice, cowgirl... take your politically-motivated willful stupidity and shove it up your ass. It will serve you better there.

you selfishk moneygrubbing, power hungry, fascist creep vermin...

...stand to be successful, and that pisses you off to no end (hence the incessant stream of mindless, hateful drivel you contribute to this site). Get used to obsolesence, or get some xanax.

That would have been an accomplishment, considering the roads were underwater.

They have these things called 'helicopters'. They're actually using them in Haiti right now - 48 hours after the earthquake because the port is destroyed.

Why they couldn't have been ferrying in water, food, and medical teams to the Superdome and Convention Center 2 hours after the hurricane can only be attributed to grossly inept mismanagement.

Nice going 'smaller government' GOP!

#118 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-01-15 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

The UAW didn't get a penny, well, except for the tens of thousands of jobs of people collecting unemployment the GOP would whine about.

#125 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-01-15 11:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Someone could make a killing making cheese to go with the GOP's whine.

#128 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-01-15 11:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

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

There certainly is a lot of whining on this thread, but it's all coming from the same source.

VERNON

Whining and replying to GOP whining about Obama are two entirely different things.

The GOP nearly doubled the budget and more than doubled the national debt ($700 in debt service payments last year). Own up to it. Then reread paragraph 1.

#123 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-01-15 10:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

I gave you your BlameStorm in 116, but you just keep saying the same stupid shit over and over.

As for Obamanation, it seems that he ASKED for the job he has. Hell, he even campaigned for it.

Is he such a dreadful piece of work that all you can do is whine on and on about Republicans and Bush? Why are you so terrified of actually discussion the pros and cons of your Messiah?

I don't have a problem discussing the pros and cons of Obama. What I'll reply with to posts about deficits and debt with are facts: The GOP created this mess and should keep their 'smaller government' traps shut in light of their actual actions.

I'm surprised an expat with an exemption from U.S. taxes of $80K a year in earnings ($160,000 if your wife works) is so involved on a blog about issues like U.S. deficits and debt.

You don't know much about the Stimulus Bill, do you?

#83 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-01-15 08:47 PM

And the stimulus spending only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry

And the citizens who benefit from improved roads, water systems, etc.

Safer bridges too

Transportation projects are helpful to cities too. Charlotte, NC is using stimulus funds to expand their train system, cutting down on clogged freeways and adding real estate values to a wide swath of the outlying area and inner city areas it services.

Safer bridges wasn't the primary goal. Jobs and economic growth were. Supposedly.

"Bush is long gone...."

But those who died due to his decisions remain dead.
Those he caused to be tortured will carry those scars to their graves.
The two wars he started rage on.
The economy he fucked over is still sick.

Hammertime reveling in Obama's lowered poll numbers and dancing on his political grave is, to say the least, premature.

But then the guy has always been a certifiable sauerkraut sucking loon so that's no surprise.

Bottom line, as AU stated earlier, until both parties stop sucking up to the uber-wealthy elites and start progressive taxation again the economy will continue to slide much as it has over the last thirty years as America's manufacturing base has bled out.

The fact that you can't be elected to high office in the US without kowtowing continually to these folks makes that last a very dim possibility indeed.

Both parties are corrupted by corporate agendas.

Until you remove the legal bribery of PACs and corporate political donations things will not improve.

That all sed, the equivilency argument was shot dead after 8 years of BushCo.

The GOP have proven themselves to be far more corrupt and much less interested in the general welfare of the people of the United States than the Dems and much less able to lead or innovate.

The media play the game of propping up the side with the least amount of adherents in order to maintain essentially a 50/50 split.

Keeping America locked into two armed camps each blaming the other incessantly.

Anyone who hasn't figured out that things are gonna get a helluva lot worse before they can start getting better aint really paying attention here.

Achieving political gridlock as a status quo is NOT helping, btw.

Be Well.

#10 | Posted by Zed

Hey zed, get your facts straight..
Kraut ain't shovelin' shit!!
He is a quadriplegic!!!

Bet you feel good now.

And the stimulus spending only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, the analysis showed.

#140 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

My brother who owns a construction company would say an amen to that.

Bottom line, as AU stated earlier, until both parties stop sucking up to the uber-wealthy elites and start progressive taxation again the economy will continue to slide much as it has over the last thirty years as America's manufacturing base has bled out.

The fact that you can't be elected to high office in the US without kowtowing continually to these folks makes that last a very dim possibility indeed.

Both parties are corrupted by corporate agendas.

Until you remove the legal bribery of PACs and corporate political donations things will not improve.

The media play the game of propping up the side with the least amount of adherents in order to maintain essentially a 50/50 split.

Keeping America locked into two armed camps each blaming the other incessantly.

Anyone who hasn't figured out that things are gonna get a helluva lot worse before they can start getting better aint really paying attention here.

Achieving political gridlock as a status quo is NOT helping, btw.

Be Well.

#145 | Posted by dethspud

Every once in awhile deadpotato has some worthwhile things to say--I deleted the partisan ones and include the ones that are relevant.

Since 1915 there has been roughly 46 Congresses, the Democrats have controlled roughly 31 out of the 46. The Republicans when the controlled one or both houses has a slim majority. The Democrats on the other hand have had 3 supper majoritys.

Since 1915 this is a list of some of the bureaucracy created with a Democrat in the White House and the Democrats controlling Congress, CIA, Social Security, Health and Human Services(Welfare), Medicaid, Medicare, OSHA, EPA, The Department of Energy, and The Department of Education.

The Republicans on the other hand created NASA, Homeland Security, and DEA.

It's Congress that rights the checks but for debate purposes I will use the President.

Jimmy Carter created the Department of Energy, and the Department of Education, but the checks didn't get written till Reagan was in office so it doesn't show up in his debt.

Reagan's Debt as a % of GDP is as follows

1982 - 35.2
1983 - 39.9
1984 - 40.7
1985 - 43.9
1986 - 48.1
1987 - 50.5
1988 - 51.9
1989 - 53.1

What Federal bureaucracy did Reagan create none to my knowledge.

Clinton's Debt as a % of GDP is as follows

1994 - 66.7
1995 - 67.2
1996 - 67.3
1997 - 65.6
2001 -57.4

Bush junior was a spender but, FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Obama will have him beat by a huge margin.

The Democrats beat the Republicans at Debt as % of GDP, and beat them at creating bureaucracy.

Obama chose the wrong path right from the beginning with how the stimulus plan was constructed (sorry, actually it was Reid's and Pelosi's earmark plan and Obama looked the other way.)--this economy's problem is not a cyclical issue but a structural issue and they "underestimated" (then why the heck is this guy president) the problem---they are belatedly starting to focus on small business the real driver of the economy but may be a "day late and a dollar short".

90C2CAB more significant would be the percentage of change, when you view it that way you get a very different story.

"when President Obama, appearing at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, joked to the thousands of journalists in attendance, "Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me." The line got a laugh and then in an insult to journalism, thousands in the crowd clapped and cheered, in affirmation of the truth. There was no shame for them. Quite the contrary, they reveled in it. The new mainstream media was on display for all to see in one giant, embarrassing ensemble. All of them feminized, sensitized and diversified. But it was also a perfect moment in time thousands of nanny-state warriors, before their leader, ready to go forth to women ages 18-49 and spread the fear, and propose solutions of the state. What bad public policy may result, we have only begun to see."

"Secrets of TV news: Confessions of an anchorman"

#149

Interesting stats---always wondered about those measurements and what they would show.

In defense of Obama's incompetence, look what he has to work with. Never, ever forget that Democrats took over congress in November 2006. Shortly after that is when things really started to turn to shit.

Sadly, you can thank the liberal media for a great part of it.

"they are belatedly starting to focus on small business the real driver of the economy but may be a "day late and a dollar short"."

That is a talking point which ignores the elephant in the room....balance of trade. We are watching our economy drained by importing most manufactured goods, until that stops we will continue our journey towards second world status. Whether it is big business or small business which is able to finally become successful manufacturing inside the US is irrelevant (it will be both at the same time), the real issue is that our money is flowing out of our country. They are trying to allow our money to lose value which may help short term but nothing will replace an industrial policy, some protections for American industries, and tax incentives which favor investments into domestic job creating industries. As long as an investor can pay a maximum 15% on capital gains on investments into corporations building factories in China we are fucked. Why would an investor not choose to do so??? Patriotism??? Riiight.

Notice the last year of Bush's presidency there was a whopping 16% increase, also notice during Clinton's presidency the change decreases yearly until his last year when it was negative 2%...meaning he really was on the road to a surplus exactly as Factcheck.org says.

#151 | Posted by danni

Clinton got close to having a surplus one year however it then started to expand again when he and congress budgetted in fy 2001 (for W's first year) a $133+ billion deficit.

How could Krauthammer write an entire column on Obama's popularity and never mention the word "unemployment"? It's a pretty big factor in the approval rating of any president, and there's a limit to how much he could be expected to do in his first year with the economy he inherited.

