On what!? What the hell happened to pay-go?! I could see how this bill was necessary, but now you're crossing some fucking lines
Health Insurance/Care Reform, SAFETEA-LU 2 (seeing how SAFETEA-LU expires in September...what would you have us do?), Cap and Trade (Preferably with dividends. Well, preferably a tax with dividends but that ain't gonna happen), the annual budget for FY-2010, continuing resolution or supplementary spending or whatever the fuck they call it when we pay our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan... I'm sure there are numerous things that I'm overlooking.
Yeah, no, Glenn. I’m not gonna, look, I’m not going to soft pedal this with you. I’m not going to try to blow smoke either. The reality of it is, you are absolutely right. You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point. So, yeah, it’s going to be an uphill climb.
wait what? is this re: passing of the bailout being seen as a betrayal of the Republican base?
On what!? What the hell happened to pay-go?! I could see how this bill was necessary, but now you're crossing some fucking lines
Bush and the Republican majority murdered it, buried it, and then buried the shovel.
You admit this spending was necessary, how can you then say this is exactly the right amount? How do you know that this necessary spending isn't too small or poorly aimed or wasted as tax cuts?
To exclude the possibility of further spending being needed while simultaneously saying this spending was needed either presumes perfection or is condescending demagoguery.
What exactly will happen if after this bill, we do nothing?
The government would shut down in October, we'd stop continuing maintenance on most of the Federal Highway System and a lot of freight rail projects that are given Federal funding or assistance, our military would run out of gas over the course of the year both literally and figuratively, some other stuff.
On what!? What the hell happened to pay-go?! I could see how this bill was necessary, but now you're crossing some fucking lines
Bush and the Republican majority murdered it, buried it, and then buried the shovel.
You admit this spending was necessary, how can you then say this is exactly the right amount? How do you know that this necessary spending isn't too small or poorly aimed or wasted as tax cuts?
To exclude the possibility of further spending being needed while simultaneously saying this spending was needed either presumes perfection or is condescending demagoguery.
What exactly will happen if after this bill, we do nothing?
The government would shut down in October, we'd stop continuing maintenance on most of the Federal Highway System and a lot of freight rail projects that are given Federal funding or assistance, our military would run out of gas over the course of the year both literally and figuratively, some other stuff.
Our military needs to fucking stop. And how would the government shut down?
On what!? What the hell happened to pay-go?! I could see how this bill was necessary, but now you're crossing some fucking lines
Bush and the Republican majority murdered it, buried it, and then buried the shovel.
You admit this spending was necessary, how can you then say this is exactly the right amount? How do you know that this necessary spending isn't too small or poorly aimed or wasted as tax cuts?
To exclude the possibility of further spending being needed while simultaneously saying this spending was needed either presumes perfection or is condescending demagoguery.
What exactly will happen if after this bill, we do nothing?
The government would shut down in October, we'd stop continuing maintenance on most of the Federal Highway System and a lot of freight rail projects that are given Federal funding or assistance, our military would run out of gas over the course of the year both literally and figuratively, some other stuff.
Our military needs to fucking stop. And how would the government shut down?
See Bush the Elder's entry in any quality history book.
On what!? What the hell happened to pay-go?! I could see how this bill was necessary, but now you're crossing some fucking lines
Bush and the Republican majority murdered it, buried it, and then buried the shovel.
You admit this spending was necessary, how can you then say this is exactly the right amount? How do you know that this necessary spending isn't too small or poorly aimed or wasted as tax cuts?
To exclude the possibility of further spending being needed while simultaneously saying this spending was needed either presumes perfection or is condescending demagoguery.
What exactly will happen if after this bill, we do nothing?
The government would shut down in October, we'd stop continuing maintenance on most of the Federal Highway System and a lot of freight rail projects that are given Federal funding or assistance, our military would run out of gas over the course of the year both literally and figuratively, some other stuff.
Our military needs to fucking stop. And how would the government shut down?
So you want supplies to stop heading to our FOB's in Iraq and Afghanistan so that our soldiers are required to forage/steal food and water? Interesting.
And I'd figure that a government shutdown now would behave similarly to the government shutdown in '95.
On what!? What the hell happened to pay-go?! I could see how this bill was necessary, but now you're crossing some fucking lines
Bush and the Republican majority murdered it, buried it, and then buried the shovel.
You admit this spending was necessary, how can you then say this is exactly the right amount? How do you know that this necessary spending isn't too small or poorly aimed or wasted as tax cuts?
To exclude the possibility of further spending being needed while simultaneously saying this spending was needed either presumes perfection or is condescending demagoguery.
What exactly will happen if after this bill, we do nothing?
The government would shut down in October, we'd stop continuing maintenance on most of the Federal Highway System and a lot of freight rail projects that are given Federal funding or assistance, our military would run out of gas over the course of the year both literally and figuratively, some other stuff.
Our military needs to fucking stop. And how would the government shut down?
So you want supplies to stop heading to our FOB's in Iraq and Afghanistan so that our soldiers are required to forage/steal food and water? Interesting.
And I'd figure that a government shutdown now would behave similarly to the government shutdown in '95.
I want those motherfuckers to be brought back here.
What exactly will happen if after this bill, we do nothing?
The government would shut down in October, we'd stop continuing maintenance on most of the Federal Highway System and a lot of freight rail projects that are given Federal funding or assistance, our military would run out of gas over the course of the year both literally and figuratively, some other stuff.
