Republican "holds" in the Senate, Bloomberg reports, are preventing two key economists from joining the President's Council of Economic Advisers.
March 2 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s economic advisers are increasingly concerned about the U.S. Senate’s delay in confirming the nominations of Austan Goolsbee and Cecilia Rouse to the White House Council of Economic Advisers.Goolsbee, who has a reputation for competence and centrism, and Rouse, who specializes in education policy, are hardly the most controversial figures. Unless one of them has tax or nanny problems, they are likely to be approved by unanimous consent. If there were ever a time when our country needed economists like a fire needs firefighters, this is it.
Without Senate confirmation, the two economists are barred from advising the president as the administration tackles the worst financial crisis in 70 years and tries to advance the spending plan Obama submitted to Congress last week.
Understaffing, indeed, has been part of the problem over at Treasury, and the source of some not-undeserved conservative critiques of Tim Geithner's underwhelming performance.
And yet, faced with a parallel situation over at the CEA (which, to be clear, is a separate office from Treasury), Republicans appear to be engaged in an active effort to make the Administration's life more difficult, apparently in a tit-for-tat over Democratic holds during the Bush administration.
This is fairly inside baseball stuff, and as such is not likely to generate a substantial backlash against McConnell & Co ... but to the extent it does get any attention, I can't see how it does anything other than to make them look like a bunch of obstructionist hacks. So why are they doing it?
The real reason is probably simply that there's a leadership vacuum in the Republican party. If someone wants to do something stupid and counterproductive -- and all it takes is one Senator to put a hold on a bill -- there is really nobody to keep him in line (except perhaps McConnell, who seems disinclined to use his authority).
But if someone wanted to make the case that the Republicans were actively trying to promote the Administration's failure, they'd be hard pressed to find a better example.
167 comments
I can't think of a single reason that's productive to engage in this type of filibustering, except to consistently create a chronic understaffing problem so they could blame the administration later. But that seems like something you could call out in time.
unless the president has got any nominee for whom he's relying on the good will of the republican party to approve without a scathing fight, i frankly am not sure why he wouldn't make a scene out of it. It would suck a lot of air out of the room.
.
Of course, doing it now would, yes, plunge repubs in a more bottomless abyss, but it doesn't really give any strategic upper hand since no bill really has to be passed right now.
.
but the conservative message is getting united around the idea that the president is the cause of the market plunge. If they weren't confirmed by unanimous vote, then the president could make a firmer argument against playing politics in this current climate, and why 'some' people need to stop listening to rush if they wanna get results. *just like he did the first time*
That such a thing as a "senatorial hold" exists is beyond outrageous.
It is a custom,not a senate rule.It is done secretly.The senator placing the hold is not even named.One senator is able to thwart the desires of the other 99.Totally unbelievable!
I'm not sure how a hold is placed.I would guess that a hold request is made to the majority or minority leader who announces it.And that's it.
I don't believe there is a process,similar to cloture,to force the removal of a hold.Only the senator who placed the hold can get it removed.
And remember this:it is possible for a senator to place a hold on a bill that has already received cloture approval to be voted on!
This is precisely why everything is happening so quickly these days. Obama knows the Republicans not only want him to fail, they'll do everything in their power to make him fail if they can.
The 'honeymoon' period immediately post-election is traditionally when a President's approval ratings are the highest they'll ever be. Obama's are especially high, and he's learned that he can get the people to apply pressure to their legislators on key policy issues. While the GOP has been resistant to this, the impression that creates is one of the GOP legislators deliberately ignoring their constiuents. They can get away with that for now, but if it remains a consistent theme it may stick in people's memory that their legislator simply doesn't care what the electorate thiks, and refuses to represent his constituents, hewing to the Party line at all costs. Obama may be hoping that the fear of this impression forming in the electorate's minds' may be enough to drive legislators away from the GOP fold.
The Limbaugh-Steele thing also makes the GOP look spineless. Will it stick? If so, 2010 will be a very good year for Democrats.
anyway, Obama will use his honeymoon phase to get as much legislation passed as he possibly can-he has to get it all done before his approval ratings decline and Blue Dogs start falling off the wagon.
I hope he succeeds.
From the Senate's glossary (http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/hold.htm)
hold - An informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator's wishes, but is on notice that the opposing Senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure.
Let's see how much spine Reid has to get these nominations moving.
Mike in Maryland raises an important point. I say get the fight started. Its time for the Democratic Party to show its steel and get on with governing. It wasn't just Obama that won it was the Democratic Party that won out in Congress and in state houses across the country. Time to draw the lines, time to say to moderates on both sides are you going to give the President your support or stand in the way and be obstructionist, even obver the appointment and confirmation of advisers?
Unfortunately, this is not limited to the Republicans, Senator Menendez of New Jersey has put a hold on two science nominations (Presidential Science adviser and the administrator of NOAA) as reported in the Washington Post. As a scientist, this is greatly disheartening as we need to get scientists back running our government science organizations. The Post claims that the holds are completely unrelated to the qualifications or abilities of either nominee, but are instead related to Cuba polices.
I think it is time for Obama to quit playing nice, lets get the stuff on the economy done, and when it turns he can put in any program he wants. Until then, lets focus - IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!
I've said here before that the excitement coming from the left has less to do with Obama and more to do with something that Obama is not, and that's Bush. When the base is rallying behind something that they're not instead of what they are, support will wane quickly.
It would be interesting for someone to do some research on this site to determine how many posts and blogs are Pro Obama vs. how many are Anti Bush/Rove/Limbaugh/Steel.
DNFTT
Well, since a Troll has said it before, it therefore follows that the syllogism based on the Troll speaking must also be true.
And, for good measure, the Troll has been kind enough to give those willing to play along an assignment of sorts, to disprove a negative and then give a quantitative percentage for a qualitative measure.
Taken directly from WIKI:
Usage
Application of the term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking its proponent.
Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".[11]
Frequently, someone who has been labelled a troll by a group may seek to redeem their reputation by discrediting their opponents, for example by claiming that other members of the group are closed-minded, conspirators, or trolls themselves.
GOPers Hold Up Obama's Deputy AG Nominee
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) confirmed today that Republicans are holding up approval of David Ogden, President Obama's nominee to be deputy attorney general. From Leahy's remarks in the committee this morning:
Despite the strong support from law enforcement groups, children's advocates, civil rights organizations and former Democratic and Republican officials, and despite this Committee's bipartisan vote, Republican Senators have now chosen to filibuster the second of President Obama's nominations reported by this Committee. This is not a good start.
Ogden did win approval in committee, as Leahy notes, from senior Judiciary GOPer Arlen Specter (PA) as well as Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). But we know who doesn't like him: the right.
Family Research Council fellow Cathy Ruse, in a recent op-ed for CNSNews.com, outlined the conservative case against Ogden, focusing on his past defense of abortion providers and the porn industry. Focus on the Family is also mobilizing its members this week to call for Ogden's defeat.
Late Update: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is expected to file for cloture on Ogden's nomination this week, according to Leahy's office -- meaning that Republicans will be challenged to put their money where their mouth is soon enough.
As one person commented: So it's Coburn? Cornyn? God help us if Kyl and Graham are 'moderates'.
Or rather, God help the RushPigliKKKan Party if Kyl and Graham are moderates. Particularly Kyl, he's fucking insane.
Joe -
I take it that you consider "disruptive posts" any post that you don't agree with?
If you don't agree with something a "troll" posts, why don't you state your argument and give some facts to back it up?
538 could restrict users to this site and kick off anyone who doesn't fit into a certain ideology.
To be sure, we already have Free Republic for that...
deria - where you go to get the milk-a
GROG
If you post an opinion, that would be a fine post. If you post some facts, that would be a fine post. If you used facts to draw some conclusion, that would be a fine post.
However, if you post an opinion and then draw a conclusion, without posting any facts, then this is trolling. If instead of doing the work yourself, you ask others to go on a wild-goose chase of data-mining while posting off-topic to change the agend, then this is trolling.