One encouraging note--noticed by this poster--more and more DR's are dealing with facts instead of uneducated "soundbites" and distortions--E.Q.--just days ago you had the constant drumbeat that Clinton had budget surpluses which was factually wrong---it appears that through continual education you're starting to see that uneducated statement dwindling on postings---the more this happens the more the political parties and representatives will be called in the future on BS and will ultimately rid us of distortions---the American people are slowly becoming less passive and ignorant and that's a good thing.

#148 I deleted the partisan ones and include the ones that are relevant.

If you delete deth's partisan statements, all you are left with is "wot, sommat, EVAR, /obligatory, yer, K?, cos, prolly, meh, farking, luff, sed, stage left (where he performs his daily routine), rawk", endless variations of the childhood "I know you are but what am I" taunt, and a few other cutesy-speak words and arcane acronyms he uses in his vain attempt to cover up the raw hatred that seethes within him.

But all the cutesy-speak in the world spoken in his snooty 3rd person can't cover up his malevolence and rancor

That is a talking point which ignores the elephant in the room....balance of trade. We are watching our economy drained by importing most manufactured goods, until that stops we will continue our journey towards second world status. Whether it is big business or small business which is able to finally become successful manufacturing inside the US is irrelevant (it will be both at the same time), the real issue is that our money is flowing out of our country. They are trying to allow our money to lose value which may help short term but nothing will replace an industrial policy, some protections for American industries, and tax incentives which favor investments into domestic job creating industries. As long as an investor can pay a maximum 15% on capital gains on investments into corporations building factories in China we are fucked. Why would an investor not choose to do so??? Patriotism??? Riiight.

#155 | Posted by danni

Danni, here's the interesting possibility (from my view)---we've been leveraging for years and are now in a de-leveraging mode (in so many ways)--one example--median wages have been dropping on a consistent basis--Americans don't know this but if you look at our wages related to purchasing power they are slowly coming into line with the rest of the world (the major traders)---also, the dollar has (and will) continue to weaken and our trade deficit is gradually narrowing---because of the above we will soon start to see manufacturing starting to reappear in this country and it's starting to happen already--in fact, China is starting to place factories in the U.S.--e.q.-lithium plant in S.E. Michigan--the problem for the rest of the world is America will once again become net exporters (or close to that) and that will then hurt their economies and the environment we're all in will force them to act---what we'll eventually see will be "competitive currency devaluation" since every country will try to hold onto what they have and their standard of living--that will not be pretty when that happens.

How could Krauthammer write an entire column on Obama's popularity and never mention the word "unemployment"?

Cos he's a willfully ignorant, partisan hack with a history of citing specious or incomplete arguments in order to advance his obvious agenda?

Just a guess.

Be Well.

Kraut ain't shovelin' shit!!
He is a quadriplegic!!!

Yeah? After reading this article it appears he's paralyzed from the neck up.

Also, like most rethugs even if he could shovel he still wouldn't.

He'd just hire illegal day laborers to do the work, stiff them on their pay and then threaten to call the INS on them.

Be Well.

Admit it. The Democrats are either liars, or pussies.
#45 | Posted by rightisright

Or Both....
.

#47 | POSTED BY 2008ATL

unlike repukes who theives,quitters or closet homo's.

as for the pussy moniker .. speak into the microphone at the end of my Ruger SR-556..pussy.

"Like Krystol, Krauthammer is easily covered in the blood of tens of thousands."

#30 | Posted by Alexandrite

Also like JFK and his merry band of whiz kids.

"Clinton got close to having a surplus one year however it then started to expand again when he and congress budgetted in fy 2001 (for W's first year) a $133+ billion deficit."

Pretend all you want but George Bush and John McCain both campaigned on their own ideas of what to do with the Clinton surplus. McCain wanted to spend 700 billion to shore up Social Security while Bush wanted to return the money to taxpayers, which he did much to his shame.

"Yesterday, Bush took aim at McCain, ridiculing him for changing his tax plan to appear more like the one the Texas governor released months ago. But the thrust of his argument was that the budget surplus belonged to taxpayers. Under his own plan, Bush said, excess funds ''would be passed back to hard-working Americans.''"

"(Covered with blood) Also like JFK and his merry band of whiz kids...."

You're probably eighteen freaking years old to not understand that Nam for the US began in earnest in 1965, when LBJ was president, not JFK.

But I agree with you in essence. Upthread I stated George W. Bush was the worst national disaster since Nam. Upthread I also stated mistakes like George's and Lyndon's hurt real people, which I doubt you are.

So stop pretending to swallow if you're only going to spit. You're a jerk, and everyone understands you're down on your knees anyway.

Krauthammer's a quadriplegic? Never heard of that. So I'll tell you what, give the man a shovel and let him conceptualize shoveling shit. Thinking's what he's good at.

The Republican spin today is that the surplus either never existed or that the end of the Dot com bubble eliminated it. Neither of which is true, it did exist and was pissed away through tax cuts for the rich and unfunded wars, Medicare drug bills, etc. Today, Republicans like to pretend that the "starve the beast" strategy is just imaginary but it certainly was not, it was the real agenda they pushed through Congress and it created the debt which the same people now scream about so loudly.

#166 | Posted by danni

Danni, Danni, Danni---you have to deal with facts---go to the US Treasury site and you'll find out that there never was a budget surplus (total national debt) in the Clinton era---let's deal with facts and not wishes and misinformation---and I thought you were starting to show some growing by dealing with facts.

Krauthammer's a quadriplegic? Never heard of that. So I'll tell you what, give the man a shovel and let him conceptualize shoveling shit. Thinking's what he's good at.

#168 | Posted by Zed

Zed, I feel sorry for you ---hating the disabled like you do---is that true of most leftists and dumbocrats?

I do not know how he can fall... he is already the scrapings of the bottom! ;)

Zed says "You're a jerk, and everyone understands you're down on your knees anyway."

Nice, incoherent screed, Zed.

Sorry I dared speak the truth about Johnny Kennedy and tread on the myth of Camelot. Oops, I forgot. His daddy paid big money to sanitize his unremarkable tenure and create a false legend.

Kennedy gave us McNamera, who got the ball rolling. He should have heeded Eisenhower, who warned against Nam action.

"Danni, Danni, Danni---you have to deal with facts---go to the US Treasury site and you'll find out that there never was a budget surplus (total national debt) in the Clinton era---let's deal with facts and not wishes and misinformation---and I thought you were starting to show some growing by dealing with facts."

facts....you mean like factcheck.org....

"During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not."

Is Betty related to Nanc? I didn't think anyone was dumber than Nanc but I could be wrong.

"His daddy paid big money to sanitize his unremarkable tenure and create a false legend."

Kennedy was a legitimate war hero but now if you want to talk about someone who's daddy spent a lot of money (and exercised lots of power) to sanitize someone's record....I think a more recent president comes to mind.
Also, yes Kennedy appointed McNamara but it is just ridiculous to suppose that you know what Kennedy would have done in regards to Vietnam had he not been assasinated. Many of his advisors say he probably would not have continued the military build up which, unfortunately, Johnson decided to do at the behest of the Generals. It's always at the behest of the Generals. It's what they do.

Krauthammer writes a spot-on piece critical of Obama and all of his supporters can do is point to Bush.

Just about every action Obama has taken to try and fix the economic crisis he inherited has made things worse.

Vernon stated it about as well as could be stated in #116.

Congress and president share culpability for what goes wrong and what goes well. From 2000-2006 that culpability falls squarely on the GOP. They were fiscally reckless, no, that is too kind, they were fiscally dangerous and caused significant damage to this country as a result; damage that may prove to be irreperable. Fuck them. They can all let Ted Kennedy chaufer them around the lake of fire when they pass on. Having said that, they did pay a huge price in '06 and '08 and now we have Obama who enjoys even stronger majorities than what Bush had. Obama was elected to move us forward. He was elected to lead. What has he done so far? He has taken all of the transgressions of prior leadership and has doubled down on them. He is taking a bad road map and has now moved off the dirt road and into the ditch.

I'll man up. Bush sucked ass and that is something I've been saying for quite awhile now, particularly in regards to his fiscal policy and his policy of government growth.

From a fiscal, growth-of-government and crony standpoint Obama has already proven to be far worse.

Obama isn't far left enough for me. I want conservatives to suffer greatly under Obama. Tax the shit out of them and throw dissenters into the darkest dungeon he can find. I wish he was worse than Pol Pot to conservatives.

#166 | Posted by danni

The ledger has 2 sides: Revenues and spending.

Regardless, if you are going to point to the GOP since Bush came into office and charge reckless spending, then I fully agree.

Obama and the house Dems are taking Bush's worst deficit year and increasing it 4-5 fold. That is a fact that is impossible to get around.

Johnson decided to do at the behest of the Generals. It's always at the behest of the Generals. It's what they do.

Actually, Johnson's biggest problem was that he tried to micro-manage tactical combat from the oval office in lieu of letting his generals and field lieutenants do what they do best without waiting for WH approval for every little action taken.

Kennedy would have done in regards to Vietnam had he not been assasinated. Many of his advisors say he probably would not have continued the military build up

The day Kennedy was assasinated he was bragging in Ft. Worth about his increases in the Defense budget. One year before he was assasinated Kennedy asked Congress to approve spending 50 cents out of every dollar in the budget on Defense.

