YOU WERE WARNED:
-
* Heather Cox Richardson: *
* Heather Cox Richardson is a political historian who uses facts and
history to put the news in context*
*There are a numb...
20 minutes ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Obama saved us from certain doom with the bank bailouts,remember? Or do you remember it was actually Bush who did that.As I recall all the democrats especially Pelosi were crying about it"What about Main Street" wah,wah! Obama spent a failed stimulus plan and wants to use tarp money for a jobs bill that is really another stimulus that should have been used for just that to begin with.
Anyway Rhinos going along with liberal policy doesn't count.
I have written my congresspersons (and my local governmental agencies) blasting them for accepting and using stimulus money after voting against the bill.
It was bad policy under Bush, it is bad policy under Obama. Doing it again will only make it twice as bad.
In general I disagree with dear little Rachel. On this point, however, she is at least close to truth.
Besides, I need a new car and can't get my hands on a dime of stimulus money!
YAY JOE!! you won't find anyone as truthful and competent as Rachel. The GOP sucks!!
I had never listened to Rachel on Air America (radio) I had heard about her.
I have watched her show on MSNBC since the first show.
It's a great show. Well researched. Factual. She's great. The best on the air. I even like her better than Keith O.
Tom I think she is better then Keith too because she does investigative journalism, not just opinion pieces. Even tho I never miss Keiths show either!
Yes, she is the best. The truth bites, especially to those who are lying.
Yet, even she can't match Keith when he gets on those comment rolls.
Until Keith came on MSNBC, I didn't watch much. Matthews is fine, Tucker was joke (glad he's gone).
if I wasn't a regular of Keith's, I might have missed knowing Rachel.
Looks like you and Tom have become lock-step mind-numbed robots, what with never missing Ms. M and Mr. O.
I don't get "...GOP sucks." That is not an intelligent commentary of any kind, but is common to liberals.
Read some of my older posts and see if you can find one where I cast some aspersion on liberals without any basis of fact or reason.
Therein lies the difference between liberal blogs and conservative blogs: reason.
BTW: In my opinion, which is the only one I care about, Matthews is stark raving mad and Tucker has no idea who he is.
"BTW: In my opinion, which is the only one I care about"
Well Joe, there goes your "reason". Where is the reason when when the only opinion you care about is your own? You lack resolve.
That little statement right just took every comment you made and threw it in the crapper.
Joe,
Since I have never discussed Rachel with Sue before, you have just done what you claim you do not, all in one comment.
"lock-step mind-numbed robots"
I have been to your blog a few times (check your stat counter) and all you do is irrationally blast liberals, especially the President.
Of course you only care about yourself, that is a common trait among conservatives, which is why the country is a mess after decades of Republican control.
Thanks for NOT caring and screwing things up for the rest of America.
Now go home, play with your toys and let serious people solve serious problems.
CDM: Not true. In the end, the only opinion anybody cares about, including you, unless you are paranoid schizophrenic, is his/her own.
You certainly don't care about mine, so I sort of have to.
You had better care about yours, 'cause I sure don't.
And so it goes.
Joe,
I respect what you say in your first paragraph.Shows you are a man of principle.
I'm unclear about what you say about bad policy under Bush being bad policy under Obama. I don't know if you are conflating TARP and the Stimulus as many do, or if you are referring to returned TARP funds being used towards Stimulus ?
Regarding TARP, if you opposed it I agree with you. I would argue the need for limited recapitalization of certain key institutions but with that exception-backstopping short term lending and letting many of the "too big to fails" do just that IMO would have gotten the worst out of the way quickly and again IMO restored confidence.
I would disagree with your apparent opposition to the Stimulus.There was not the Bang for the Buck it should have had but nonetheless I believe fiscal policy,deficit spending to encourage demand is the only economic tool we had left.
Tom: I am impressed by your seriousness. As for screwing up America, I just never realized that I had that kind of power. The liberal folks whom I have screwed up must be very, very weak people.
"You certainly don't care about mine, so I sort of have to.
You had better care about yours, 'cause I sure don't."
This is the first time I have ever addressed you and yet you seemed to have it in your head that I don't care. Hmmmm, what does that sound like? Oh, I know...unreasonable.
The more you post here, the more you keep proving my points. Go back and look at what you posted, seriously.
CDM: What "facts" and/or opinions could I (or any other conservative) offer that would change your mind about your core positions?
Let me know and I'll offer them.
Oso: I appreciate your response. The trouble with TARP and the Bail Outs is that they were all done with "community" money, that is, with your money and mine (taxes).
The government has no money of its own, only what it takes from the citizens, too often without our consent and too often used on things about which we have no voice.
The government produces nothing and thus contributes nothing to the Gross National Product. But the government makes decisions that affect individuals, corporations and the GNP.
Most of those decisions are for the benefit of the politicians (D & R) to the detriment of the citizens. And the politicians almost never ask for direct input from their constituents on a given issue...they just do what they want to do.