To play along:
Really, the excitement about President Obama is the same as the "excitement" about Senator Kerry, Vice President Gore, Governor Michael Dukakis and Vice President Walter Mondale? The excitement is less than or not equal to the excitement of President Bill Clinton?
I would posit that the NEW VOTER REGISTRATION and FIRST TIME VOTER statistics that Nate and Sean had previously stated, along with the anecdotal but timely grass-roots reporting that Sean did during the election showed that President Obama's campaign was as transformative as Ronald Reagan's, John Kennedy's and Franklin Roosevelt's.
Also, any election where states like North Carolina, Indiana and my new-found Commonwealth of Virginia vote Democratic for the first time in 40 years would be evidence of a transformative campaign FOR President Obama.
In my humble opinion, your analysis about being AGAINST President George W Bush correlates with the campaigns of Senators Kerry and Clinton. The ones that did not energize the base nor grew the base. Even so, it was little more than opinion.
In the final analysis, I am not the arbiter of content on 538. I know how to bypass the more severe trolls that use drive-by cut and paste methods. I appreciate that Nate and Sean have pretty much allowed free form blogging here and only have blocked the most heinous of offenders. I relish hearing conservative postings, independent postings and liberal postings of merit.
Well, I don't know how Joe defines it, but I would define a disruptive post as one that has nothing whatsoever to do with the original article.
Which makes this disruptive as well. Oops. That's what happens when trolls get fed.
It's appalling that Harry Reid saw fit to ignore a hold placed on the FISA modifications by Chris Dodd, but doesn't have the backbone to do the same to Republican holds.
I am sure the Democrats have never held up Republican appointments. Yawn this is just politics. Both sides do it. Move on Next topic.
The DNC is holding a contest (and a fund raiser). Buy the message on the billboard near Rush's home (compound?).
The billboard shows the middle of a rotund guy holding a large cigar.
My choice: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and an idiot is just an idiot.
I am sure the Democrats have never held up Republican appointments. Yawn this is just politics. Both sides do it. Move on Next topic.
Great point, nova. That's the frustrating thing with this site, although I won't "whine" too much about it lest we rekindle yesterday's discussion and have that shouting match and insult parade all over again. But it's the litany of posts on 538 that call out Republicans for some kind of "deviant" behavior that Democrats are just as guilty of doing.
It's like:
OMG. John McCain said ABC. Senate Republicans did XYZ. I can't believe it!!
Yeah, well Howard Dean said DEF and Senate Democrats did UVW that are just as obstructionist, partisan, etc. as ABC and XYZ. So what's the point?!
wv: devased - to degrade the quality or character of a fancy flower pot
Matthew H -
My comment had everything to with the article because it's yet another one about so called Republican obstructionism and little about the vision, future, hope, and change of the Obama administration.
And your comment was followed by yet another Rush Limbaugh comment by STepper. I find it intriguing. Call me a troll then.
The hysterical reaction to Obama by the Republicans and right wing commentators is interesting.
I strongly defend my conjecture that the reaction is hysterical. It's crystal clear, contrary to the comment of nova_middle_man, that the Republican minority is behaving in a far more obstructionist manner than the Democratic majority did, for better or for worse, under Bush.
Are they just doing their jobs, as they see them?
Or is it more likely that this is a backhanded vote of confidence in Obama?
Why go crazy trying to stop something that isn't going to work anyway?
I think there's a great deal of fear on the right that Obama will succeed.
Obama - you predicted the unemployment rate would peak at 8.1% this summer do to your great fancy new stimulus - Ummm - to all of our horror we are already at 8.1%. It sure does not look like the stimulus is coming fast enough...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/124458-obama-s-unemployment-forecast-much-too-rosy
Grog,
I think it,s actually more than Bush or Obama. It's about the issues themselves, divorced from the personalities of the Presidents.
Which is as it should be.
Hard for me to think of someone I'd want advising Obama LESS than Austin "NAFTA is God" Goolsbee. Well other than Geithner and Summers who should be sent packing.
Thank goodness!
...that Obama will succeed...
At what? You need to finish your sentence. Succeed at overhauling our financial and economic system in a responsible way that protects free markets and capitalism and individual property rights and liberties in the long-run and usher in a new age of prosperity? Or succeed at transforming this country around his narrow ideological view, which may or may not have dire consequences down the road and how we perceive freedom?
If it's the former, I think most anyone would argue they want success at some level. If it's the latter, then yeah, there's plenty of fear to go around and not just from "right wingers."
I disagree with Grog's assertion that most of what is posted on here is Anti Bush/GOP as opposed to pro Obama. I am not saying that there isn't any anti Bush stuff now, but I think generally, when left to our own devices most posters have been quite positive right now.
That being said there has been as much anti Obama stuff, thanks to a small handful of posters, as anything else probably.
And actually I think that most people are very positive about Obama's plans on certainly a few issues. I think there are the same concerns from some quarters about the size of the deficit, amongst others things. But those are relatively small issues in terms of support for Obama. And I would much prefer a 60% odd approval rating than the measly number Bush ended on.
Now the GOP really are just opposing for the sake of opposition, and have nothing of any value to add to policy discussions at the moment it seems.
Welcome to the Obama-Nation
From the AP:
“The nation's unemployment rate bolted to 8.1 percent in February, the highest since late 1983, as cost-cutting employers slashed 651,000 jobs amid a deepening recession.
Both figures were worse than analysts expected and the Labor Department's report shows America's workers being clobbered by a wave of layoffs unlikely to ease in the coming months.
‘There is no light at the end of the tunnel with these numbers,’ said Nigel Gault, economist at IHS Global Insight. ‘ Job losses were everywhere and there's no hope for a turnaround any time soon.’"
This is what Obama has brought: A dearth of confidence and a growing and accelerating fear that things are going from bad to worse. The economy will stay mired in this mess for a long time -- until Obama reverses course, thinks about deficit reduction and forgets about creating his Nanny State.
George Bush and his spending is said to have gotten us into this mess, now we are doubling down with Obama who is making Bush look like a miser!
What this country needs is Ronald Reagan again!
PK, and any other GOP 'troll'
Look at the trends on all the economic factors. None of them started when Obama came to office. Lets take unemployment as those are the most up to date. February's jobless totals follow pretty much on a continuos line from those that go back to September and October last year (so you can't even blame Obama being elected). I appreciate a partisan interest on your part to tar Obama as a failure even before he has had a chance to succeed, but then again in september and october you were saying with certainty he would lose, so its not like your judgements on Obama have a great record.
I mean honestly, what were you expecting? Everything to turn around just because of who the President is? Economic policies take time to have an effect, so lets not rush to judge policies that haven't even had time to reach the market yet.
Those that yawn and portray these obstructionist games as nothing new are correct. . . And they are complete jackasses.
To pretend that childish tactics, no matter how commonly employed, are appropriate durring the current challenges facing this country is completely idiotic.
However, I do not believe it is up to Obama to put an end to this crap. Reid needs to grow a pair and stop giving the republicans a free pass when it comes to their obstructionist tactics. Every time a poor little republican acts as though his feelings may be hurt, Reid bends over backwards to accomidate. He needs to start calling their bluffs, or this will go on and on.
Nate should stop whining and should instead be using his influence and the pulpit he has hear to convince Obama that his being in permanent campaign mode is destroying any chance at achieving the bi-[artisan ship he craves.
Obama seems incapable of governing and the meme is taking hold that, in fact, his White House does not know what it is doing from a governance standpoint. He is, however, a very stylish and speaks very well in public, appearing both clean and articulate. But all the attendant theatrics and trappings of power do not make for leadership or the kind of execution the country demands as things sink lower and lower into an economic abyss (see my earlier post).
Obama himself did not cause the troubles we are in, but it is his task now to fix things and his scattershot approach and his crisis-mongering is going down very badly. Bad things are getting worse.
Statler says that Obama's approval ratings are "especially high". I heard a commentator say the other day that Shrub's were actually higher at this point in his term. Could that be? Maybe they meant the father?