There is no proof Kennedy would have done exactly the same thing as Johnson. Just a bunch of advisors trying to revise Kennedy's legacy after the public turned against the war.

Zed, I feel sorry for you ---hating the disabled like you do---is that true of most leftists and dumbocrats?

Zed didn't even know the Krazy Kraut was disabled until it was brought to his attention on this thread. Ergo yer argument that he hates the jerk fer being disabled rather than fer being an asswipe falls apart before it begins.

Is it true that most RWers prefer disingenuous argument to legitimate debate?

^_^

Be Well.

It is time we stopped being the worlds security force. We should be spending money on social programs not the military.

-Obama and the house Dems

Are buying us out of the deep hole the GOP and Bush dug, which is Keynesian economics 101.

And which is working, albeit slowly.

"Krauthammer wrote an on-spot piece critical of Obama...."

If Jeffrey Dahmer were still alive, perhaps he could be a pundit? Let's put it this way---If Hitler wrote something you liked, should we pay attention to it?

Point is Krauthammer earned his fool credentials in a spectacular way. So--He's written some thing new? My, my...Hide the silver.

"Sorry I dared speak the truth about John Kennedy..."

No problem. Sorry that the US escalation in Nam began in 1965, three years after the man was dead. If you're trying re-write history, you're not very good at it.

WHUPS---Make that two year after JFK was dead. Wouldn't want to beat out someone else on this thread as being the most historically ignorant.

"Obama who enjoys even stronger majorities than what Bush had."

That is just a talking point because we all have watched the "majority" Obama has and it is simply not the monolithic majority which Bush had. The Republican majority was extremely disciplined and could be depended upon to vote the way their leadership wanted them to. That is simply not the case with the Democrats so yes, the Dems hold a majority but it really is, as if, two parties share a majority; Blue Dog Dems and the rest of the Dems, much of the time the only thing that they share in common is the letter after their names.

Corky and AmUnity are hysterical. Keep believing!

If you dumbasses aren't getting paid by the DNC, you should be. If Obama had more apologists for his staggering incompetence in every corner of the 'blogosphere, his opinion polling wouldn't be collapsing by record amounts.

If I were you, I would at least ask. You guys did more last night to try to salvage what's left of Obama's turddom than that retard Robert Gibbs pretends to do every day.

JFK assassination: November 22, 1963
Gulf of Tonkin: August 7, 1964

Danni,

Jesus, are you one excuse-driven individual.

That is just a talking point because we all have watched the "majority" Obama has and it is simply not the monolithic majority which Bush had.

Bush never attempted to foist anything as remotely large, invasive, toxic and downright damaging as this piece-of-shit known as Obamacare. Thursday, before news broke of the criminal union exemption, public support for the bill was in the 36-38 range with opposition being >55%. These numbers are very similar to those when the Senate Dems voted in lockstep to end the filibuster.

I can not think of a single instance in our history where legislation this massive and this unpopular passed without at least a modicum of bi-partisan support.

If this leglislation were so great, they wouldn't need to cut criminal deal after deal to get it passed. They wouldn't have to work behind closed doors to get it passed.

All of the quibbling over the bill is coming from within the ranks of the Democratic party. Maybe they should have pulled a page from Bush's playbook - even with his majorities he brought Ted Kennedy in to author a significant portion of his 'No Child Left Behind Act'. Nah! Bringing in a Republican to be able to author a significant portion of this bill would be to yield up too much power and the true comprimise might produce a piece of legislation that is far more fair. Can't have that! What would the unions say about that?

Actually, forget the bi-partisan thing, I can't recall a piece of legislation this massive passing if it was this unpopular.

"His (JFK's) daddy paid big money to sanitize his tenure...."

So, uh, Joe paid people to go around chiseling off heirglypics from statues?

I'm curious at this point---How does even a very rich man go about eliminating information in the 20th Century after every single jot and tittle of it has been viewed by billions and recorded by tens of millions?

I'm thinking if I knew your ideas on this subject I could understand why you have the political views you do. Frightening thought.

"Heiroglyphics...."

Also wouldn't care to be known as a porr speller.

Not having been here last night, nor posted on this thread, I can only assume that the fumes from gluing together his Obama voodoo doll have finally gotten to RightisTrite.

What's really funny though, is rightwingers who spent their entire lives saluting whatever stupid ass ideas their Great Leaders ran up the flag pole without a shred of examination.... you know, the GOP having stressed Leadership over public opinion all these years..... are now concerned with polls.

Hilarious.

# 2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
# 2008 United States federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
# 2007 United States federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
# 2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
# 2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
# 2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
# 2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
# 2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
# 2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)

#51 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

The Bills are created in the House. The Democrats controlled the House for Bush's last two years and for the last year.

That's three years of Democrat control.

Did they reverse the course on deficits?

You all are BS. Both parties suck and so do their stupid followers.

The parties don't represent you - except in the fact that they too are fools.

They are foolish, while you idiots are fools to vote them in.

Plus: AU - nice try. Submitted by Bush. True. Allowed by Both Parties. Whoever runs the House still were pursesnatchers - not protectors of the budget.

What's really funny though, is rightwingers who spent their entire lives saluting whatever stupid ass ideas their Great Leaders ran up the flag pole without a shred of examination....

...so you respond by...walking on to this and just about every other thread saluteing whatever stupid ass ideas your great leaders run up a flag pole and instead of providing even a shread of examination you deflect and point fingers at peope who are not in power?

Look into the mirror, my friend.

Jeff check and see how Bush passed his tax cuts for the rich before making such claims about the current health care reform bill. Nothing new here, it's called American politics. Short memories seem to have created false remembrances of bi-partisanship.

Danni,

My point being Bush's tax cuts were simple, easily repealed (they were given a sunset provision for Pete's sake) and were nowhere near as inasive, massive and unpopular as Obamacare. The reason the Dems are having such a difficult time getting this passed is because it is so damn unpopular.

What I was getting at is landmark pieces of legislation (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) were not only popular but also had more than a modicum of bi-partisan support.

This bill is hated and for good reason. Yet, the Dems are probably going to pass it anyways. If they lose Kennedy's seat, I fully expect the nuclear option.

"Did they reverse the course on deficits?"

Show me a period of American history when we were fighting two wars while we reduced deficits and at the same time did not increase taxes. The Bush tax cuts don't expire til 2011, meanwhile both wars continue and those who most strongly supported our involvement in those wars while cheering on Republicans who drastically cut taxes are now hypocritically whining about the deficity they primarily created. Yes, Obama can be blamed for the stimulus and his attempt to revive the economy Bush and the REpublicans killed but it is dishonest to blame him for the attempt without also acknowledging that he would have been negligent in his duties had he not tried. I swear to God, if he had not pushed through the stimulus and the economy had deteriorated even further the exact same voices who whine about eh deficit would have been the loudest attacking him for not doing more for the economy. Pure partisam politics, 24/7/365, and it gets sickening.

#196

Ignoring the distinct history of Republican reliance on Strong Leadership rather than public opinion is disingenuous, even for the Polish.

Who, having suffered severely from the last major right wing manifestation of arrogant, violent political power, should know better.

This bill is hated and for good reason. Yet, the Dems are probably going to pass it anyways. If they lose Kennedy's seat, I fully expect the nuclear option.

#198 | Posted by JeffJ

Jeff hates it because he doesn't believe in helping others receive benefits. Just look at how he treats his employees for a perfect example.

"This bill is hated and for good reason."

There are some distasteful elements but overall the bill will do much good and the American people will recognize that soon enough. Let's be honest, Republicans oppose this bill not because of the distasteful parts but because they fear that the American people will like this bill. Their opposition is not now and never has been about honest concern for the American people, it is and always has been about Obama's Waterloo *their word not mine).

I don't currently manage any employees, Jackass.

Jeff check and see how Bush passed his tax cuts for the rich before making such claims about the current health care reform bill.
* * * *

And, as Jeff notes, the Dems have run the Congress since January of 2007. Where are the bills to raise taxes on the rich? Let's get a debate going about whether or not Kennedy and Rockefeller and Gates and Buffett can squirrel away tens of billions of dollars in tax-exempt trusts.

Face it Danni. You're being used. The Democrats who run Congress IS the plutocracy, and they keep shoveling BS in your face, pretending that Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy--six years ago--is the reason we are running deficits.

You're a tool. When you and about 50 million others decide to stop being a sucker, you'll see change. 'Til then, why should they?

Jackass is just a stupid person with a persecution complex. He can't be reasoned with. Waste of time.

"My point being Bush's tax cuts were simple, easily repealed (they were given a sunset provision for Pete's sake) and were nowhere near as inasive, massive and unpopular as Obamacare."

That all depends on whether or not you think the present recession is invasive. To millions of unemployed it is very invasive. To states in virtual bankruptcy it is very invasive.
Never mind the FACT that the point behind health care reform was to reduce the deficit and OMB says it does.

it is dishonest to blame him for the attempt without also acknowledging that he would have been negligent in his duties had he not tried.

Sometimes, doing nothing is better than doing something.

Fact is, Japan tried the exact same thing and lost a decade.