Our military needs to fucking stop. And how would the government shut down?
So you want supplies to stop heading to our FOB's in Iraq and Afghanistan so that our soldiers are required to forage/steal food and water? Interesting.
And I'd figure that a government shutdown now would behave similarly to the government shutdown in '95.
I want those motherfuckers to be brought back here.
You also don't want the government to spend a dime past the ARRA. This sort of paradox would cause a Turing machine to explode.
On what!? What the hell happened to pay-go?! I could see how this bill was necessary, but now you're crossing some fucking lines
At this point, Keynesian economics would dictate that since there are no policy tools available to the government other than spending, you should spend, spend, spend.
FDR and Japan in the 90s didn't spend enough by this rubric; the lesson being, if you're in a deflationary/depression trap, you've got to spend big. Since the estimate run that we're gonna lose 2 trillion dollars of expected growth, we should be spending at least that much to cover the gap.
Normally, in "good times", Keynesian economics would dictate that government spending should be kept reasonable and let the market do its thing, since government funded projects can crowd out private ones. But in a climate where there is very little new economic activity generated by private interests, the government is the only actor capable of stimulating new growth. It should do this- via spending- until the economy recovers and then stop.
For example, WW2 put is in debt to the tune of 120% of GDP (we're at 70% now). We got all that back in a very short time because WW2 was massive government spending on education, infrastructure, etc, all of which paid off in the long run. Had FDR launched a WW2 level spending campaign in 1933, the depression would have been over sooner. As it was, he only spent enough to ward off total societal collapse, not enough to pull us entirely out of the depression- but not because a Keynesian stimulus is a bad idea, but because you have to go big or go home.
Now, that's the theory, and like everything with economics, is subject to a lot of debate with lots and lots of valid counter-arguments. But the Democrats are basically Keynesian in economic outlook and that's the theory they're adopting. And so in that context, damn right we want more spending.
The problem is that public policy usually gets compromised by competing ideologies and interests, and it's difficult to have precision in public policy instruments because in an economic crisis like this one, a tool you use in a given phase of fixing it might not necessarily be a good tool to use for the following phase, and that kind of agility and flexibility in policy response is not really a trait that a government usually has.
Also, the idea is to run a surplus during the boom phase so that you can afford to spend your way through the bust phase. Clinton was on the right track with this, though Dubya absolutely ruined it.
Also, the idea is to run a surplus during the boom phase so that you can afford to spend your way through the bust phase. Clinton was on the right track with this, though Dubya absolutely ruined it.
Well, it's more that you should be spending money in recessions and paring back during growth. That doesn't require a rainy day fund so much as just actually paying down the debt you incurred in the down years rather than continuing to spend like a drunken sailor. Plus everything's cheaper in a Recession. Contractors are looking for work, rather than turning it away, so you can build something on the cheap without cutting corners. Just don't get raped with change orders.
Also, the idea is to run a surplus during the boom phase so that you can afford to spend your way through the bust phase. Clinton was on the right track with this, though Dubya absolutely ruined it.
Well, it's more that you should be spending money in recessions and paring back during growth. That doesn't require a rainy day fund so much as just actually paying down the debt you incurred in the down years rather than continuing to spend like a drunken sailor. Plus everything's cheaper in a Recession. Contractors are looking for work, rather than turning it away, so you can build something on the cheap without cutting corners. Just don't get raped with change orders.
Well yeah, but either way you need a surplus. Has any Republican ever acknowledged Clinton's fiscal responsibility?
His Corkiness on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
At a certain point, you have to start wondering if the Republican learning curve has a negative slope.
“It is not about them being disloyal to the Republican Party, they’re being disloyal to the country," Wheeler added.
If that were the case behind these ads, they'd have ads for the entirety of the Democrats too.
You think they don't?
I never hear anything about it. I mean, they attack the stimulus bill, but not necessarily the people involved aside from Obama and his cabinet.
Again, I never hear anything about it. I guess everyone I know that pays attention to politics (which is funny because most everyone I know at the moment is Republican and don't pay attention) manages to ignore it all.
Henroid on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
At a certain point, you have to start wondering if the Republican learning curve has a negative slope.
“It is not about them being disloyal to the Republican Party, they’re being disloyal to the country," Wheeler added.
If that were the case behind these ads, they'd have ads for the entirety of the Democrats too.
You think they don't?
I never hear anything about it. I mean, they attack the stimulus bill, but not necessarily the people involved aside from Obama and his cabinet.
Again, I never hear anything about it. I guess everyone I know that pays attention to politics (which is funny because most everyone I know at the moment is Republican and don't pay attention) manages to ignore it all.
I'm guessing that's because Republicans aren't quite that retarded. They may imply that all Democrats are anti-American terrorist lovers, but they aren't going to come right out and say it.
I saw a linked story on Marc Ambinder's blog the other day.
When you think about it, barring a huge sea change the Democrats are likely to get above 60 seats in the senate in 2010, even if the overall issues favor the Republicans, just because of the seats that are coming up. And there isn't much chance the Republicans are going to erase the 100+ deficit in the house.
And then again, barring things going very very badly, I doubt really strong Republican candidates are going to run against Obama in 2012, plus presidential election years favor Democrats in Congress.
I think the Democrats are going to be in the drivers seat until at least 2014, even if they lose their 60+ in the senate in 2012.