Hey,
Has anyone noticed that the Omnibus Seopnding Bill failed to clear cloture last night?
Is a new coalition of economuic conservatives including moderate Democratics from hearland states taking shape that will thwart Obama's agenda?
Or is Rush limbaugh the only thing y'all care about?
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Thanks to fred @930 for holding Obama accountable for his promises . . . .
MN:
"Hard for me to think of someone I'd want advising Obama LESS than Austin "NAFTA is God" Goolsbee. Well other than Geithner and Summers who should be sent packing."
Who will that leave? Rahm Emmanuel or Obama himself running the economy?
Obama doesn't even know what a price-earnings ratio is! Talk about being out of touch! it is much more alarming , if you think about it, than Bush the Elder not knowing what a price scanner at the supermarket was.
Nicely put, Mad!
Markymark:
As Fred at 930 pointed out Obama promised us that unemployment would peak at 8.1% this summer thanks to his stimuless. That number is already here.
Business can sense hostility from government and they are battening down the hatches and staying deep in their fox holes.
Obama is making a bad situation worse.
Can't y'all see that?
Listent to the commentators on CNBC they are virtually all saying that Obama has desclared war on business.
In fact he seems to be winning: government was one of tow sectors (health care the other) that actually added jobs last month.
America -- a nation of bureaucrats!
Whoa, I didn't know Carter was president in 1983.
Oh wait...
Porridge,
I think the point being amde was that Carter was at fault for what went on in 1983, much the eay you will claim Bush is at fault for the problems we expereince in 2011!
Pete, sorry to burst your bubble but CNBC have had their worst week in living memory.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252&title=cnbc-gives-financial-advice
CNBC stays mum after takedown by Jon Stewart
NEW YORK (AP) — CNBC chose not to fight back on Thursday following Jon Stewart's brutal takedown of the network and its reporter, Rick Santelli, for backing out of an appearance on "The Daily Show."
Stewart's criticism of Santelli was reminiscent of David Letterman's relentless attacks on Republican John McCain for canceling a "Late Show" appearance during the campaign last fall.
Santelli had become an online video star when copies of his criticism of President Barack Obama's housing plan streamed across the Web. He accepted an invitation to be on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" Wednesday but changed his mind.
After saying that Santelli had "bailed out," Stewart played a series of clips highlighting wrong predictions by CNBC during the economic meltdown.
Where's the journalism here (referring to the Bloomberg article, not this post)? Why don't they find out who placed the holds? Why don't they ask Harry Reid's office if he's willing to ignore them, seeing as they're pointless and retaliatory?
So, you're conceding that 8 years of Bush economic policy is responsible for the current mess President Obama, who afterall has only been in office for 6 weeks, is trying the clean up? Is that correct, Pete?
Too bad about Santelli. I like the guy and think it pretty nasty how the White House has ganged up on him and how predictable that their media friends would do their dirty work for them as well.
This is fast becomming an administration that the private citizen is not allowed to criticize for fear of being denounced and ridiculed.
It's all vaguely Stalinist, don't you think?
I thought this had to do with the Democratic Senator from New Jersey and his opposition to the administration contemplating being more open with Cuba.
Believe me, I think the Republicans deserve a lot of scorn, but correct me if I'm wrong here.
Porridge,
In reply to your post at 1119 I was simply assuming for purposes of argument that Bush is responsible for all that was past. Also, being a touch ironic about "President Carter's" economic policy in 1983.
Obama with his dramatic moves and vision clearly owns this thing now. You know, "You break it, you buy it!"
Santelli is an argumentative windbag who knows next to nothing about most topics he talks about - the only guy on the channel worth watching is Liesman, but he is on so little I find the channel almost unwatchable.
PETE KENT is suffering from ods already, Obama derangement syndrome!
Obama cannot be blamed for anything that has happened except not kissing wall streets butt which in turn may have contributed to the bad stock market.
This system just doesn`t work, the GOP is doing everything to stop Obama, we need about 62 senate seats to accomplish his agenda and then if things stay bad he will be to blame, right now it`s mostly Bushes fault. In reality it all stems from Reagans deficits back in the 80`s but that`s another story.
Mad -
At what? You need to finish your sentence. Succeed at overhauling our financial and economic system in a responsible way that protects free markets and capitalism and individual property rights and liberties in the long-run and usher in a new age of prosperity?
I don't know about an "age" of prosperity, but YES, this is approximately what I mean by success.
And this is what the right FEARS. This is what they don't want. It would force them to re-evaluate their simple-minded ideology.
It's possible that this doesn't apply to you personally
Or succeed at transforming this country around his narrow ideological view,
I perceive Obama as pragmatist, rather than an ideologue. His policies are hardly much different from what is mainstream in Canada, UK, Australia, Western Europe, and Japan.
which may or may not have dire consequences down the road and how we perceive freedom?
This is an outrageous statement to make at a time when George W. Bush has just been removed from office.
If it's the former, I think most anyone would argue they want success at some level.
I'm absolutely sure that you're wrong and that most ideological conservatives would desperately try to block Obama initiatives all the more if they thought the initiatives would substantially improve the quality of life for the vast majority of Americans.
What they want is to impose an ideology which they believe (mistakenly) is in their own self-interest.
That's my very strong impression of what the hysteria means.
Anyone can see that Canada and Australia haven't fallen apart economically or lost "freedom". WE lost freedoms under Bush.
If it's the latter, then yeah, there's plenty of fear to go around and not just from "right wingers."
My impression is that there is very little fear that Obama's specific proposals are harmful.
Rather, there is a willingness to see how they work on the part of the majority.
And a desperate fear that they will have beneficial effects on the part of the ideological right.
This is fast becomming an administration that the private citizen is not allowed to criticize for fear of being denounced and ridiculed.
I'd rather be denounced and ridiculed than thrown in Gitmo, Pete.
Grog- You were the first person on the thread to mention Bush. It's not a continuation of anything.
Nobody's supporting Obama because he's not-Bush. Maybe because he's not-McCain, not-Colburn, or not-Limbaugh. During Obama's pseudo State of the Union, some Republicans pointed out that he never mentioned his predecessor, and Democrats almost never mention him, except in terms of bringing him to trial. There is no anti-Bush euphoria.
Getting back to the subject, I don't blame the Republicans for this. I blame Reid. He'd better get back on board or declare himself an opponent of Obama.
Ah, Pete Kent, the seer of the assinine..."Obama with his dramatic moves and vision clearly owns this thing now. You know, "You break it, you buy it!""...Interesting hypothesis, of course, usually I think it takes more than 42 days for even the most basic of economic policies to drastically alter the way business is done, let alone the 2-4 weeks most of these has been announced/passed, but why let facts get in the way of a good talking point ( I guess i'm back to being a socialist). Furthermore, I would say that what makes the people involved in the market the best arbiter of sound economic policy, haven't we learned that with regards to the companies alone these people are suppossed to know the best, they got it totally wrong based on current profit shortfalls/liability rises? So if they can't be successful judging what best course is for what they know the most about in one small instance, what would make me believe they know for the larger economy as a whole?...To the 2 above posters amenting Democratic holds, I don't completely disagree, as Bush had a small minority of judicial appoinments held up...But look into the archives of 2001, were there this many battles over smaller posts, like deputy to the deputy of agricultural affairs or the like? It's insanity that 2 of the top, mostly considered moderate economic advisors (Goolsbee) are being held up when everyone on all sides knows the economy is tanking...The equivalent would have been that instead of grilling Gates, Petreaus during a time of war, if Democrats decided to not vote on them for months so bush didn't have advisors during a time of war...It's not just politics, it's ridiculousness.
This is fast becomming an administration that the private citizen is not allowed to criticize for fear of being denounced and ridiculed.
So, you HATE FREEDOM.
Sorry, PK, I'm trying not to dump on you to much.
But seriously, this is a free country and people have a perfect RIGHT to denounce and ridicule you. And vice versa.