Going further, when we scrutinize the stimulus we find that it's rife with all sorts of bullshit paybacks to Dem supporters and pet Dem projects. Going further, the criteria set forth by Larry Summers was that any stimulus had to be stimulus NOW. Yet, Obama and the Dems rammed it through all of the while using scare tactics in the process and unemployment fell far more than what they warned it would fall if the stimulus didn't pass. The fact that so much of it still remains to be doled out is further fact that it was a piece-of-shit bill. For $787 billion I expect some tangible results. Oh, let's not forget that this stimulus money has to be paid back with interest.

No, it doesn't.

But tell me Danni, why hasn't your Congress repealed the taxes on the wealthy? I mean, if it's so obvious that it's such a huge problem? Are they stupid? Are they just pussies?

Or maybe they just pretend to care about that stuff, because they have a lot of people like you believing that the uber-wealthy Kerry's and Feinstein's and Rockefeller's and Clinton's actually care about you little people?

"Where are the bills to raise taxes on the rich?"

Why would the Dems go through a politically suicidal fight when we can just wait for 2011?
Much more productive to allow the sunset provision to kick in and attack the deficit through health care reform, financial re-regulation, etc.
Pragmatism is an important part of progress, without it little changes. I don't particularly care for the exemption unions get in the health care reform bill but I don't want to throw the baby out the with bathwater over it. That is the Republican strategy today, pick at the imperfections and try to gain enough anger about those imperfections to, once again, induce most Americans to reject a bill which could benefit them greatly and which would be a basis upon which to begin building long term health care security for all.

Never mind the FACT that the point behind health care reform was to reduce the deficit and OMB says it does.

Well, this little union giveaway has pushed it back into the red.

It won't be deficit neutral, not even in the first 10 years where our government collects 10 years of revenue but only pays 6 years of benefits.

This needlessly complex bill is causing businesses to hunker down, at least right now. It's impossible to plan for growth when it isn't even known how this bill will affect the ability to run a business and in what way. Well, we know it will be bad, but how bad?

Jackass is just a stupid person with a persecution complex. He can't be reasoned with. Waste of time.

#206 | Posted by rightisright

Ok snitch whatever.

Jeff I thought you managed the delivery dept of a newspaper or something to that effect? Anyways it is a known fact that you are greedy and don't want to help subsidize benefits for others.

"Or maybe they just pretend to care about that stuff, because they have a lot of people like you believing that the uber-wealthy Kerry's and Feinstein's and Rockefeller's and Clinton's actually care about you little people?"

I have more reason to believe they care about us "little people" than I have to doubt them. What's in it for them???
They didn't start wars and privatize the associated industries for big profits, they didn't hold secret energy meetings where they divided up the oil fields of Iraq.

I am generous and don't mind an increase in my taxes to make sure everyone has greats benefits like the ones I receive.

"It won't be deficit neutral, not even in the first 10 years where our government collects 10 years of revenue but only pays 6 years of benefits."

And you know that how??? OMB has not even received it yet to analyse much less reported back.

Why would the Dems go through a politically suicidal fight when we can just wait for 2011?

Typical politician.

Danni, should a politician do what is politically correct or should they do the right thing even if it isn't politically correct?

So . . . it's okay to waste three years, rather than stick to your principles and fight it out.

"Tax cuts for the wealthy! Iraq! Gitmo! Stimulus! Unemployment will be over 8% if we don't do something now!"

Funny. And you've played the sucker all along. I wonder how many seats the Dems would have snapped up in 2006, if you libbies knew all along that the plan was "just wait until 2011"?

That's courage, baby!

"It's impossible to plan for growth when it isn't even known how this bill will affect the ability to run a business and in what way."

Funny thing about that, companies that provide health insurance aren't worried at all, most are realizing...wait a minute...those cut rate bastards down the street who treat their employees like shit and undercut my prices are not going to have to compete on a level playing field....hmmmm that's a good thing I think.

Come on Jeff, more talking points.

You're right Jackass. I'm a snitch. I've also installed secret cameras in your house, and I've bugged all your phones. I lie awake at night wondering what Jackass is doing, what Jackass is thinking, and when you do something I don't like, I zip off an email to RCade and get him to excise it.

You're a loser.

"are not going to have to compete on a level playing field."

ahould be:

are now going to have to compete on a level playing field.

"I wonder how many seats the Dems would have snapped up in 2006, if you libbies knew all along that the plan was "just wait until 2011"?"

Did Obama campaign on repealing the Bush tax cuts??? Not as I recall.

Better than being a coward like you. You brag about your wealth all the time here. I assume you made a sizable donation to Haiti already?

#220 | Posted by danni

Level playing field?

2 manufacturing plants producing similar products, paying their employees similar wages and providing similar health plans with the only fundamental difference being plant A is non-union and Plant B is union. This bill punishes plant A and rewards plant B solely on the basis of union membership.

Talking points my ass!

"Danni, should a politician do what is politically correct or should they do the right thing even if it isn't politically correct?"

They should do the right thing for their constituents and the country as a whole. Doing the ineffectual, politically correct thing, is a meaningless exercise in ego massage.

Funny thing about that, union companies that provide health insurance aren't worried at all,

FTFY

Did Obama campaign on repealing the Bush tax cuts???

If he didn't then why? If they are so bad, why didn't he repeal them? He certainly has the power to do so given his majorities. At this point, if you are going to blame Bush for those cuts that blame now extends to Obama and the Dems.

"This bill punishes plant A and rewards plant B solely on the basis of union membership."

Except one little detail, in truth a non-union plant is not offering a Cadillac plan to their employees and thus their employees will not be taxed. Virtually, the only people who are not union employees who receive Cadillac plans are executives or government employees. Most companies who struggle to provide insurance have been forced to reduce benefits to the lowest cost possible, this bill will be a good thing for most small companies who provide insurance.
And see, yes, your argument was, again, an empty talking point easily dissected by logic.

those cut rate bastards down the street who treat their employees like shit and undercut my prices are not going to have to compete on a level playing field

Which essentially is a way of saying that when it comes to contractual labor agreements at any level, if those contracts don't meet the approval of government, government will punish those who they deem worthy of punishment based upon their own criteria (in this case using their coercive powers to funnel money and control into the unions as a means of payback for union support during election time).

I am a union member and do I mind a tax increase? NO! I'm not greedy like Jeff. I want coverage for all Americans.

2 manufacturing plants producing similar products, paying their employees similar wages and providing similar health plans with the only fundamental difference being plant A is non-union and Plant B is union. This bill punishes plant A and rewards plant B solely on the basis of union membership.

Talking points my ass!

#223 | Posted by JeffJ
* * * *

And it's for reasons like that I don't believe it's going to pass. The Dem Congressmen in Ohio and Michigan have thrown their brethren from California and Tennessee under the bus. By promising to cover Nebraska's Medicaid bills, it just incentivizes every Senator to ask for exactly the same thing. If you're a Democratic businessman in Kentucky, would you send a single other dime to re-elect a Democrat, after what came out on Thursday on these union plans?

Voting for this turd will be suicide in every district that isn't deep purple in 2010.

I am a union member and do I mind a tax increase? NO! I'm not greedy like Jeff. I want coverage for all Americans.

#229 | Posted by jackass
* * * *

Then you need to hop off this blog, and contact your union representative. Because he thinks you would object to having your taxes go up, or having to pay a cadillac tax on your health care plan.

Hurry along, boy. Not that it'll matter. As generous as you're pretending to be, he's unwilling to have that done to himself.

"Which essentially is a way of saying that when it comes to contractual labor agreements at any level, if those contracts don't meet the approval of government, government will punish those who they deem worthy of punishment based upon their own criteria (in this case using their coercive powers to funnel money and control into the unions as a means of payback for union support during election time)."

What it really means is that, to a large degree, the only working class people with Cadillac plans are union members who sacrificed increased wages to get those plans and that now it would be unfair to ask them to instantly give up what they negotiated for just to enable the government to tax Cadillac style plans enjoyed primarily by highly paid executives. The idea is to discourage Cadillac plans and thereby try to begin reducing the cost of health care. It has been shown that such plans encourage increased usage of health care services which increases the overall cost of health care. The empty alternatives offered by Republicans are virtually as if they honestly think we should just continue doing nothing and allow health care to continue its increasing share of GDP and eventually bankrupt the country.

"If you're a Democratic businessman in Kentucky, would you send a single other dime to re-elect a Democrat, after what came out on Thursday on these union plans?"

God damn right I would, considering the high percentage of uninsured Kentuckians, you bet I'd be glad that taxpayers in other states are willing to help insure the low income workers of my state.
As usual, opponents want only to focus on the slight inequities which will apply to very few, and those few are very high income earners, instead of the overall benefit which will help the majority of workers throughout the country.

Except one little detail, in truth a non-union plant is not offering a Cadillac plan to their employees

You know this how?

Where the big auto companies like Toyota are really benefitting is a lack of pension liabilities. They set up shop in right to work states, but they still pay generous health benefits.

And see, yes, your argument was, again, an empty talking point easily dissected by logic.