And in 2005 no one thought Obama could win and no one expected the Democrats to take Congress back in 2006. Yes the map is good in 2010, but I'm not comfortable in saying anything beyond that.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I am confused. That was generally Republican in viewpoint and....uh...funny.
I know.
So refreshing.
Speaker on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
The halitosis and sweaty palms sold it.
Unfortunately, I come bearing more stupid. Let's go ahead and just bold all the arguments I would categorize as tired, old, and arrrrrgggggh. (I will decline to bold the entire thing, as that would defeat the purpose of the exercise.)
There's a law that liberals(note: just imagine I bold every instance of the word 'liberal') always shatter. (And no, I'm not talking about tax law.) It's the law of unintended consequences. Actually it's not so much liberals per se that break it so much as it seems liberal thinking by definition always runs afoul of this law. Leftist policy always hangs itself if given enough rope.
The liberals now have the entire stage with a very liberal President, extreme leftists in control of Congress, and the main stream media. Liberal failure has nowhere to hide and no one to hide behind. So as the Obama administration attempts to attack the country's economic woes, they find themselves stepping in one pile of liberal policy do-do after another. You might say that the left hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. The world will have to watch as liberal policy for problem A destroys Obama goals for problem B and so on.
Consider: with Obama, Reid and Pelosi screaming for the country to accept a ridiculous stimulus package to create jobs, jobs, jobs -- liberals in Chicago are standing in the way of a Wal-Mart Super Center that would bring in construction and retail jobs to the messiah's hometown. By the way, liberals will also keep the lowest cost provider of food and clothes and home goods from being accessed by hurting Chicagoans.
The reason? The liberal principle of protecting union jobs at all costs. Remember, behind every economic disaster is a powerful union. And sometimes a community organizer.
Which leads to another example. Union jobs at the big three auto makers have been supported for years by the high priced and high profit SUVs and pick up trucks. Of course, liberal environmentalists have long made the SUV a target, while limiting domestic energy production. Greenies are doing everything they can to destroy the SUV, and with it, many union jobs, and almost succeeded during the last energy price spike.
Oh, and should we mention the fact that those oil rig jobs that pay a ton of money to mostly union members cannot be had here thanks to drilling restrictions in this country? The Russians and Venezuelans send their thanks to American liberals.
But it gets better. This contradiction, which has been predictable for anyone with some linear thinking ability, has escaped the minds of millions of Michigan voters educated by the liberal-controlled public school system. They have for decades voted for politicians illogically holding pro-green yet pro-UAW positions simultaneously. Voters of that very liberal state have no one to blame but themselves. They voted themselves out of an economy over a period of years. This is the state where Obama went to pick up a good share of his economic advisors. No wonder it is home to the Detroit Lions.
Meanwhile, back in Washington and New York, liberals in Congress and in the media are having a field day chastising corporations for buying jets, hiring contractors to renovate posh office suites, and giving big bonuses to executives.
Well guess what? Buying jets, hiring upper end contractors and giving bonuses stimulate the economy. It is job friendly. And that's what we need now, right? Oops. More liberal fertilizer. Liberalism simply cannot get out of its own way. Especially hurt is lefty New York, where the economy is reeling from a number of factors.
But of course, the liberal tenet of wealth envy is paramount to common sense. And apparently, to jobs. Speaking of which, if you break down the Starbucks corporate jet issue, it is especially delicious with unintended consequences.
The coffee purveyor, you remember, was mercilessly raked across the media's coals for taking delivery on a 45 million dollar jet while it was closing stores and laying off barristas. So they cancelled the jet order.
Think about that. Starbuck's deposit on the jet was lost, which is foolish under any circumstances. Further, that jet is now back "on the showroom floor" so to speak, reducing by one the need to manufacture such planes. So to keep some "hamburger flipper" type jobs that liberals make fun of, many high paying jet manufacturing jobs were lost. The only thing stimulating about that equation is the Starbucks caffeine.
And we could go on like this simply with stories from today's headlines. It's a fact of life. Liberal policies in action always cave in on themselves. They always have.
Take liberal Neville Chamberlain and his appeasement of Hitler in the 30's.(Note: Godwin. You lose.) We must have "peace in our time." How did that work out? It took a violent victory, not a phony peace, to bring lasting peace. The peace effort led to a stronger Hitler and ultimately millions more deaths than "war mongering" policies would have led to.
Look back at 9-11. Some thirty years of liberal policies regarding intelligence gathering, intelligence sharing and prosecuting terrorists led to an attack that killed three thousand Americans in, well, two of the nations' most liberal cities. You cannot say this in polite company, but statistically some 90% of the victims likely voted for the policies that led to the dreadful day. Shhhhh.
Think about abortion. The feminist movement has called this a women's issue. It is defined as the ultimate right for women. Fine. The result? The most likely fetus on the planet to be aborted is a female in China. That's women's rights we can believe in, right? Talk about the circle of life -- er -- death.
Consider school choice. This issue is demagogued by the teachers' unions above all else. These are unions who are obsessed with raising teacher pay. What would be the teacher pay result of a broad school choice program? It would be the equivalent of "free agency" for good teachers and administrators. Think about what free agency has done for pay for athletes. Another circular liberal firing squad in action.
Take California's government cash meltdown. The main culprit is retiree benefits for unionized government workers in the state. And of course, the result is that current unionized government workers are being laid off, furloughed and not hired. More liberal on liberal crime.