Apparently, you want to live in a system where you can denounce and ridicule others, but others are censored and punished if they denounce and ridicule you.
That kind of system has a name. It's called a TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP.
It's not what Obama wants, and the proof is that Obama is president, and you ridicule and denounce him every day.
Dictatorship seems to be what YOU want. Do you really hate America's freedom so much?
I'm absolutely sure that you're wrong and that most ideological conservatives would desperately try to block Obama initiatives all the more if they thought the initiatives would substantially improve the quality of life for the vast majority of Americans.
Now THAT is an outrageous statement to make! Nothing more needs said except that you should be ashamed of yourself. Everyone should read and re-read this statement from harold and see just how deranged the views of the far left are and their grotesque and warped perceptions of conservative Americans.
Of course we want Obama to fail. If he succeeds, we will live in a european socialist state, with a lack of productivity, innovation, high unemployment and a stagnant or falling per capita standard of living.
You may yet see serious talk of state succeeding from the union. Idaho doesn't want to pay for the mistakes of CA and NY. The states that want to continue in a dependancy state can rename themselves the European States of America. The remaining states would be called the United States of America.
We will take back the country from the socialists.
I'm kind of apalled by the idea that anyone would hope the government, any government, fails to improve the quality of life for Americans.
It's a bit like saying, "If we can't rule, then everyone, the whole country, must be punished!"
How dictatorial.
It also shows no regard for your country. I thought you were supposed to sacrifice yourself for the greater good of the entire nation, not destroy the country out of spite when it elects someone other than you.
Harold - you are so right. Conservatives love to criticize and then whine and play victim when they are criticized back.
So harold, answer me honestly. The question being thrown around consistently in recent days is who wants Obama to fail and what that means specifically.
But now I'm asking you a simple question. Do you truly believe (some, most, or all) conservative Americans want to hold back improvements to the quality of life of the citizens of this country? Do you TRULY believe that? I won't deny that there may be a few hundred (or a couple thousand or so) sick and twisted sadists and anarchists in this country who truly think we're "better off" if there is discord and suffering and if the quality of life is held back, but don't think for a minute that the vast majority of conservatives don't want the quality of life in this country to improve and improve for everyone.
This is reminiscent of Bush/Cheney and Co. denouncing detractors of the war effort and suggesting they all wanted to see more death/destruction in Iraq/Afghanistan to further political goals. Just like that was digusting, so are your remarks.
PK,
How can you say that Obama is making the situation worse, when all the major economic indicators (including stock prices and unemployment) are following the same trend set when Bush was President? All you can say is that after 5 1/2 weeks in office he has failed to arrest the decline that started when Bush was President. How can you possibly claim that is long enough to make a judgement. After all the unemployment numbers released today are from February. Obama had only been in office 11days at the start of that period.
If the rise in unemployment is Obama's fault please explain to me exactly what it is he has done to cause a rise in unemployment?
Jack may be nimble but wits are not his strong suit:
As of 2004, state benefit from federal tax dollars received per dollar put in:
Top 10:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
Bottom 10:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
looks like your buddies in arms are living more like government run states to me...
your production standard of living argument is interest, maybe you should take a look at the GDP by state as well, see whose producing more output and higher living standards:
http://www.bea.gov/regional/gsp/action.cfm
The Republicans have been playing the 'call the Democrats Socialists' game since long before the days of McCarthy. I think what most sensible Americans hear when they spout off on that meme is that noise that the adults in the Peanuts cartoons always made.
Idaho doesn't want to pay for the mistakes of CA and NY.
But they have no problem letting CA and NY pay for their infrastructure.
Wow, "Stalinist" oppression of dissent? I mean, I'm sure that if *Stalin* accused you of not reading his latest 5-year plan, and invited you for decaf, I could understand being a little cowed... but big, brave, fauxpulist Santelli is "intimidated" by Gibbs? Just further proof that the Right can dish it out, but can't take it in the least!
I suppose PK must have been *really* upset when the Bush administration, you know, called to threaten and cajole editors, kicked established journalists out of the WHPC in favor of gay escorts, and leaked national security secrets to discredit opponents...
"Idaho doesn't want to pay for the mistakes of CA and NY."
And as a New Yorker, I'd very much like to see my tax dollars stay here, rather than being used to prop up places like Alaska, Alabama, and, yes, Idaho -- which apparently couldn't survive on their own. Ah, such rugged individuals! They'd never suckle at the teat of those coastal elites!
Idaho's got to be the worst- always whining for more money from the Feds while at the same time declaring their 'independence'. If Idaho had to pay for their own stuff, they wouldn't have paved roads, or even electricity. Both paid for by the Feds using money from high population centers decades ago. Even now, things like postal service and telephones in Idaho are subsidized by other states.
The only reason I'd be sorry to see Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming go is because they'd promptly go back to 1930s style smoke-belching factories that would poison the water supply as far East as Minnesota.
And as a New Yorker, I'd very much like to see my tax dollars stay here, rather than being used to prop up places like Alaska, Alabama, and, yes, Idaho -- which apparently couldn't survive on their own. Ah, such rugged individuals! They'd never suckle at the teat of those coastal elites!
New York - and New York City, in particular - would be a powerless (electricity, that is) shit hole if not for "help" it receives from surrounding states and Canads most notably. You need to do a little research before spewing garbage about who is and who isn't "suckling at teats."
@ Saintdude totally agree
What I find hilarious is the false outrage by some over this. These are the same people that would be joyful if the situation was reversed.
With that said excellent comments overall today. My main post was directed at Nate. He is starting to channel Shaun which is scaring me. Comments and commenteres have been on point across the spectrum for the most part.
The places that can't "survive as individuals" in the places you speak of are mostly in urban areas, which are typically run by incompetent liberals and/or minorities.
Joel (clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer!) wrote @1133:
"In reality it all stems from Reagans deficits back in the 80`s but that`s another story"
Ah, so now we have the most monumental deficts in the history of the world both in absolute and relative terms under Obama and Joel expects us to belive that the cure for Reagan's posion is to drink more, only faster!
Quoting me, the ludicrous Jonathan wrote (@1144):
"This is fast becomming an administration that the private citizen is not allowed to criticize for fear of being denounced and ridiculed.
I'd rather be denounced and ridiculed than thrown in Gitmo, Pete."
It seems this clown want to give citizenship to terrorists!
Mad -
But now I'm asking you a simple question. ...don't think for a minute that the vast majority of conservatives don't want the quality of life in this country to improve and improve for everyone.
I compressed the quote for space reasons, see Mad's comment above for the full version.
First of all, Mad, you've convinced me that you, personally, don't have this attitude.
However, I'm not the only one to have been given this impression by other conservatives.
You also said -
Now THAT is an outrageous statement to make! Nothing more needs said except that you should be ashamed of yourself. Everyone should read and re-read this statement from harold and see just how deranged the views of the far left are and their grotesque and warped perceptions of conservative Americans.
You're first two sentences are understandable if you, personally, don't have the characteristic I described.
I'm a far cry from the far left, this is a far cry from a far left site, and there are very few far left posters here. I can assure you that the far left is not at all fond of my comments in other sites.
Meanwhile, as you were writing that, Jack-Be-Nimble was writing this.
Of course we want Obama to fail. If he succeeds, we will live in a european socialist state, with a lack of productivity, innovation, high unemployment and a stagnant or falling per capita standard of living.
What am I supposed to make of this? Does he seriously believe that EU countries have command economies, lack innovation, etc? Any fool can use Google to determine that they mainly don't lag the US on any of that, and are far ahead on indicators such as crime, life expectancy, and infant mortality. What about Canada, Australia, and the UK? Are they "socialist" countries with the characteristics he describes?
And then there the innumerable comments about "revolution" on other right wing sites. What the heck is anyone supposed to make of that? The Republicans lose a couple of elections and the democratically elected government should be violently overthrown? Even when the president has high approval ratings from a majority?