If ONLY executives are getting high priced plans then what is the point of this union exemption. According to your unsubstantiated claim, such a small number of people outside of union workers not including them in the exemption and just extending the start date of the Cadillac plan until 2018 makes no sense. Quit drinking the Kool-Aide. This was a criminal giveaway to the unions plain and simple.

There really is a group who is opposed to this bill, it is the employers across the country who do not offer insurance to their employees. This bill will cost them but remember these same employers have competitors who do offer insurance. Do we really want to continue an environment which discourages employers from offering health insurance just so that they can compete in a race to the bottom? That really is what this debate is about, the rest is just distraction.

Gotta say Danni, you do a better job than most of quickly adopting the party line. Do you get like a newsletter or something? Or do they just fax talking points directly to your house?

There really is a group who is opposed to this bill, it is the employers across the country who do not offer insurance to their employees.
* * * *

Check the polls again. The group is called "Americans", and explains why Kennedy's seat is up for grabs. Hurry hurry! Gotta get this all done before Tuesday!

#232 | Posted by danni

I understand the cost-cutting strategy behind discouraging Cadillac plans. It's one of the few provisions in this bill that makes sense.

Why then do we have a union exception?

"Do you get like a newsletter or something....?"

Ironic. I asked you that precise question on another thread in regards to Katrina.

"If ONLY executives are getting high priced plans then what is the point of this union exemption."

I didn't say only executives were getting high priced plans, I said that of the working class only union members were getting it and they are only because they negotiated away wages in exchange for it before this health care debate began.

Why then do we have a union exception?

#238 | Posted by JeffJ
* * *

Ooh ooh! I know!

When did you become a populist by the way?

"JFK assassination: November 22, 1963
Gulf of Tonkin: August 7, 1964"

#189 | Posted by Zatoichi

McNamara Secretary of Defense November, 22, 1963.
McNamara STILL Secretary of Defense August 7, 1964.

"So, uh, Joe paid people to go around chiseling off heirglypics from statues?" Nope. Just varnished the truth.

There really is a group who is opposed to this bill, it is the employers across the country who do not offer insurance to their employees.

Nope.

The penalty for not offering insurance is much less than the cost of providing it. What this is going to do is cause companies currently providing insurance to stop doing so.

Why bother?

Pay the much lower fine and be done with it. Tell your employees to go without insurance and when they get sick, since this bill makes it illegal to deny them coverage if they have a pre-existing condition, purchase insurance en route to the emergency room. Then, once the insurance company has paid your medical bills drop your coverage until you need it again. Of course, in doing so this will massively drive up the costs of premiums for those who choose not to drop their coverage and game the system, but who gives a shit about them, right?

Never mind the fact that if enough people do this the whole system will collapse.

"Check the polls again."

Gee, I wonder if insurnce companies spending hundreds of millions will effect polls???
Either you believe advertising can sway public opinion regardless of logic or else you believe companies are just wasting billions of dollars every year. Truth is, the President and the Democrats supporting health care reform are fighting an up hill battle against entrenched interests with billions to spend, media dependent upon billions of advertising dollars from those same entrenched indstries and Republicans who use words like "socialsim" to foster emotions which have little or nothing to do with the reality of the debate.

"McNamara STILL Secretary of Defense, August 7. 1964...."

Yes, and JFK was still dead. Your attempts to reanimate him are silly.

"Nope. Just vanarished the truth...."

No more than what you've done, son, this very morning.

"The penalty for not offering insurance is much less than the cost of providing it. What this is going to do is cause companies currently providing insurance to stop doing so."

Now let's just think about that. The company is already paying for insurance and competing with a company not paying anything. Now, the new law will force that competitor to offer insurance or, at least, pay a fine. Seems to me that the company paying for insurance already is then immediately on a closer to even playing field than it is right now. There is no reason to expect they will then drop coverage after the costs are now more equal then they were before. So that talking point sinks to the bottom with the rest.

I didn't say only executives were getting high priced plans, I said that of the working class only union members were getting it and they are only because they negotiated away wages in exchange for it before this health care debate began.

You are full of shit. There are plenty of non-union plants offering insurance plans comprarable to those of the UAW.

The government mandates by law that unions are going to get preferential treatment and here you are defending it and are saying things that are not true in the process.

There is no reason to expect they will then drop coverage after the costs are now more equal then they were before.

They are hardly more equal. The costs are STILL really far away and now the companies providing insurance have a way of opting out of the system without any harm to their employees.

So that talking point sinks to the bottom with the rest.

Uh huh. You can sit here and proclaim victory all you want. Fact is, usually those who do so are actually losing the debate.

"The Vietnam conflict came to claim most of McNamara's time and energy. The Truman and Eisenhower administrations had committed the United States to support the French and native anti-Communist forces in Vietnam in resisting efforts by the Communists in the North to control the country, though neither administration established actual combat forces in the conflict. The U.S. role, initially limited to financial support, military advice and covert intelligence gathering, expanded after 1954 when the French withdrew. During the Kennedy administration, the U.S. military advisory group in South Vietnam steadily increased, with McNamara's concurrence, from just a few hundred to about 17,000. U.S. involvement escalated after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in August 1964 when North Vietnamese naval vessels were reported as firing on two U.S. destroyers. McNamara was instrumental in presenting this event to Congress and the public as a pretext for escalation.

President Johnson ordered retaliatory air strikes on North Vietnamese naval bases and Congress approved almost unanimously the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing the president "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the U.S. and to prevent further aggression." "

You're right, Danni. Americans are just too stupid to think for themselves, and the insurance companies spending a lot of money to change our minds.

I think the whole thing is funny. The Dumbos promise health care to everyone, paid for by $500 billion cuts to Medicare. I remember when you libtards skewered McCain for proposing cuts to Medicare that were much, much smaller. But now ObamaPelosiReid think it's a good idea, so put on the pompoms for screwing grandma.

Too funny. It's your turd now, Danni. And you've done it all to yourselves.

"There are plenty of non-union plants offering insurance plans comprarable to those of the UAW."

I seriously doubt that, any links to back that up??? I honestly can't think of any company that offers anywhere near such generous benefits that is not a unionized company. I can think of some who were years ago, but they stopped years ago, as I suspect, the car makers would have also if they could have voided contracts. I'd go so far as to say that few if any companies could have survived offering such benefits in the globalized economy.

#245 | Posted by danni at 2010-01-16 12:32 PM

One fatal flaw in your "logic" - insurance companies and "Big Pharma" have been supportive of this bill.

This bill makes it illegal for an individual to not purchase health insurance.

Here in Michigan I've seen far more paid-for adds in support of this bill than in opposition to it.

WASHINGTON The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama's health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.

"The Dumbos promise health care to everyone, paid for by $500 billion cuts to Medicare. I remember when you libtards skewered McCain for proposing cuts to Medicare that were much, much smaller. But now ObamaPelosiReid think it's a good idea, so put on the pompoms for screwing grandma."

You know better RisR so don't try to use that silly argument with me. We both know good and well that the proposed bill is a starting platform to bring real health care reform and that Grandma, being an important constituent of the Democratic Party, will never be thrown under the bus. She will remember who created Medicare, who opposed it and understand who to believe when you try to pretend Republicans give a crap about her or her Medicare. She knows that Republicans, if they could, would completely eliminate Medicare and tell Grandma sorry, you shouldn't have been lazy when you were young. Grandma isn't stupid, you forget, I'm a grandma.

"One fatal flaw in your "logic" - insurance companies and "Big Pharma" have been supportive of this bill."

REad what I posted and find where I mentioned Big Pharma. I didn't. I already know about the deal Obama worked out with them. However, the insurance industry has spent hundreds of millions both directly and through US Chamber of Commerce and are continueing to do so. That is besides the huge amounts spent by their lobbyists to get Democratic SEnators and Congressmen to weaken the bill which resulted in the, admittedly, convoluted bill we have now. I think it is disengenuous to necessarily blame the Democrats for the bill which was the result of a long struggle against the rich insurance industry lobby.

Oh. So you were pissed off when McCain wanted to cut your Medicare, but don't mind when Obama does.

Well, that's okay. That's why you're one of those 20-percenters I'm reading about. Most of the rest of us have already moved on. Keep believin'!

Most of us can live successful lives without politicians. Just because Obama is running massive deficits doesn't mean you have to. Just because Obama is a liar doesn't mean you have to be. And so on. My family and I will do just fine, irrespective of the slow-motion disaster that the Obama administration is proving to be.

#15 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-01-15 07:29 PM |

Well said and very true.

"Not even 10 posts in and already 3 defelections to Bush and Reagan.."

Which is exactly 9 posts longer before Clinton was used as a deflection during the Bush administration.

You people have either short memories or an amazing ability to ignore your own reflection!

This just cracks me up!! LOL

#37 | Posted by Lisa at 2010-01-15 07:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Translation: two wrongs do make a right.
Amen.

"Translation: two wrongs do make a right.
Amen."

I was pointing out the hypocrocy.

But, carry on with your position assigning.

That too, makes me laugh!! LOL

She will remember who created Medicare, who opposed it and understand who to believe when you try to pretend Republicans give a crap about her or her Medicare. She knows that Republicans, if they could, would completely eliminate Medicare and tell Grandma sorry, you shouldn't have been lazy when you were young. Grandma isn't stupid, you forget, I'm a grandma.