And let's not forget Europe and their coddling of Islamists for decades. Their payback is a near takeover of European society by gangs and street violence, not to mention ridiculous rules and regulations in airports and schools and other public places.
Liberalism's failure is universal because liberalism embraces a false view of human nature as perfectible, if only the right political arrangements exist . And it would be funny, except that the consequences are so devastating to so many people. And so often the victims are the very liberals the policy was supposed to protect.
The only good news is this: with liberal Democrats front and center on all stages governmental now, they will be opposed by a much more formidable foe than a Republican President and a Congress dying to just get along. They will be opposed by the obvious truth of their bankrupt philosophy.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Unfortunately, I come bearing more stupid. Let's go ahead and just bold all the arguments I would categorize as tired, old, and arrrrrgggggh. (I will decline to bold the entire thing, as that would defeat the purpose of the exercise.)
There's a law that liberals(note: just imagine I bold every instance of the word 'liberal') always shatter. (And no, I'm not talking about tax law.) It's the law of unintended consequences. Actually it's not so much liberals per se that break it so much as it seems liberal thinking by definition always runs afoul of this law. Leftist policy always hangs itself if given enough rope.
The liberals now have the entire stage with a very liberal President, extreme leftists in control of Congress, and the main stream media. Liberal failure has nowhere to hide and no one to hide behind. So as the Obama administration attempts to attack the country's economic woes, they find themselves stepping in one pile of liberal policy do-do after another. You might say that the left hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. The world will have to watch as liberal policy for problem A destroys Obama goals for problem B and so on.
Consider: with Obama, Reid and Pelosi screaming for the country to accept a ridiculous stimulus package to create jobs, jobs, jobs -- liberals in Chicago are standing in the way of a Wal-Mart Super Center that would bring in construction and retail jobs to the messiah's hometown. By the way, liberals will also keep the lowest cost provider of food and clothes and home goods from being accessed by hurting Chicagoans.
The reason? The liberal principle of protecting union jobs at all costs. Remember, behind every economic disaster is a powerful union. And sometimes a community organizer.
Which leads to another example. Union jobs at the big three auto makers have been supported for years by the high priced and high profit SUVs and pick up trucks. Of course, liberal environmentalists have long made the SUV a target, while limiting domestic energy production. Greenies are doing everything they can to destroy the SUV, and with it, many union jobs, and almost succeeded during the last energy price spike.
Oh, and should we mention the fact that those oil rig jobs that pay a ton of money to mostly union members cannot be had here thanks to drilling restrictions in this country? The Russians and Venezuelans send their thanks to American liberals.
But it gets better. This contradiction, which has been predictable for anyone with some linear thinking ability, has escaped the minds of millions of Michigan voters educated by the liberal-controlled public school system. They have for decades voted for politicians illogically holding pro-green yet pro-UAW positions simultaneously. Voters of that very liberal state have no one to blame but themselves. They voted themselves out of an economy over a period of years. This is the state where Obama went to pick up a good share of his economic advisors. No wonder it is home to the Detroit Lions.
Meanwhile, back in Washington and New York, liberals in Congress and in the media are having a field day chastising corporations for buying jets, hiring contractors to renovate posh office suites, and giving big bonuses to executives.
Well guess what? Buying jets, hiring upper end contractors and giving bonuses stimulate the economy. It is job friendly. And that's what we need now, right? Oops. More liberal fertilizer. Liberalism simply cannot get out of its own way. Especially hurt is lefty New York, where the economy is reeling from a number of factors.
But of course, the liberal tenet of wealth envy is paramount to common sense. And apparently, to jobs. Speaking of which, if you break down the Starbucks corporate jet issue, it is especially delicious with unintended consequences.
The coffee purveyor, you remember, was mercilessly raked across the media's coals for taking delivery on a 45 million dollar jet while it was closing stores and laying off barristas. So they cancelled the jet order.
Think about that. Starbuck's deposit on the jet was lost, which is foolish under any circumstances. Further, that jet is now back "on the showroom floor" so to speak, reducing by one the need to manufacture such planes. So to keep some "hamburger flipper" type jobs that liberals make fun of, many high paying jet manufacturing jobs were lost. The only thing stimulating about that equation is the Starbucks caffeine.
And we could go on like this simply with stories from today's headlines. It's a fact of life. Liberal policies in action always cave in on themselves. They always have.
Take liberal Neville Chamberlain and his appeasement of Hitler in the 30's.(Note: Godwin. You lose.) We must have "peace in our time." How did that work out? It took a violent victory, not a phony peace, to bring lasting peace. The peace effort led to a stronger Hitler and ultimately millions more deaths than "war mongering" policies would have led to.
Look back at 9-11. Some thirty years of liberal policies regarding intelligence gathering, intelligence sharing and prosecuting terrorists led to an attack that killed three thousand Americans in, well, two of the nations' most liberal cities. You cannot say this in polite company, but statistically some 90% of the victims likely voted for the policies that led to the dreadful day. Shhhhh.
Think about abortion. The feminist movement has called this a women's issue. It is defined as the ultimate right for women. Fine. The result? The most likely fetus on the planet to be aborted is a female in China. That's women's rights we can believe in, right? Talk about the circle of life -- er -- death.
Consider school choice. This issue is demagogued by the teachers' unions above all else. These are unions who are obsessed with raising teacher pay. What would be the teacher pay result of a broad school choice program? It would be the equivalent of "free agency" for good teachers and administrators. Think about what free agency has done for pay for athletes. Another circular liberal firing squad in action.