Look, I'm sorry, and I know it sounds cynical, and I know it's a subjective impression.
But yes, for the time being I'm beginning to feel as if a lot of conservatives care more about "winning" and imposing their ideology, than about the overall good of the American people.
You've convinced me that this doesn't apply to YOU.
I'm ready and willing to be convinced that I'm wrong about others. Let them start convincing me.
Needless to say, the senatorial hold is utter bullsh*t, and I don't care which party is using it. I am suprised that, while reporting on the consequences seems to be OK, reporting on the cause is not.
John, who is not much of an observer of what has been going on, writes (@1155):
" usually I think it takes more than 42 days for even the most basic of economic policies to drastically alter the way business is done, let alone the 2-4 weeks most of these has been announced/passed, but why let facts get in the way of a good talking point"
It seems you have not been paying attention: Obama want to remake the world in his first 100 days. Hence the crisis talk and the trillions of dollars of new spending and social engineering that he has enacted or proposed.
Don't kid yourself, John, the genie is already out of the bottle and that's why the economy is crumbling!
To your point (which was hard to penetrate b/c you don't seem to know how to use the paragraph key), while there may be a handful of Wall St. execs who are responsible for the current decline in stock prices, much of the blame can be laid on longer term secular trends from which these same people (and their shareholders) reaped great rewards.
That we lost 600,000 more people to joblessness and that unemployment now stands at a 26 year high (!) says a lot more about general economic conditions and a lack of confidence in the Obama administration that what Waggoner might have done at GM or Pandit at Citi.
Harold's post at 1156 is inpentrable nonsense!
Statler,
Do you write talking points for Obama?
You wrote (@1214): "I'm kind of apalled by the idea that anyone would hope the government, any government, fails to improve the quality of life for Americans."
None of us on the Right want to see anything but imporvement is the lives of Amercians. In fact we fear terribly about how we will all suffer is Obama succeeds in enacting his dangerous agenda into law.
We hope he fails.
The places that can't "survive as individuals" in the places you speak of are mostly in urban areas, which are typically run by incompetent liberals and/or minorities.
What is that comment supposed to mean? It sounds racist. I'm sure you'll deny that you are racist, but what I said is that it sounds racist. Feel free to convince me otherwise.
You were just shown that this the opposite of the truth at any rate. Even though some urban areas are poor, once again, here are the stats for federal dollars received per dollar put in. Look who is putting in less than they take out. New York city pays for the electricity and water it gets from upstate and Canada (mainly not from other states).
Top 10:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
Bottom 10:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
Pete, the problem is that you're not very rational. I've been pleasantly surprised by Grog, and actually kind of enjoy debating with him, because he is not prone to hyperbole the way you are and doesn't resort to shouting insults at me, even though we have very, very different points of view.
If you were to try to be more like him, civil, rational, and calm, I would gladly engage you. But as it is, you're behaving like a child.
You seem to enjoy throwing verbal bombs, but can't engage in reasoned discourse.
So don't waste my time. Grog, if you're listening, I'd be more than happy to engage with you, however. I do enjoy our discussions, and I see the potential for real understanding of the other side in them.
The places that can't "survive as individuals" in the places you speak of are mostly in urban areas, which are typically run by incompetent liberals and/or minorities.
I will ignore your racism for now.
Most red states get more assistance from the feds than they pay in.
Most blue states get less assistance from the feds than they pay in.
Since you are ignorant, as your posts clearly demonstrate, allow me to color you a picture in crayons:
The incompetent right wingers and rednecks who run red states need help from those states that get less than a $1 per $1 given to the federal government. This means that Idaho, Alabama, Montana, etc depend on the scary liberals just to survive.
But don't let that stop you from frothing at the mouth and screaming that the majority of America rejects your insane ideas.
Gee, Mad: "You need to do a little research before spewing garbage about who is and who isn't 'suckling at teats.'"
I dunno, but I just kinda figured that if one state is giving more money than it gets back, and another is getting more than it puts it, it's the latter that's "suckling" at the Federal teat. Maybe you could lay some convoluted logic on me to explain how my state, New York, losing almost 20 cents on every federal tax dollar it sends is "suckling," and Alaska, getting 1.82 back from the Feds for every dollar it puts in isn't?
I particuarly love that you point to that libertarian bastion of free-marketeering, Canada, as the lifeline of New York. I never knew you were such a fan of theirs!
w: "hellis" - I'd say the economic situation is hellis, because I can't afford a second "h."
I agree with peteKent, who knew. My lack of use of the paragraph key is a bit annoying, for that I apologize. As far as your rebuttal, I find it lacking in common sense, to be quite honest. Yes, Obama is looking to be transsformational in the first hundred days as a policy initiator, it does not mean the benefits of those policies were ever expected to be seen in the first 100 days, government, nor business moves that quickly.
As far the rest of your post goes, if you want to engage in the discourse of why we shouldn't believe this really weird memo put out by some that the most recent indicators indicate a lack of faith in the president, we need look no further than the current economic conditions of which you speak. Most companies appear to be experiencing quite a liquidity crisis, which in turn is forcing them to scale back. This is due to historical performance, not some sort of future prediction of any policy, none of these people know better than you or I what any of these policies will eventually do. If they did, we would have never gotten into this mess to begin with.
Your pinning this on a few "wall street executives" is unfortunate. Unfortunately most everyone made fool hardy decisions to ignore the pending issues because most everyone was making money hand over fist, it was started with a lack of regulation on down. We have had this discussion before, relying on people who directly profit from risky decisions to in turn regulate themselve (completely free hand) is a path to disaster. Balance is key, young grasshopper. Now your end note on Obama having more responsibility in this then the people who were in charge of companies that never fully collaterilized debt nor guarded for the worst case scenerio (which is why we compensate so well as holders of the companies) is a scary symptom of a derangement toward Obama than anything that could possibly be presented as fact.
You guys are impossible. I've never seen a more hard-headed group of ideologues than the once that troll the comments section of 538. You deny, spin, twist, etc. every single fact that's out there.
Go look up the "money in, money out" breakdown of those states again - more carefully, this time. Aggregating at the state level makes affluent New England states look like "saviors" to all of those pathetic "teat-sucking" red states. That's misleading. My point is that cities - that are urban, poor, and mostly (very) Democratic or liberal - are to blame for this discrepancy. Hell, look at the number one on your list - D.C. with a more than $6 difference. That should tell you something right there as D.C. more closely resembles a "city" than a "state."
Those are the ones sucking the teats - the cities - who are run by Democrats/liberals.
Oh, and regardless of federal dollars used versus paid, look at how the individual state's perform on their own budgets. California, run primarily by hard left liberals - and don't give me shit about them having a Rep governor as he's as liberal of a Rep as they come - has gone absolutely bankrupt. Care to explain that?
The Menendez hold on Holdren and Lubchenko is particularly pernicious because it is against removing some aspects of the blockade: "objects to language in the bill that would allow Cuban-Americans to visit relatives on the island once a year and end limits on the sale of American food and medicines in Cuba." Please contact him and complain (this is VERY easy to do)
http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
OH MY GOD this is too funny! I actually went and looked up the data at the Energy Information Administration, and it turns out that *IDAHO* uses almost twice as much electricity as it generates, while old teat-suckling New York actually generates a few thousand MORE mWh than it consumes! Actually, just enough to cover Idaho's deficit... Fancy that!
If I'm reading the data wrong, Mad, do let me know... I almost am afraid this info is too convenient for me to be true!
Here! Double-check my research!:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html
Mad: "Go look up the "money in, money out" breakdown of those states again - more carefully, this time. Aggregating at the state level makes affluent New England states look like "saviors" to all of those pathetic "teat-sucking" red states. That's misleading. My point is that cities - that are urban, poor, and mostly (very) Democratic or liberal - are to blame for this discrepancy."
Now one second -- the discrepancy we're talking about is that highly urbanized states (NY, CA, IL) get LESS federal aid per tax dollar than more rural states. So, if the cities are to blame then that would imply that they're not only carrying the burden of the rural states, but carrying a disproportionate burden WITHIN their own states!