Actually Medicare received a bipartisan vote. Not a single Republican will vote for this garbage. Too bad Danni forgets to mention that it is indeed the Democrats who are cutting Medicare. $500 Billion in cuts are coming led by Obama. The Dems just lost a signifigant voter block. 150,000 AARP members have cancelled their membership since September and that number is climbing

Obama isn't far left enough for me. I want conservatives to suffer greatly under Obama. Tax the shit out of them and throw dissenters into the darkest dungeon he can find. I wish he was worse than Pol Pot to conservatives.

#177 | Posted by jackass at 2010-01-16 11:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you guys (democrats) really want these people in your club?

During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not."

www.factcheck.org

And hey, just disregard what both George Bush and John McCAin said in their primary campaign in 2000, never mind that the surplus was the JUSTIFICATION for the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

#173 | Posted by danni

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Okay, Danni, above are the facts---if you're illiterate; if you're dyslexic; if you don't understand math, P&L and financial statements, etc. and still say the same garbage, I then will understand why you don't have a clue---here's a little help---if you look at the columns, the total national debt went up every year of Clinton's presidency (impossible if he had surpluses)---now if that doesn't depress you too much and you want to know how that destroys the myth that is so solidly entrenched in your mind you may ask me and I'll explain

Grandma isn't stupid, you forget, I'm a grandma.

#255 | Posted by danni

Alzheimer's?

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Okay, Danni, above are the facts---if you're illiterate; if you're dyslexic; if you don't understand math, P&L and financial statements, etc. and still say the same garbage, I then will understand why you don't have a clue---here's a little help---if you look at the columns, the total national debt went up every year of Clinton's presidency (impossible if he had surpluses)---now if that doesn't depress you too much and you want to know how that destroys the myth that is so solidly entrenched in your mind you may ask me and I'll explain

#263 | Posted by matsop

Danni, to make it easier for you, the first column of numbers (not letters, numbers) is the increasing national debt every year under the Clinton administration--the second column of numbers (not letters, numbers) is then the budget deficit for each FY--see, you have to subtract one year of national debt from the next year--kindof like 2-1=1. Hope this helps.

"Gotta say Danni, you do a better job than most of quickly adopting the party line. Do you get like a newsletter or something? Or do they just fax talking points directly to your house?"

I just noticed this from earlier and I would just like to say that perhaps if the Democrats were to get me to write their talking points and actually explain the benefits of the plan being offered we would have a better chance of passing it. As it is, no, no one faxes me talking points because I don't think the Dems are good enough at selling their plan to have even written them. It is sort of sad that a simple person like me has to figure out for myself why this plan is much better than no plan and it explains why Democrats don't seem to be able to accomplish anything. Whoever is in charge of communications both at the WH and for the Dem party is doing a terrible job.

This clown spends more time appearing on FAUX News than he does anything else. FAIL!

Whoever is in charge of communications both at the WH and for the Dem party is doing a terrible job.

#266 | Posted by danni

It's hard to communicate when there's no transparency---ask why Obama hasn't had a press conference for months--he's avoiding confrontation and is hiding from the press---imagine just one of the questions--Mr. President, how do you explain taxing all "cadillac plans except for the unions?"--do you know Mr. President the rest of Americans are going to have to pay increased taxes to pay for this payoff? Mr. President, how is this fair?

Welcome, Mr Krauthammer. You're coming to the conclusion many held from the get go.

Welcome, Mr Krauthammer. You're coming to the conclusion many held from the get go.

#269 | Posted by OohRah

Thank you, Oorah, for validating my position from the start--what's troublesome is how supposedly intelligent people can be conned so easily--their lives must be awful shallow--I imagine they would be critical of the people that would buy into the charisma of a Jim Jones, etal. and not see their own vulnerabilities.

"Ask why Obama hasn't had a press conference for months....?"

No idea. I do recall, however, that when Bush II evaded press conferences for extraordinary periods of time the Right explained it in two ways---

1) He's too busy with the people's business.

2) It's not in his interest, the press are bastards.

I'll just assume, because we all know what a fair man you are, that if Obama picks either or both of these he's off the hook.

"I imagine they would be critical of those buying into the charisma of Jim Jones..."

There was no way a Republican was going to win in 2008. You guys fucked things up too badly, pardon my French.

If you're unhappy with things as they are just this minute, so sorry for you. Do better with your stewardship next time. I'd have to say the Republican brand remains ruined.

You want to argue things are bad now, it simply reinforces in people's minds they were also bad---Uh, twelve months ago---You know in those mythical times you no longer want to pretend even existed?

MAT-
While I'm not a bomb-thrower I am a staunch conservative, both fiscally and socially. I suspect many people who'd otherwise call themselves a conservative wanted to give BHO the benefit of the doubt.

For me there was no doubt. None. That people such as Krauthammer are coming around is a good thing. I just have to wonder what took so long.

Much like with the aftermath of Nixon's (and Ford) problems, most ANY Dem was in position to be elected. Same for the Carter disaster - most ANY Republican stood a great chance. Given conservatives' frustration at runaway spending... and the public's overall war weariness, BHO was at the right place at the right time. America was ready for a change... any change. BHO was full of platitudes and promises. And America bought it.

I'll just assume, because we all know what a fair man you are, that if Obama picks either or both of these he's off the hook.

#271 | Posted by Zed

I don't know how the right answered that question but I do know Bush was never given the pass Obama was and I feel at this point in time they just may no longer give him that pass--and that should be interesting since he will have mutiple contradictions to answer and he hasn't been in that position--he also will not have teleprompters to help him--better to send poor Gibbs out there.

"And America bought it...."

Not agreeing with your premise concerning Obama for even a second----But I'll run with you to this extent----

What the hell were you people doing voting for George W. Bush? Why'd you throw over McCain in 2000, when he was the superior Republican candidate, and why did you go with Bush in 2004 when his very warty scorecard was four times longer than Obama's is right now?

I'm not sure what you guys hope to acheive with this wholesale dumping of historical context. It doesn't make any of you seem particularly bright or even patriotic.

Rush Limbaugh announced the Right's attitude towards Obama within five minutes after he took office. Now, I know Rush has absolutely no influence over you free-thinkers, but it seems strange neither you nor he have moved off that dime since.

"I do know Bush was never given a pass...."

And I do know he was. Again and again. Not by me, and I'll be merciful and assume not by you---But you have a lot of hounds running with you, buddy---They did it.

BHO was full of platitudes and promises. And America bought it.

#273 | Posted by OohRah

You're probably spot on--I'll let you in on something--didn't feel particularly poorly when Mc Cain lost---you never knew where he stood half the time--my problem is I hate duplicitousness and cons---they've become too big a part of the landscape.

And I do know he was. Again and again. Not by me, and I'll be merciful and assume not by you---But you have a lot of hounds running with you, buddy---They did it.

#276 | Posted by Zed

Bush was essentially given a pass on the marketting of WMDs and justifying it to invade Iraq--that was Bush's con and I saw that one too--it was obvious and a repeat of the movie Vietnam.

"That was Bush's con and I saw that one, too..."

Well, great---Who'd you vote for in 2004, then?

"Who'd you vote for in 2004, then?"

Badnarik, since NONE OF THE ABOVE wasn't running.

Difficult question?

It's been an interesting day. On another thread I learned that Republicans really don't think poor people can have anything of value, even relative to poor people.

But keep on talking. Enough effort on the part of y'all and you may find your mid-term Congressional gains are less impressive than first hoped.

Rush Limbaugh announced the Right's attitude towards Obama within five minutes after he took office. Now, I know Rush has absolutely no influence over you free-thinkers, but it seems strange neither you nor he have moved off that dime since.

#275 | Posted by Zed

I can't speak for or defend Limbaugh but from what I remember he said something to the effect that he hoped Obama would fail--now if Limbaugh felt Obama's philosophy was strongly socialistic/marxist I don't have a problem with that statement since in my humble opinion that would be detrimental to America in the long run. If he said it just because he didn't like the dude and Limbaugh wanted him to fail just because he was a democrat, then I would have a problem with that statement--so Zed, how's that for "free thinking"--you should try it once in awhile.

"How's that for free-thinking....?"

You voted for whom in 2004?

Yes, hurts I know. Take a deep breath.

Difficult question?

#281 | Posted by Zed

Easy, I never have voted or will never vote for a Bernie Madoff political con artist---feel free to fill in the blank.

"Easy..."

Not so, apparently, given your behavior. here' let me lead you---ZED voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004----

MATSOP voted for whom in 2004....?

Is the fellow you voted for in 2004 a little like Randall Flag---Can't quite get the name out...?

Easy, I never have voted or will never vote for a Bernie Madoff political con artist---feel free to fill in the blank.

#286 | Posted by matsop

Okay, Zed, I'll bet I can guess who you voted for--let's see, you fell for the scam---turn your pockets inside out, Zed--is it a consistent thing in your life to be taken advantage of?

If you were too young to vote in 2004, you're off the hook. Just say that.