As to the small "bang for the buck," I believe the reason is that the idea of bailouts was faulty to begin with. It was based on the persistant idea that when something goes wrong, throw money at it and when that fails, throw some more money at it.
Where is the cut-off point to that philosophy?
hey guys thanks for coming by last night. I lost my internet connection(blizzard I guess) so I just went to bed, after Rachels great show.
Joe when I say GOP sucks, well just look at their record, I stand by my statement. If your blog is clean of name calling then good for you, but the conservative blogs I visit are ripe with filthy names thrown at Obama and liberals. Mine is tame in comparison.
just look at the diversity in the Democratic party and you will see we are not lock step mind numb robots. That my friend is what the members of the republican party are. Did any of the members EVER go against Bush the way dems are trying the patience of Obama?
Joe - Your pius attitude is keeping you from seeing the big picture. I'll give you another shot at looking at what you have said and see if you can spot your fundamental flaw.
And you wonder why people lose their rag and call you teabaggers...(hint)
Sue: That is why you are one of my favorite liberal bloggers.
I actually never intended to start commenting here, but I have to admit, it has been great fun.
CDM: Thanks for "giving" me a second shot at looking at my own comments. That certainly is not pius on your part, now is it?
I'm looking, I'm looking, I'm looking. Nope...I was right all along.
"And you wonder why people lose their rag and call you teabaggers..."
I don't wonder, I know. Vile people think in vile terms.
CD-you must be a barrel of laughs to live with.
Lisa
Joe,
My viewpoint is from the left but like you I also blame both parties.
I would disagree with cutting spending during a deep recession. If this were a typical business cycle recession, overheating leading to inflation, it might be advisable but this is a balance sheet recession, private sector paying down debt so there is very little demand there.
With the trade imbalance, the only way to increase demand is govt deficit spending.
As you know our debt was 120% of GDP following the war.It continued to rise but as GDP rose the percentage dropped dramatically.That is why I would urge we do not cut spending at this time but rather grow our way out of the deficit. As jobs would pick up tax revenue would also increase correspondingly,cutting the deficit. No need to raise taxes at this time but IMO the sunset clause should reset marginal rates next year.
Thoughts?
Oso: "Growing our way out of the recession" is certainly the whole idea. The issue is how to get it done.
Government spending has not produced jobs in the past and there is no evidence that it will now. The latest job figures, which are inflated by the exclusion of those who are no longer looking for work, indicate that we are still over what we were supposed to have been at: under 8%.
What will stimulate jobs is giving small business owners the confidence that their expenses will not be going up "unexpectedly" through having to pay for employees' health care, having regular taxes and "fees" raised, having to pay out more in Social Security taxes, and having to pay more in minimum wages.
When government spending is increased, the only way to cover the increase is to raise more money, that is: raise taxes enough to covert he spending. Failure to do so results in an increase in debt, because the money then has to be borrowed.
Living within your means is as productive for governments as it is for individuals.
Joe,
I would suggest govt spending has been very effective in creating jobs, albeit as a stopgap measure. Example would be the New Deal or Nixon's CETA program.
As the output gap closes and private sector hiring begins anew obviously it should be curtailed.Studies I've read indicate raising the minimum wage helps small businesses.saves on retraining costs and enables them to retain a more loyal employee.
I don't believe the deficit should be a bigger concern than the output gap, the difference between current GDP and it's potential. Rates are low, the debt is rolled over. I don't deny the deficit is a staggering figure but IMO it is manageable with the caveat that we grow GDP.
Watching MSNBC is like covering one eye. I recomment people cast their information net a little wider.
silver I think you can say for sure more liberals get their news from many, many sources compared to a very large segment of the conservative population just watching and trusting FOX for their news. That's why the right has no clue what is really happening around them.
Watching only Fox news is like covering the other eye.
we can agree on that silver. BTW, Thanks for being one of the NICE ones!
Here's something a little more balanced on Ryan's roadmap:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/12/paul_ryans_lonely_challenge.html
I'm not nice all the time, Sue, but I do try to be polite when I'm in someone else's house.
I find it interesting to see at what point someone gets bounced and why.
People get zot'd from Free Republic all the time for daring to criticize Sarah Palin. The other poster squeal for the mods to zap the offender and they usually get their way.
I don't get it...
Silver I do appreciate your politeness. I don't delete because someone disagrees with my politics, I do if someone attacks me, my friends or my blog.
...or they're some inane babbling from a "blogger" we all know.
Joe, I have seen and read some of the vile things that you have said and posted about Sue and many other liberal bloggers so don't come around sucking up and ass kissing pretending to be anyone's friend.
With friends like you we don't need any enemies.
President Obama is going to be around for a long time, get used to it.
It seems someone else gets what I was trying to say.
The only thing I didn't do was push Joe's nose directly into the pile of shit he was laying down here.
Great minds, Sue. I'd can't bitch at my legislators about this. We ran the Republicans out of office.
Post a Comment