If your logic were at least internally consistent, it'd be a heck of a lot easier to take seriously.
Also, throwing DC out there is a bit of a red herring, since as a Federal District, many of the functions states serve for municipalities is provided instead by the federal government. Kinda skews the numbers, ya know?
Buried somewhere above: the holds addressed in the article are Republican ones hampering getting up to speed in the new department dealing with the Reagan Bush meltdown (the one where deregulation allowed wealthy people to get wealthier by taking the money and running, paying less taxes than their lowliest dependents, leaving worthless paper in its place), but the Menendez (Dem) one is included.
For the price earnings cite suggest you look at the change in the ratio of debt to capital during the reign of your favorites (used to be about 40% capital, now ratio is over 30:1).
Surely states like Idaho are going to get more federal money through things like farm subsidies? I guess that might change as the jobless lines increase but what would you prefer in a recession? Millions of people starving in the USA?
"But if someone wanted to make the case that the Republicans were actively trying to promote the Administration's failure, they'd be hard pressed to find a better example."
If they'd actually believed their own philosophy, they'd have given President Obama everything he wanted and waited for the inevitable. But instead, they stand as obstructionists. Why? The likeliest scenario is that they're afraid he'll actually succeed. Ergo, they don't actually believe their own philosophy.
The sick, sad truth is that the RepubliCAN'T Party IS actively trying to promote a deeper recession in hopes of being able to paint the Obama policy as a failure.
But the public is starting to become aware of their little game, and WOE BETIDE them if they succeed.
Mad, wrong again. I happen to be a New Yorker, and it's a very well known fact in these parts that New York City pays out to the rest of the state in terms of net tax revenue, rather than t'other way around.
As a matter of fact, a big driving force behind the push for a Democratic majority in the State Senate (the first in a very long time, as a point of fact) was in the hopes that they would even out the balance sheets somewhat.
Nice try, though, really.
New York City is a different ballgame compared to Montgomery, AL, Jackson, MS, Little Rock, AR, Memphis, TN, New Orleans and Baton Rouge, LA, Jacksonville, FL...
...those are the kinds of cities I'm talking about. Stop with the bullshit apples to oranges comparisons using New York - the financial capital of the world - to two-bit shit holes that can't pay their own way. You misunderstood me from the beginning.
DaveNY, Good one!
But by now surely you know that for these people fact checking would be counterproductive. Aside from "learning a few things from the Taliban" they learned from Hitler et al.:
"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. [OSS report]"
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as [they] can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
Paul Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda
Mad, that's not what you said at 1:11
New York - and New York City, in particular - would be a powerless (electricity, that is) shit hole if not for "help" it receives from surrounding states and Canads most notably. You need to do a little research before spewing garbage about who is and who isn't "suckling at teats."
How was that not talking about NYC? Or is NYC the financial capital of the world a different NYC than the one run by liberals?
So, Mad -- your problem is primarily just with the cities in red states then? Why do the cities there suck so much, while apparently our big liberal nanny cities like New York (oh, let's say Boston instead, since I'm being unfair by using NYC, which of course has no problems with poverty, homelessness, hunger, etc), Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle and such do so well?
Mad, I apologize for this, but I must take you to task for not understanding the basics of California government. In California, they require a 2/3rds majority to pass a budget, something Democrats have never enjoyed. I know sharp right thinkers have difficulty understanding moderate Republicans, but most, such as the governor, aren't liberal, they are pragmatists, which your party has seemed to have gotten rid of due to the insistence on idealogy over basic facts...But to claim that Democrats are the reason Cali's budget is where it is is just ignorance of the state as a whole
This is in regard to those posts that suggest Democrats think conservatives want Americans to live in abject misery just to see Obama fail. I really do not think attacking the subconscious motives of a large portion of the populace is all that productive.
However, it is pretty clear that conservatives wish to see ever greater disparities of wealth in our country. You can see this from their policies (regressive taxes, unionbusting, pay your own way higher education and health care) and their opinions on such things as how much the average American should be earning (the "how dare those workers think they deserve health insurance, a retirement, and a middle class income for hard work 40+ hours a week!" factor). The cognitive leap they fail to make is that this necessitates a lower quality of life for the country as a whole. Sociologists are aware that even the wealthy are less happy under these circumstances. Think of the rich in pro-IMF Latin American countries that have to worry about being kidnapped for ransom when in public.
There is another point I don't think conservatives realize concerning an "Obama failure." Obama has not nationalized the banks (corporate management is still calling the shots even if we have bought some preferred stock), is pro-free trade, and his stimulus bill is very modest in size considering the magnitude of the problem. Further economic collapse will tarnish laissez faire capitalism just as strongly as the Soviet Union's collapse tarnished communism. Keep in mind the truly socialist nations of western Europe still maintain higher standards of living than we do as they have for some time.
John, don't apologize. One should never apologize for calling out intellectual dishonesty, and this guy is spouting off about things he knows nothing about, and shifting the goalposts of his arguments by the minute- the two hallmarks of the intellecually dishonest.
Okay, I can see I'm guilty of shifting the conversation point after going back and re-reading some of the comments. I still think some of that "fed dollars in versus fed dollars out" needs a much deeper analysis (more detailed geographic, demographic data) than the broad stroke you use to make assumptions at the state level.
It won't do any good to do that, however, as the liberal jackals that roam this site are out and looking to pounce on anyone who doesn't share their narrow view of the world and shout them down with their ideological ranting. That's pointless, so fugghedaboutit!
No Mad, what you are REALLY guilty of is talking out of your bigoted ass.
You should do a study of the number of nominees that Obama has gotten confirmed in the first 6 weeks compared to Clinton ('93), Bush ('01). It seems that would show how bad those Republicans are acting.
John, don't apologize. One should never apologize for calling out intellectual dishonesty, and this guy is spouting off about things he knows nothing about
I'll make a point about 'intellectual dishonesty' though, since you seem to be a shining example of just that.
Okay, so let's go back to the federal dollars put in versus federal dollars received comparison and take note of something. First of all, it's intellectually dishonest to suggest any state that is taking back more than it puts in is "suckling" on the government's teat.
These are federal dollars after all and go to support federal projects. With me so far? Okay, putting tax dollars into a North Dakota or Alabama or Mississippi or Idaho - whoever - for federal projects most likely goes to things that benefit the country as a whole and not just that particular state.
Think of maintenance of the interstate and bridge system - i.e. all infrastructure spending. Hey, yeah, those highways in BFE you help pay for with your New York City (or other big city) tax dollars goes to support infrastructure that helps our massive transportation system deliver goods - most notably being food and agriculture products - safely and timely to your front doorstep. You can't raise thousands of acres of corn in NYC or raise thousands of head of cattle or produce all kinds of electronics or other manufactured products. That shit has to be produced elsewhere. And for you to enjoy it - any of it - it has to be delivered to you. And for it to be delivered to you in the best possible way, we need a sound transportation system. What's wrong with you paying your share to help get those goods delivered to you up there in NYC? I mean, you guys are the party of paying your "fair share."
No Mad, what you are REALLY guilty of is talking out of your bigoted ass.
Was there an intelligent response in there or did I miss it? Guess it was just a drive-by insult. Welcome to the discussion. If you want to delve into the topic at hand, feel free. But to just come out of nowhere and talk shit is rather trollish.
You should do a study of the number of nominees that Obama has gotten confirmed in the first 6 weeks compared to Clinton ('93), Bush ('01). It seems that would show how bad those Republicans are acting.
Are you serious??? How then do you approach this accurately to point out Republican obstructionism when he's had several nominees be forced to withdraw from their own wrongdoings and misgivings. Richardson, Daschle, etc. and now even that Gupta fellow for surgeon general has withdrawn. Republicans had nothing to do with any of those positions (except Judd Gregg).
So Mad, all that money went to Alaska to build a road to get a computer by ship from China to NYC.