"I'll bet I can guess who you voted for...."

But I don't make you guess, do I? But 2004 appears to be some deep dark secret for you personally. So let me cut to the chase---

You CONSCIOUSLY saw Bush's con over Iraq, but you CONSCIOUSLY voted for him again anyway---Despite CONSCIOUSLY loathing con men

You can always lie and say you voted third party. No one will know.

I'm probably old enough to know that time and experience might help you develop a different mindset with maturity.

Would it surprise you Zed if I didn't vote the next time around since I didn't feel there was a good choice.

"I'm probably old enough...."

Is your age also a secret?

You didn't vote? Please don't tell me you lived in Ohio in 2004.

MATSOP---Some of us take these sorts of things seriously---I'm sure much too seriously at times---The country could have used your help in 2004---Especially if you lived in Ohio.

Now, Zed, let me ask you a question---who are you going to vote for in 2012?--I've a feeling you pretty much know at this time.

Enough for me tonight---I'm going to go count my stuff and see if I've got enough of it to be considered human.

MATSOP---Some of us take these sorts of things seriously---I'm sure much too seriously at times---The country could have used your help in 2004---Especially if you lived in Ohio.

#297 | Posted by Zed
Try again, not in Ohio but in a state devastated more then Ohio---that should be an easy one.

Enough for me tonight---I'm going to go count my stuff and see if I've got enough of it to be considered human.

#299 | Posted by Zed

Have a good night---hope your finances are in order.

Please inform yourselves as to what our government is doing to us. Do you want to live with an oppresive income tax rate like what Canada or the UK has, approximatly 40%. every dollar the Gov taxes and takes out of the private sector is a dollar that you and I do not have to spend. support this at our perril! Do you want your care to be determined by someone in the Fed. I am unemployed and about to lose my home that I have worked my tail off for the past 10 years with a lot of sweat equity. Obama is not my answer, he is this countries destruction. Under him and the government that was seated last year our debt collectivly has grown more this year than in anytime in the past. This Debt will continue to grow with the passage of the healthcare bill. I refuse to go on unempoyment and continue to try to make ends meet with jobs here and there. Please read both sides of all arguments and don't just listen to your politicians because they have their own agenda in mind not our best interest.

Please follow the link below if you care about your future.

"Do you want to live with an oppresive income tax rate like what Canada or the UK has, approximatly 40%."

EAsy question, do we want to end deficits, pay down debt, create prosperity exactly as we did under Clinton, when our tax rates for the highest income earners was 39% then ABSOLUTELY FUCKING YES!
We want to have that "oppressive" tax rate that let to surpluses and prosperity.

EAsy question, do we want to end deficits, pay down debt, create prosperity exactly as we did under Clinton, when our tax rates for the highest income earners was 39% then ABSOLUTELY FUCKING YES!
We want to have that "oppressive" tax rate that let to surpluses and prosperity.

YOU DON'T GET IT. Taxing people to whoever they are does not bring prosperity. Innovation leads to prosperity, if your taxes are high on the business that you are trying to build like they are on mine why continue when you are working for less than the minimum wage rate.

"Innovation leads to prosperity"

Ok, let's accept your premise (it's perfectly logical and I agree with it).
So, a company is earning a profit and wants to earn larger profits through innovation.
What do they do???
Well, they hire people to innovate.
They spend money to research and create new and better ideas and products.
OK, we both agree on that.
Now, if the company can avoid income tax on research and development, take a write off for it then is their motivation higher with a lower or a higher income tax rate????
Now, be honest, do you actually understand the question???
I will be happy to try and further simplify it but that is the crux of the matter.
So, what is your answer?

EAsy question, do we want to end deficits, pay down debt, create prosperity exactly as we did under Clinton, when our tax rates for the highest income earners was 39% then ABSOLUTELY FUCKING YES!
We want to have that "oppressive" tax rate that let to surpluses and prosperity.

This tax rate is not on top earners. It is on everyone in the work force! And under Clinton he imposed a luxury tax that killed the boat industry along the East coast. So if you think the Gov can tax us to prosperity all the power to you. Wealth and jobs are not created by Gov it is destroyed by the Gov. When the Gov taxes something it is to discourage it not to promote it. Good luck in the future (when our tax rates for the highest income earners was 39% then ABSOLUTELY FUCKING YES!)

"This tax rate is not on top earners. It is on everyone in the work force! And under Clinton he imposed a luxury tax that killed the boat industry along the East coast."

Too bad for you that I happen to actually work in the yacht industry. Luxury taxes didn't have nearly the negative reaction in the industry as has the present economic crisis. More marine businesses have folded in the last couple of years than in the last decade or rather decades.
If anything harmed the boat industry it was the death of easy credit. The housing bubble bursting had more negative effect on the marine industry than any other thing in the past fifty years.
I speak from a position of actual knowledge on this small part of our economy, so don't try to bull shit me on it.

Innovation leads to prosperity"

Ok, let's accept your premise (it's perfectly logical and I agree with it).
So, a company is earning a profit and wants to earn larger profits through innovation.
What do they do???
Well, they hire people to innovate.
They spend money to research and create new and better ideas and products.
OK, we both agree on that.
Now, if the company can avoid income tax on research and development, take a write off for it then is their motivation higher with a lower or a higher income tax rate????
Now, be honest, do you actually understand the question???
I will be happy to try and further simplify it but that is the crux of the matter.
So, what is your answer?

The motivation is the company can hire more people to put cash into the economy of this country. My goal is to put people to work in the US. The products I am building are being built in China and I am competing with China and it is not easy, i am about to shut down and put people out of work

Too bad for you that I happen to actually work in the yacht industry. Luxury taxes didn't have nearly the negative reaction in the industry as has the present economic crisis. More marine businesses have folded in the last couple of years than in the last decade or rather decades.
If anything harmed the boat industry it was the death of easy credit. The housing bubble bursting had more negative effect on the marine industry than any other thing in the past fifty years.
I speak from a position of actual knowledge on this small part of our economy, so don't try to bull shit me on it.

Well from what I remember of the marine industry in Maine it was devastated in the 90's

"The products I am building are being built in China and I am competing with China and it is not easy, i am about to shut down and put people out of work"

WE should protect those jobs, if Chinese goods are being imported and sold at a lower cost than you can manufacture and sell them then the difference should be charged in tariffs. It is strategically important that we protect manufacturing in this country. Don't let transnational corporations convince you that importing goods at the lowest possible cost is necessarily in our best interests. WE may (WILL) come to a time when we NEED domestic manufacturing, we simply cannot afford (as a matter of national security) to allow more outsourcing of our manufacturing capacity. The transnational corporations who lobby for "free trade" do not care about the future of the United STates, they are already "international" and have no allegiance to this country or any other. WE as citizens should recognize them for what they are and send them back to China and let them deal with the Chinese government. Fuck them, the era of real globalization is not at hand, we are still involved in mercantilism though corporations are now considering China to be their most favorable home base. Let them have it, I don't think it will be long before they will be beggin to return to America and economic nationalism because China exercises it every day though far more harshly than we can even imagine.

ZED-
You've essentially asked me why I voted Dubya in 2004, right?

I've addressed that numerous times over the years on the DR. Dubya, while not perfect, represented a better chance of promoting conservatism than Kerry (or Gore earlier). Bush was the lesser of two evils, since I assume most conservatives realized Bush wasn't the ideologue we wanted... yet the primary reason we stuck with him was his steadfast desire to see the Iraq issue through.

If I thought Bush were bad as it related to spending (and I do... he, along with both the Rep and Dem-led congresses) I firmly believed Kerry to be infinitely worse.

Libs like Kerry and Obama are cut from the same cloth. As I saw it and see it today, half a loaf is better than nothing. Thus, better to have Bush in there to help stem some of the Dem ideas. Was I estatic? Nope.

McCain viewed people like me with condescension. I have little desire to support someone like that. Nevertheless, I voted for him in 2008 without enthusiasm. Little wonder so many people like me either sat out the election or voted differently.

"Bush was the lesser of two evils, since I assume most conservatives realized Bush wasn't the ideologue we wanted..."

An honest statement. Ooohrah I do want to ask you though, do you not realize the dangers of electing an "ideolgue"???? A person who puts ideology above reality is dangerous. We've seen it played out in history many times. I generally respect you as a conservative but when you actually say you want to support an "ideologue" I question your sanity or at least your real understanding of what you claim to believe in.

My point is companies in this country are being stifled by taxes that companies offshore are not required to pay????

DANNI - do you not realize the dangers of electing an "ideolgue...A person who puts ideology above reality is dangerous

I disagree.
Take most any issue. There is the view of a conservative and of a liberal. Then there is the situational person who claims to be above the fray and able to "think for himself."

I don't buy that. You go through life with a set of values. If those are the way to go, why should I want to see those compromised?

Why would you, DANNI, want to see conservatism enacted? When you encounter an issue, isn't your reaction one of siding with liberalism? Is that wrong on your part? If not, then why would it be wrong on my part as a conservative?

As a conservative I want smaller govt, lower taxes, more liberty, strong defense, personal accountability, etc.