Take California's government cash meltdown. The main culprit is retiree benefits for unionized government workers in the state. And of course, the result is that current unionized government workers are being laid off, furloughed and not hired. More liberal on liberal crime.
And let's not forget Europe and their coddling of Islamists for decades. Their payback is a near takeover of European society by gangs and street violence, not to mention ridiculous rules and regulations in airports and schools and other public places.
Liberalism's failure is universal because liberalism embraces a false view of human nature as perfectible, if only the right political arrangements exist . And it would be funny, except that the consequences are so devastating to so many people. And so often the victims are the very liberals the policy was supposed to protect.
The only good news is this: with liberal Democrats front and center on all stages governmental now, they will be opposed by a much more formidable foe than a Republican President and a Congress dying to just get along. They will be opposed by the obvious truth of their bankrupt philosophy.
I don't know what website that is, but it seems the equivalent of posting something off of Stormfront.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Unfortunately, I come bearing more stupid. Let's go ahead and just bold all the arguments I would categorize as tired, old, and arrrrrgggggh. (I will decline to bold the entire thing, as that would defeat the purpose of the exercise.)
There's a law that liberals(note: just imagine I bold every instance of the word 'liberal') always shatter. (And no, I'm not talking about tax law.) It's the law of unintended consequences. Actually it's not so much liberals per se that break it so much as it seems liberal thinking by definition always runs afoul of this law. Leftist policy always hangs itself if given enough rope.
The liberals now have the entire stage with a very liberal President, extreme leftists in control of Congress, and the main stream media. Liberal failure has nowhere to hide and no one to hide behind. So as the Obama administration attempts to attack the country's economic woes, they find themselves stepping in one pile of liberal policy do-do after another. You might say that the left hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. The world will have to watch as liberal policy for problem A destroys Obama goals for problem B and so on.
Consider: with Obama, Reid and Pelosi screaming for the country to accept a ridiculous stimulus package to create jobs, jobs, jobs -- liberals in Chicago are standing in the way of a Wal-Mart Super Center that would bring in construction and retail jobs to the messiah's hometown. By the way, liberals will also keep the lowest cost provider of food and clothes and home goods from being accessed by hurting Chicagoans.
The reason? The liberal principle of protecting union jobs at all costs. Remember, behind every economic disaster is a powerful union. And sometimes a community organizer.
Which leads to another example. Union jobs at the big three auto makers have been supported for years by the high priced and high profit SUVs and pick up trucks. Of course, liberal environmentalists have long made the SUV a target, while limiting domestic energy production. Greenies are doing everything they can to destroy the SUV, and with it, many union jobs, and almost succeeded during the last energy price spike.
Oh, and should we mention the fact that those oil rig jobs that pay a ton of money to mostly union members cannot be had here thanks to drilling restrictions in this country? The Russians and Venezuelans send their thanks to American liberals.
But it gets better. This contradiction, which has been predictable for anyone with some linear thinking ability, has escaped the minds of millions of Michigan voters educated by the liberal-controlled public school system. They have for decades voted for politicians illogically holding pro-green yet pro-UAW positions simultaneously. Voters of that very liberal state have no one to blame but themselves. They voted themselves out of an economy over a period of years. This is the state where Obama went to pick up a good share of his economic advisors. No wonder it is home to the Detroit Lions.
Meanwhile, back in Washington and New York, liberals in Congress and in the media are having a field day chastising corporations for buying jets, hiring contractors to renovate posh office suites, and giving big bonuses to executives.
Well guess what? Buying jets, hiring upper end contractors and giving bonuses stimulate the economy. It is job friendly. And that's what we need now, right? Oops. More liberal fertilizer. Liberalism simply cannot get out of its own way. Especially hurt is lefty New York, where the economy is reeling from a number of factors.
But of course, the liberal tenet of wealth envy is paramount to common sense. And apparently, to jobs. Speaking of which, if you break down the Starbucks corporate jet issue, it is especially delicious with unintended consequences.
The coffee purveyor, you remember, was mercilessly raked across the media's coals for taking delivery on a 45 million dollar jet while it was closing stores and laying off barristas. So they cancelled the jet order.
Think about that. Starbuck's deposit on the jet was lost, which is foolish under any circumstances. Further, that jet is now back "on the showroom floor" so to speak, reducing by one the need to manufacture such planes. So to keep some "hamburger flipper" type jobs that liberals make fun of, many high paying jet manufacturing jobs were lost. The only thing stimulating about that equation is the Starbucks caffeine.
And we could go on like this simply with stories from today's headlines. It's a fact of life. Liberal policies in action always cave in on themselves. They always have.
Take liberal Neville Chamberlain and his appeasement of Hitler in the 30's.(Note: Godwin. You lose.) We must have "peace in our time." How did that work out? It took a violent victory, not a phony peace, to bring lasting peace. The peace effort led to a stronger Hitler and ultimately millions more deaths than "war mongering" policies would have led to.
Look back at 9-11. Some thirty years of liberal policies regarding intelligence gathering, intelligence sharing and prosecuting terrorists led to an attack that killed three thousand Americans in, well, two of the nations' most liberal cities. You cannot say this in polite company, but statistically some 90% of the victims likely voted for the policies that led to the dreadful day. Shhhhh.