You are reaching, groping really. That corn? Well that's all well and good. Growing food is important stuff!. Of course that is factored into those dollar figures though.
It isn't so much a problem, the reality of where he money is spent. It's that your bigoted, again I say BLATANTLY BIGOTED, mind just can't seem to get a handle on the fact that rural [largely 'red'] regions receive more cash than they generate.
So if we were to pry open your skull and peer inside would we find your imagination wrapped up in the "Welfare Queen" myth rather than realizing welfare receipts are far more likely to be rural white female (and on it for only a few years)?
P.S. Your "federal money gets spent for the good of the nation" would seem to fly in the face of your insistence that all these damn liberals and minorities are just pissing away the money in cities.
Mad
You make the same weak, emotion-based claims that Nancy Pfotenhauer made during the campaign which instead are the opposite of reality. They are lies and disgusting ones at that. That there are "real" and "fake" parts of the country, or in Nancy's case, that the Northern part of Virginia, NOVA, is somehow "fake" Virginia. Why? Because they vote "librul" and want to impose socialism while taking money from rural america.
You know, the tax money that Richmond collects more of from me and others in NOVA and pays for stuff all across the state is somehow fake. That I am less of a citizen because of where I live or where I was born (in a nice BLUE state). I am wondering when I get a full refund of all that money......except, I realize that it DOES help me in the end. Some nice road or school in Wythe, VA, makes my Commonwealth a little better, even if I personally never use it.
So, based on your information with respect to Harold's information, which cities suck in the top 10 states? And please, make sure that you realize that in some states, most people work in a big city IN ANOTHER STATE. A city so messed up, it allows multiple states to thrive.
1. New Jersey ($0.62) New York City /Philadelphia
2. Connecticut ($0.64) Hartford/New York City
3. New Hampshire ($0.68) Boston/Nashua
4. Nevada ($0.73) Las Vegas
5. Illinois ($0.77)Chicago
6. Minnesota ($0.77)Minneapolis/St Paul
7. Colorado ($0.79)Denver
8. Massachusetts ($0.79) Boston
9. California ($0.81) Los Angeles/San Francisco
10. New York ($0.81) New York City
And all these states voted for which Presidential candidate?
As for Washington, D.C., that is a red herring, since the people that earn the most money in DC live in MD or VA, as well as that since the people of DC do not have direct representation, they are paid in kind WITH FEDERAL MONEY in exchange for housing all those FEDERAL BUILDINGS AND MONUMENTS.
>> Was there an intelligent response in there or did I miss it?
The other posts seemed to be doing a pretty good job of dissecting your drivel. :) As well I was responding to a post by you that consisted of "well I didn't actually look at the data, I'm still too fookin' lazy to look at the actual data, but my [so far shown wildly incorrect] gut says my imagination must be right".
Dwight,
Dude, you are so f*ing pathetic, it's not even funny. Everything you said was flawed or taken out of context. Either get informed or STFU.
So Mad, all that money went to Alaska to build a road to get a computer by ship from China to NYC.
Alaska is an obvious aberration. There's no wonder they take in much more federal money than they pay in. It's sparsely populated (it's pretty cold up there, no?) but has oodles and oodles of natural resources and wildlife that the government feels the need to maintain. Is there any wonder we spend more money in Alaska than that state pays back to the gov't? As I said, investments in local areas benefit the country as a whole - and I'd say getting the oil and natural gas from Alaska is beneficial to us all. They produce far more energy than the local population uses. So let's get rid of Alaska. I'm guessing they'll be just fine selling us oil and natural gas as an independent country.
You are reaching, groping really.
Nope. You're reaching. Badly. Grasping at straws.
That corn? Well that's all well and good. Growing food is important stuff!. Of course that is factored into those dollar figures though.
What? No, I mean WTF?!!! I'm talking about maintaining infrastructure to be able to cheaply and efficiently deliver the millions of tons of food you bozos in those big cities consume every year. What the hell do you even mean that it's "factored in to the figures"?
It isn't so much a problem, the reality of where he money is spent. It's that your bigoted, again I say BLATANTLY BIGOTED, mind just can't seem to get a handle on the fact that rural [largely 'red'] regions receive more cash than they generate.
And as I said before, it's the cities (which are BLUE) in these red rural areas that are getting more cash than they generate. That's a fact.
So if we were to pry open your skull and peer inside would we find your imagination wrapped up in the "Welfare Queen" myth rather than realizing welfare receipts are far more likely to be rural white female (and on it for only a few years)?
Nope, and if we peer inside your skull, I'm guessing we'll find little or nothing or maybe some computer chip storing the information that you've been brainwashed with.
P.S. Your "federal money gets spent for the good of the nation" would seem to fly in the face of your insistence that all these damn liberals and minorities are just pissing away the money in cities.
You don't know what you're talking about and have not provided one fact or at least one informed opinion or cogent point in any of your posts. I shouldn't feed the troll, but damn it's so hard not to.
Mad
You must be mad.
If you calm down (or regain your sanity--which is it?) will you change your name?
But then, Hu am I?
I'm just saying...
Mad, I'll engage you, not shout you down, which isn't my intent. The reason I posted that chart initially wasn't exactly to state that the states in the top 10 are "sucking at the teet of governemnt" so to speak, it was more to refute a bogus earlier talking point that somehow Blue states are more welfare oriented, which is BS based on the numbers I posted...I mean looking deeper into the numbers, it's easy to see how I, in MA, benefit from farm subsidies in the midwest...But my issue comes in when other don't realize at the same point that my tax dollars go to the production of those products, and that the evidence definitely doesn't bear out that people in those state are more American then people in the bigger states like CA, MA, NY...I agree, most people can make numbers do a lot of dancing to fit their purposes, but this right wing memo thathas basically cast aside moderate, as I used to be, from even being "true Americans" will draw a stark rebuke from me every time...We're in this mess because in a small way, far too many people to count dropped the ball, small and large, but right now it seems an entire 20% of this country is actively rooting for misery on the rest of us, which is bogus.
As others have pointed out, nobody here *complained* that their states pay more in net taxes than they gain- the only reason this was brought up was to point out the hypocrisy of right-leaning states, that will bitch and moan about federal intrusion and us socialists up here in the rest of the country, while simultaneously enjoying subsidies paid by the federal government, using tax dollars levied from those of us who live in the highly urban, largely left-leaning parts of the country.
Again, it's not as though any of us are necessarily complaining about this scheme, per se- whether your rationale actually holds is a separate debate entirely- it's that we were pointing out the hypocrisy of decrying "socialism" while remaining the primary beneficiaries of federal dollars.
peregruzka
Thanks, Greg and John for returning to rational and civil discourse. I'm hoping Dwight can do the same. What you said here is what I take issue with...
it's that we were pointing out the hypocrisy of decrying "socialism" while remaining the primary beneficiaries of federal dollars
What I'm saying, though, is that it's somewhat disingenuous and dishonest to act like they are the "primary beneficiaries of federal dollars" just because that money goes into projects in that state. As I said, those things benefit all of us at the federal level.
Take North Dakota for instance. Lots of agricultural land and lots of land for energy resources. However, it's sparsely populated. So of course, based on the low population, they're not going to be sending a lot of money to the government. But the government sees a vested interest in pumping resources into a state like ND to help keep agriculture viable and able to be delivered to larger markets and the energy (oil and natural gas) that's there can also be made useful to many people across the country.
You act like they're benefitting from federal dollars simply because they take in more than they pay, but the country overall benefits by putting more federal dollars into those areas than it gets.
You almost insinuate that New York City would be just fine without a North Dakota or whomever since they are obviously taking in more than they give. Okay, separate the two. Do that across the board to all those red "suckling" states. Who do you really think will be better off in the end? Cities like New York just because they currently pay in more taxes than they get. Hardly. The economic collapse they endure because they no longer benefit from those red state investments will far outweigh the surplus they pay in currently.
You need to put things into perspective.