DANNI-
When I talk "ideologue" regarding Bush, I think I can speak for most conservatives... we liked his backbone on Iraq, but we were NOT happy with his willingness to go along with most any spending bill to come down the pike. His inattentiveness to the illegal immigration issue was a downer, too.

"Compassionate conservatism" is code for big spending. Government defines compassion as spending. I guess we learned our lesson. Never again will a Rep run as a compassionate conservative. Dubya destroyed that brand.

A person who puts ideology above reality is dangerous

LOL

Like a person who advocates for the passage of the worst legislation in American history----against the will of the American people?

You'd better lock yourself in a closet, Brigitte.

"My point is companies in this country are being stifled by taxes that companies offshore are not required to pay????"

But your point is wrong, foreign companies actually PAY more taxes than American companies in spite of th fact that we have a higer corporate income tax. It's what actually gets paid not what the rate is that is important. In reality, American corporations pay a very low percentage of profits in taxes.

The bigger question is and it will have to be answered soon--do you want to go down the path of neo-marxism with BHO or do you want to retain what was good in our past system and reform the rest of it.

"McCain viewed people like me with condecension...."

The supreme irony, OORAH is that George W. Bush also viewed you with condecension.

Not to harp on it, but a lot of that going around. Boy, I'm glad I never had property in the 9th Ward of New Orleans---Repuplicans would have held me in contempt before, during, and after Katrina.

There are millions that react to condecension aside from you. That's why I don't see the Republican Party going anywhere---Regardless of what you guys think Obama has, is, or might do.

"The bigger question is and it will have to be answered soon--do you want to go down the path of neo-marxism with BHO or do you want to retain what was good in our past system and reform the rest of it."

No that isn't the bigger question, the bigger question is will we continue to watch our country slide into second world status to preserve the low tax rates enjoyed by millionaires or will we decide we don't want to be a huge Haiti with crumbling infrastructure, no decent health care for millions, poor schools, college out of the reach of average Americans, etc.The argument today is about what kind of country we will leave for our children and grandchildren.
The right wants to reduce taxes, leave debt and crumbling infrastructure while the left wants higher taxes, reduced debt and rebuilt infrastructure.
History is not going to look kindly at those who chose to reduce their own taxes and leave debts for their children and grandchildren.

Obama isn't far left enough for me. I want conservatives to suffer greatly under Obama. Tax the shit out of them and throw dissenters into the darkest dungeon he can find. I wish he was worse than Pol Pot to conservatives.

#177 | POSTED BY JACKASS

Since they hate him anyway.. might as well make it for something that hurts.. right?

Welcome, Mr Krauthammer. You're coming to the conclusion many held from the get go.

#269 | Posted by OohRah

Thank you, Oorah, for validating my position from the start--what's troublesome is how supposedly intelligent people can be conned so easily--their lives must be awful shallow--I imagine they would be critical of the people that would buy into the charisma of a Jim Jones, etal. and not see their own vulnerabilities.

#270 | Posted by matsop at 2010-01-16 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

You need validation?

Seems even you aren't too sure of your own words when you seek validation for them.

COMM-
Dubya was the Decider. I'm the Validator. Learn it, live it, love it. haha

Seems even you aren't too sure of your own words when you seek validation for them.

#322 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

I would expect it from Oorah, but from you now that would be one for the DR history books.

"As a conservative I want smaller govt, lower taxes, more liberty, strong defense, personal accountability, etc."

That's fine, but at what cost? If the cost you are willing to pay is allowing bridges to fall down as Gov. Pawlenty of MN did then I say you are an ideologue and your attempt at philosophical purity is destroying the country. None of the great presidents have been ideologues though some have had to fight wars against ideologues.
When ideology trumps reasoned thinking we are in for a world of hurt.

Obama isn't far left enough for me. I want conservatives to suffer greatly under Obama. Tax the shit out of them and throw dissenters into the darkest dungeon he can find. I wish he was worse than Pol Pot to conservatives.

That will do wonders for the uneducated liberals who work in the service industry and rely on Americans spending money. Should do wonder for Governement Motors

"what's troublesome is how supposedly intelligent people can be conned so easily--"

You mean like when Bush convinced most Americans we needed to invade Iraq???
Or that tax cuts for rich folks would bring real prosperity???

Or that tax cuts for rich folks would bring real prosperity???

It was good for me.
Now I have more to inherit

what's troublesome is how supposedly intelligent people can be conned so easily--"

You mean like when Bush convinced most Americans we needed to invade Iraq???
Or that tax cuts for rich folks would bring real prosperity???

#327 | Posted by danni

Guess what, Danni, I agree with you on Bush and Iraq--As far as tax cuts I knew pretty much it wouldn't help as it has in the past since the pyrimid money scheme was about ready to topple

However, Obummer makes Bush look like a veritable amateur, neophyte, beginner as far as manufacturing a con---as the neo-marxist's Saul Alinsky's son said and I quote: "Obama learned his lesson well."

The bigger they are the harder they fall..

Obama is that...

"However, Obummer makes Bush look like a veritable amateur, neophyte, beginner as far as manufacturing a con---as the neo-marxist's Saul Alinsky's son said and I quote: "Obama learned his lesson well."

Be comfortable in your idiotic simpleton world of black and white. Pretend Obama is a Marxist or whatever else you want but I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously.

By the time November comes around most of the country will think Obama is a Maxist.

Being called an idiot by someone from the lower class like Danni is actually amusing. Of course it is meaningless. It is like Bobby Flay cooking being criticized by a cook at Fatburger

Be comfortable in your idiotic simpleton world of black and white. Pretend Obama is a Marxist or whatever else you want but I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously.

#331 | Posted by danni

Obama, at age 24 was a community organizer for DCP and CCRC in Chicago. Both were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation and "his Rules for Radicals" were instructive and contained methodologies on how to affect change---one was to "rub raw the sores of discontent" (which Obama has and is doing well)---another is to keep stirring controversy and another is that there is no ethics in trying to accomplish what you want to accomplish (deals with unions, payoffs to Nebraska, Louisiana )One of Obama's early mentors in the Alinsky method was Mike Kruglik, who had this to say to an Ryan Lizza of The New Republic, about Obama:

"He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better."

Being called an idiot by someone from the lower class like Danni is actually amusing. Of course it is meaningless. It is like Bobby Flay cooking being criticized by a cook at Fatburger

#332 | Posted by timbci

I just think Danni is comfortable in her structured world along with her easy explanations---when facts come to destroy the myths in her life (e.q.--Clinton ran budget surpluses) she disappears and avoids the issue---that's not unusual--many people live lives like this because to change causes tremendous stress since it takes away security--although every once in awhile, I see a little crack in the facade and Danni tries to open her mind---that's encouraging.

#325 DANNI That's fine, but at what cost? If the cost you are willing to pay is allowing bridges to fall down as Gov. Pawlenty of MN did then I say you are an ideologue and your attempt at philosophical purity is destroying the country...

"At what cost" is a fair question. The rest of your post is a strawman and nothing I've advocated. If you want to play that game, what of Nagin and Co regarding those New Orleans levees? Monies were there, but other "priorities" diverted the $$$.

Smaller doesn't mean no government, just as, I suspect, your desire for more government doesn't mean you advocate 100% govt control over every aspect of your life. Am I accurate with that?

There is a balance somewhere in there. And ideology drives our decision-making process as to where to draw that line.

A philosophical dividing line between us is that, I presume, you'll typically look to government to solve things whereas I'd primarily look to the American people - the private sector.

what of Nagin and Co regarding those New Orleans levees? Monies were there, but other "priorities" diverted the $$$.

The Army Corp of Engineers were and are in control of the levees. Nagin had zero say. There were funds requested to short them up in the mid 2000's, but the GOP had 'other priorities', so plans to shore them up never came to fruition.

BTW, what's new with your son? Home? Iraq? Afghanistan?

Still in Afghan... due back in the states in Feb as best we know.

Judge says U.S. liable in Katrina
Ruling finds that 'gross negligence' by the Army Corps of Engineers led to levee breaks in New Orleans.

ATLANTA In a ruling that could leave the government open to billions of dollars in claims from Hurricane Katrina victims, a federal judge said late Wednesday that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had displayed "gross negligence" in failing to maintain a navigation channel -- resulting in levee breaches that flooded large swaths of greater New Orleans.

Army Corp of Engineers not to blame. Bush is. Fact ... Check ... dot ... org.

Still in Afghan... due back in the states in Feb as best we know.

Our military are doing great things there for the Afghani people.

OOHRAH

You know I was against the war in Iraq, where tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed and a couple million displaced.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, is a hotbed of terrorist activity. The Afghani people have endured untolled tragedy, murder, and oppression. I'm glad we're helping them while helping ourselves. I wish we'd given them this much effort 8 years ago. Things would have been vastly different by now.

It's been heartwarming to read the stories of villages getting running water, people having a better sense of security and educational opportunities thanks to our newly ramped up efforts.

Your son should feel very proud for being of service to his fellow man like that. No doubt he felt like he was helping in Iraq, but that was an entirely different scenario - a war we needn't have fought (New Orleans was on the losing end of that too as chronicled above ... levees not shored up because of funds for Iraq).