Think about abortion. The feminist movement has called this a women's issue. It is defined as the ultimate right for women. Fine. The result? The most likely fetus on the planet to be aborted is a female in China. That's women's rights we can believe in, right? Talk about the circle of life -- er -- death.
Consider school choice. This issue is demagogued by the teachers' unions above all else. These are unions who are obsessed with raising teacher pay. What would be the teacher pay result of a broad school choice program? It would be the equivalent of "free agency" for good teachers and administrators. Think about what free agency has done for pay for athletes. Another circular liberal firing squad in action.
Take California's government cash meltdown. The main culprit is retiree benefits for unionized government workers in the state. And of course, the result is that current unionized government workers are being laid off, furloughed and not hired. More liberal on liberal crime.
And let's not forget Europe and their coddling of Islamists for decades. Their payback is a near takeover of European society by gangs and street violence, not to mention ridiculous rules and regulations in airports and schools and other public places.
Liberalism's failure is universal because liberalism embraces a false view of human nature as perfectible, if only the right political arrangements exist . And it would be funny, except that the consequences are so devastating to so many people. And so often the victims are the very liberals the policy was supposed to protect.
The only good news is this: with liberal Democrats front and center on all stages governmental now, they will be opposed by a much more formidable foe than a Republican President and a Congress dying to just get along. They will be opposed by the obvious truth of their bankrupt philosophy.
I don't know what website that is, but it seems the equivalent of posting something off of Stormfront.
Check out the URL: it's from "American Thinker" which is just the funniest thing.
Anyway, CNN was saying stimulus bill to be signed on Tuesday in Denver.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Unfortunately, I come bearing more stupid. Let's go ahead and just bold all the arguments I would categorize as tired, old, and arrrrrgggggh. (I will decline to bold the entire thing, as that would defeat the purpose of the exercise.)
There's a law that liberals(note: just imagine I bold every instance of the word 'liberal') always shatter. (And no, I'm not talking about tax law.) It's the law of unintended consequences. Actually it's not so much liberals per se that break it so much as it seems liberal thinking by definition always runs afoul of this law. Leftist policy always hangs itself if given enough rope.
The liberals now have the entire stage with a very liberal President, extreme leftists in control of Congress, and the main stream media. Liberal failure has nowhere to hide and no one to hide behind. So as the Obama administration attempts to attack the country's economic woes, they find themselves stepping in one pile of liberal policy do-do after another. You might say that the left hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. The world will have to watch as liberal policy for problem A destroys Obama goals for problem B and so on.
Consider: with Obama, Reid and Pelosi screaming for the country to accept a ridiculous stimulus package to create jobs, jobs, jobs -- liberals in Chicago are standing in the way of a Wal-Mart Super Center that would bring in construction and retail jobs to the messiah's hometown. By the way, liberals will also keep the lowest cost provider of food and clothes and home goods from being accessed by hurting Chicagoans.
The reason? The liberal principle of protecting union jobs at all costs. Remember, behind every economic disaster is a powerful union. And sometimes a community organizer.
Which leads to another example. Union jobs at the big three auto makers have been supported for years by the high priced and high profit SUVs and pick up trucks. Of course, liberal environmentalists have long made the SUV a target, while limiting domestic energy production. Greenies are doing everything they can to destroy the SUV, and with it, many union jobs, and almost succeeded during the last energy price spike.
Oh, and should we mention the fact that those oil rig jobs that pay a ton of money to mostly union members cannot be had here thanks to drilling restrictions in this country? The Russians and Venezuelans send their thanks to American liberals.
But it gets better. This contradiction, which has been predictable for anyone with some linear thinking ability, has escaped the minds of millions of Michigan voters educated by the liberal-controlled public school system. They have for decades voted for politicians illogically holding pro-green yet pro-UAW positions simultaneously. Voters of that very liberal state have no one to blame but themselves. They voted themselves out of an economy over a period of years. This is the state where Obama went to pick up a good share of his economic advisors. No wonder it is home to the Detroit Lions.
Meanwhile, back in Washington and New York, liberals in Congress and in the media are having a field day chastising corporations for buying jets, hiring contractors to renovate posh office suites, and giving big bonuses to executives.
Well guess what? Buying jets, hiring upper end contractors and giving bonuses stimulate the economy. It is job friendly. And that's what we need now, right? Oops. More liberal fertilizer. Liberalism simply cannot get out of its own way. Especially hurt is lefty New York, where the economy is reeling from a number of factors.
But of course, the liberal tenet of wealth envy is paramount to common sense. And apparently, to jobs. Speaking of which, if you break down the Starbucks corporate jet issue, it is especially delicious with unintended consequences.
The coffee purveyor, you remember, was mercilessly raked across the media's coals for taking delivery on a 45 million dollar jet while it was closing stores and laying off barristas. So they cancelled the jet order.
Think about that. Starbuck's deposit on the jet was lost, which is foolish under any circumstances. Further, that jet is now back "on the showroom floor" so to speak, reducing by one the need to manufacture such planes. So to keep some "hamburger flipper" type jobs that liberals make fun of, many high paying jet manufacturing jobs were lost. The only thing stimulating about that equation is the Starbucks caffeine.
And we could go on like this simply with stories from today's headlines. It's a fact of life. Liberal policies in action always cave in on themselves. They always have.
Take liberal Neville Chamberlain and his appeasement of Hitler in the 30's.(Note: Godwin. You lose.) We must have "peace in our time." How did that work out? It took a violent victory, not a phony peace, to bring lasting peace. The peace effort led to a stronger Hitler and ultimately millions more deaths than "war mongering" policies would have led to.
Look back at 9-11. Some thirty years of liberal policies regarding intelligence gathering, intelligence sharing and prosecuting terrorists led to an attack that killed three thousand Americans in, well, two of the nations' most liberal cities. You cannot say this in polite company, but statistically some 90% of the victims likely voted for the policies that led to the dreadful day. Shhhhh.
Think about abortion. The feminist movement has called this a women's issue. It is defined as the ultimate right for women. Fine. The result? The most likely fetus on the planet to be aborted is a female in China. That's women's rights we can believe in, right? Talk about the circle of life -- er -- death.
Consider school choice. This issue is demagogued by the teachers' unions above all else. These are unions who are obsessed with raising teacher pay. What would be the teacher pay result of a broad school choice program? It would be the equivalent of "free agency" for good teachers and administrators. Think about what free agency has done for pay for athletes. Another circular liberal firing squad in action.
Take California's government cash meltdown. The main culprit is retiree benefits for unionized government workers in the state. And of course, the result is that current unionized government workers are being laid off, furloughed and not hired. More liberal on liberal crime.
And let's not forget Europe and their coddling of Islamists for decades. Their payback is a near takeover of European society by gangs and street violence, not to mention ridiculous rules and regulations in airports and schools and other public places.
Liberalism's failure is universal because liberalism embraces a false view of human nature as perfectible, if only the right political arrangements exist . And it would be funny, except that the consequences are so devastating to so many people. And so often the victims are the very liberals the policy was supposed to protect.
The only good news is this: with liberal Democrats front and center on all stages governmental now, they will be opposed by a much more formidable foe than a Republican President and a Congress dying to just get along. They will be opposed by the obvious truth of their bankrupt philosophy.
I don't know what website that is, but it seems the equivalent of posting something off of Stormfront.
Check out the URL: it's from "American Thinker" which is just the funniest thing.
Well, to be fair, American Idiot was already taken.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I went over to Dailykos for the first time in a little more than a year.
I note that Kos now rarely makes a reference to the political opposition with describing it as "Republicans and conservative Democrats."
Sigh.
There's a fast track to an imploding party. Start lynching the impure.
Hey, to be fair, they've been lynching the impure for years. See also Connecticut 2006.
The netroots hate the Blue Dogs.
GOSLING'S BIG BOOK O' POLITICAL ADVICE
#103: A party's base will hate a moderate from their own party, but love a moderate from the other party that votes in the exact same manner. If the moderate switches from one party to the other, the feelings will merely intensify. (Take Olympia Snowe. Now take Jon Tester, who votes largely the same way, in a left/right way of thinking.)
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I went over to Dailykos for the first time in a little more than a year.
I note that Kos now rarely makes a reference to the political opposition with describing it as "Republicans and conservative Democrats."
Sigh.
There's a fast track to an imploding party. Start lynching the impure.
Hey, to be fair, they've been lynching the impure for years. See also Connecticut 2006.
The netroots hate the Blue Dogs.
GOSLING'S BIG BOOK O' POLITICAL ADVICE
#103: A party's base will hate a moderate from their own party, but love a moderate from the other party that votes in the exact same manner. If the moderate switches from one party to the other, the feelings will merely intensify. (Take Olympia Snowe. Now take Jon Tester, who votes largely the same way, in a left/right way of thinking.)
Oddly, the netroots love Tester and hate Snowe. Because they're realistic about the kinds of Democrats you can get from Montana and think you could get a pretty damn awesome Democrat from Maine.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I went over to Dailykos for the first time in a little more than a year.
I note that Kos now rarely makes a reference to the political opposition with describing it as "Republicans and conservative Democrats."
Sigh.
There's a fast track to an imploding party. Start lynching the impure.
Hey, to be fair, they've been lynching the impure for years. See also Connecticut 2006.
The netroots hate the Blue Dogs.
GOSLING'S BIG BOOK O' POLITICAL ADVICE
#103: A party's base will hate a moderate from their own party, but love a moderate from the other party that votes in the exact same manner. If the moderate switches from one party to the other, the feelings will merely intensify. (Take Olympia Snowe. Now take Jon Tester, who votes largely the same way, in a left/right way of thinking.)
Oddly, the netroots love Tester and hate Snowe. Because they're realistic about the kinds of Democrats you can get from Montana and think you could get a pretty damn awesome Democrat from Maine.
Bayh and Lugar aren't too far apart, they share a state.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Posts
Health Insurance/Care Reform, SAFETEA-LU 2 (seeing how SAFETEA-LU expires in September...what would you have us do?), Cap and Trade (Preferably with dividends. Well, preferably a tax with dividends but that ain't gonna happen), the annual budget for FY-2010, continuing resolution or supplementary spending or whatever the fuck they call it when we pay our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan... I'm sure there are numerous things that I'm overlooking.
wait what? is this re: passing of the bailout being seen as a betrayal of the Republican base?
The government would shut down in October, we'd stop continuing maintenance on most of the Federal Highway System and a lot of freight rail projects that are given Federal funding or assistance, our military would run out of gas over the course of the year both literally and figuratively, some other stuff.
Our military needs to fucking stop. And how would the government shut down?
Bush Administration sort of made that impossible to even muse about.
See Bush the Elder's entry in any quality history book.
NOBODY WANTS TO BRING IT BACK
So you want supplies to stop heading to our FOB's in Iraq and Afghanistan so that our soldiers are required to forage/steal food and water? Interesting.
And I'd figure that a government shutdown now would behave similarly to the government shutdown in '95.
I want those motherfuckers to be brought back here.
You also don't want the government to spend a dime past the ARRA. This sort of paradox would cause a Turing machine to explode.
At a certain point, you have to start wondering if the Republican learning curve has a negative slope.
I like how they mention the CBO, presumably continuing to cite the first fake CBO report.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I swear if i never hear the word pork again it'll be too soon.
Anyone now if they'd carry the clout to do it?
At this point, Keynesian economics would dictate that since there are no policy tools available to the government other than spending, you should spend, spend, spend.
FDR and Japan in the 90s didn't spend enough by this rubric; the lesson being, if you're in a deflationary/depression trap, you've got to spend big. Since the estimate run that we're gonna lose 2 trillion dollars of expected growth, we should be spending at least that much to cover the gap.
Normally, in "good times", Keynesian economics would dictate that government spending should be kept reasonable and let the market do its thing, since government funded projects can crowd out private ones. But in a climate where there is very little new economic activity generated by private interests, the government is the only actor capable of stimulating new growth. It should do this- via spending- until the economy recovers and then stop.
For example, WW2 put is in debt to the tune of 120% of GDP (we're at 70% now). We got all that back in a very short time because WW2 was massive government spending on education, infrastructure, etc, all of which paid off in the long run. Had FDR launched a WW2 level spending campaign in 1933, the depression would have been over sooner. As it was, he only spent enough to ward off total societal collapse, not enough to pull us entirely out of the depression- but not because a Keynesian stimulus is a bad idea, but because you have to go big or go home.
Now, that's the theory, and like everything with economics, is subject to a lot of debate with lots and lots of valid counter-arguments. But the Democrats are basically Keynesian in economic outlook and that's the theory they're adopting. And so in that context, damn right we want more spending.
The problem is that public policy usually gets compromised by competing ideologies and interests, and it's difficult to have precision in public policy instruments because in an economic crisis like this one, a tool you use in a given phase of fixing it might not necessarily be a good tool to use for the following phase, and that kind of agility and flexibility in policy response is not really a trait that a government usually has.
Republicans: THIS BILL NEEDS MORE BIPARTISANSHIP!!
Four Republicans vote for it.
Republicans: THOSE GUYS ARE DUMB AND STUPID, HATE THEM FOR AGREEING WITH THE OTHER SIDE AND NOT US!!!
|Xbox Live Tag: Omeks
|PSN Tag: Omeks_R7
|Rock Band: Profile|DLC Collection
My "cognitive dissonance" detector is going nuts right now. Do they even think before they knee-jerk react to everything?
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
Well, it's more that you should be spending money in recessions and paring back during growth. That doesn't require a rainy day fund so much as just actually paying down the debt you incurred in the down years rather than continuing to spend like a drunken sailor. Plus everything's cheaper in a Recession. Contractors are looking for work, rather than turning it away, so you can build something on the cheap without cutting corners. Just don't get raped with change orders.
You think they don't?
I never hear anything about it. I mean, they attack the stimulus bill, but not necessarily the people involved aside from Obama and his cabinet.
Again, I never hear anything about it. I guess everyone I know that pays attention to politics (which is funny because most everyone I know at the moment is Republican and don't pay attention) manages to ignore it all.
When you think about it, barring a huge sea change the Democrats are likely to get above 60 seats in the senate in 2010, even if the overall issues favor the Republicans, just because of the seats that are coming up. And there isn't much chance the Republicans are going to erase the 100+ deficit in the house.
And then again, barring things going very very badly, I doubt really strong Republican candidates are going to run against Obama in 2012, plus presidential election years favor Democrats in Congress.
I think the Democrats are going to be in the drivers seat until at least 2014, even if they lose their 60+ in the senate in 2012.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEDIyztZGBA&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/&feature=player_embedded
Nice.
I know.
So refreshing.
Unfortunately, I come bearing more stupid. Let's go ahead and just bold all the arguments I would categorize as tired, old, and arrrrrgggggh. (I will decline to bold the entire thing, as that would defeat the purpose of the exercise.)
I don't know what website that is, but it seems the equivalent of posting something off of Stormfront.
Check out the URL: it's from "American Thinker" which is just the funniest thing.
Anyway, CNN was saying stimulus bill to be signed on Tuesday in Denver.
I note that Kos now rarely makes a reference to the political opposition with describing it as "Republicans and conservative Democrats."
Sigh.
There's a fast track to an imploding party. Start lynching the impure.
Well, to be fair, American Idiot was already taken.
Hey, to be fair, they've been lynching the impure for years. See also Connecticut 2006.
The netroots hate the Blue Dogs.
#103: A party's base will hate a moderate from their own party, but love a moderate from the other party that votes in the exact same manner. If the moderate switches from one party to the other, the feelings will merely intensify. (Take Olympia Snowe. Now take Jon Tester, who votes largely the same way, in a left/right way of thinking.)
Oddly, the netroots love Tester and hate Snowe. Because they're realistic about the kinds of Democrats you can get from Montana and think you could get a pretty damn awesome Democrat from Maine.
Well that should go over well in a party that is 50% moderates.