Looking back at this argument, it's silly really. Seriously. You can't derive any logical conclusion about red state, blue state or politics in general just because of federal tax dollars paid and spent in various states. It's ludicrous.
Alaska is a bellwether example. As I said previously, it's sparsely populated. No need to go into detail as to why that is. So it's not going to generate a lot of tax revenue. Very little, in fact. But it is a part of the United States at the federal level, so all of that land - which is about 1/3rd of the continental US - is under federal authority. How then, really, do you expect those 700,000 people who live in a state bigger than Texas, California, and Montana combined, to pay adequate federal taxes to cover what the US wants to spend in that state because of its own vested interest in the resources that are there? Please tell me.
And furthermore, please tell me how you can draw that out into some discussion about how red states are "hypocrites" because of the in/out of federal taxes. It's an illogical conclusion from misused facts. If anything, it's the urban, metro states that are derilect and lean on the red states because they don't have enough resources themselves. They need the surplus of resources provided by red states and it takes federal dollars to ensure that the money is spent to properly disperse those resources throughout the country. That is where the true argument is.
Back on point, so what if Alaska secedes? Do they fold because they previously took in more than they paid? Tell me honestly. Because they were a "suckling red state", does that mean they'd be in for a rude awakening if left to their own devices. I'm guessing they'd be just fine. Please try again when you all aren't coming to illogical or erroneous conclusions.
Mad, the "socialism" that's being decried, though, *is* spending on things such as transit infrastructure, energy infrastructure, education and healthcare for the poor (a not-insignificant number of which are rural poor- the higher costs of living in places like New York actually means that most beneficiaries in these places are *much* worse off than people in the same income bracket elsewhere in the country), and the like.
Again, I have no freaking problem with the idea that New York City lives in symbiosis with the rest of the state and country, but that really has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of all these cries of "socialism".
> Thanks, Greg and John for returning to rational and civil discourse. I'm hoping Dwight can do the same.
You are upset about me calling out your bigotry? Your intellectual laziness? Boo hoo. Yet I'm cutting you more slack than you've actually earned in this thread and others here. Of course your attitude about it isn't surprising given it is a match for your attitude about the money. You speak regularly and pervasively in phrases like "bozos in those big cities" and then get all uppity about civil discourse?
Check the mirror.
> Alaska is an obvious aberration ... It's sparsely populated
I don't think that word means what you think it means. :) Or you are too damn lazy to actually read that list? DC is the aberration ... and one that others have given a decent rundown on the unique things that make it so.
Damn man, I grew up in a rural area. My parents and my brother still farm literally 8 1/2 miles from the middle of nowhere. I understand why the federal government pumps money into these areas. It is a very community way of looking at things, really at heart socialist. Only it's easy when surrounded by it, living with it every day, perhaps for your entire life, to become blind to it. And then bullshit artists like Bobby Jindal (top 5% in the House for earmarks in 2007 ) play that blindness up to create a full blown myth for political purposes.
> Again, I have no freaking problem with the idea that New York City lives in symbiosis with the rest of the state and country, but that really has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of all these cries of "socialism".
Exactly. It happens, and stop trying to rationalize because you don't actually need to, at least with me. Till you get to specific projects of the "bridge to nowhere" kind.
Just get over it and accept that it happens instead of denying that 'red' areas are bitching about the hand they are eating from.
White House ganged up on Santelli?!!
Dude, that windbag had it coming. And by most accounts he got served exactly what he deserved. If you're going to unzip your pants and lay your junk out there you'd best be prepared to have someone call you on it. I'm so sorry all you wanna be uber capitalists are seeing the world come crashing down around you due to your own stupidity. But whining about it and blaming HOMEOWNERS?
You guys had your chance and you brought us the Great Depression II.
I finally figured out who Michael Steele reminds me of: those funny aliens with the big shoulders and little heads in 'The Fifth Element'.
Statler-
Thanks for the kind words.
So you were saying before...plaid and stripes don't go together?
This whole socialist vs conservative, right/left thing involves an ideological continuum whose ends are places no one (statistically speaking) wants to go to. Had the noble entrepreneurs idealized by the right been responsible enough to look out for the system that allowed them to amass their fortunes, we wouldn't be obliged to veer so sharply leftward now.
It's a common enough notion, and so obvious to me (and evidently many others) that it seems absurd for the ideologues of the far right to seriously challenge the basics of it. Whether Obama's policy represents to little or too much of a correction is debatable. The consequences of unregulated capitalism are not--unless you're a troll.
Mad -
And as I said before, it's the cities (which are BLUE) in these red rural areas that are getting more cash than they generate. That's a fact.
The big, minority-dominated cities in Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Montana?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Go look up the "money in, money out" breakdown of those states again - more carefully, this time. Aggregating at the state level makes affluent New England states look like "saviors" to all of those pathetic "teat-sucking" red states. That's misleading. My point is that cities - that are urban, poor, and mostly (very) Democratic or liberal - are to blame for this discrepancy. Hell, look at the number one on your list - D.C. with a more than $6 difference. That should tell you something right there as D.C. more closely resembles a "city" than a "state."
Yes.... A city that happens to BE THE SEAT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!! ERGO, ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THE FEDERAL GOV'T AND SIT IN THE GI-FUCKING-NORMUS OFFICE BUILDINGS LINING THE MALL AND PA AVE GET PAID IN DC.
Jesus-frackking-Christ on a popsicle stick. Talk about looking at data and drawing absolutely the wrong conclusion...
Oh, and regardless of federal dollars used versus paid, look at how the individual state's perform on their own budgets. California, run primarily by hard left liberals - and don't give me shit about them having a Rep governor as he's as liberal of a Rep as they come - has gone absolutely bankrupt. Care to explain that?
Prop 13. Anyone knows that. It's the "third rail" of CA politics.
You ain't too bright, are you?
Alaska is a bellwether example. As I said previously, it's sparsely populated. No need to go into detail as to why that is. So it's not going to generate a lot of tax revenue. Very little, in fact. But it is a part of the United States at the federal level, so all of that land - which is about 1/3rd of the continental US - is under federal authority. How then, really, do you expect those 700,000 people who live in a state bigger than Texas, California, and Montana combined, to pay adequate federal taxes to cover what the US wants to spend in that state because of its own vested interest in the resources that are there? Please tell me.
In the case of Alaska, the reason it takes in more than it puts out is simple. The Denali Commision exists for a reason. A friend of my wife's is an NP in Anchorage. She recently discribed the state as our very own developing economy.
I now prefer the name that Keith has assigned to a certain idiot on CNBC:
Sick RANTelli.
Take North Dakota for instance. Lots of agricultural land and lots of land for energy resources. However, it's sparsely populated. So of course, based on the low population, they're not going to be sending a lot of money to the government. But the government sees a vested interest in pumping resources into a state like ND to help keep agriculture viable and able to be delivered to larger markets and the energy (oil and natural gas) that's there can also be made useful to many people across the country.
Consumer communities do have a vested interest in financially supporting producer communities. It would just be nice if the producer communities could stop thumbing their "self-sufficient" noses at us when they take our checks.
Mad
You are right in one area, but you then obscure the discussion by making a grand pronouncement and a false syllogism.
I, for one, have never implicated ANYONE for taking more or less Federal funds. We live in a Constitutional Republic, where we delegate authority for such things as spending tax revenue on projects that benefit the Republic. I do not see many other people in this conversation attacking ANY recipients.
However, you started of by doing that, using Republican talking points to mock New York City and cities in general, actually stating that they are inefficient because they are run by liberals and minorities. YOU made the correlation between where people live and what their contributions to society are. YOU are struggling to find some little example that follows what you believe to be true, instead of what might be true.
Then, when your opinions and talking points are refuted, you claim it does not matter and that it is a silly question. It was YOUR question, it was YOUR points and YOUR opinions.
I have lived in states that paid more to the federal government then they received directly. I lived in states that got more money from the federal government than they paid. You know what? They were all filled with patriotic Americans. And in each of them, there were some people that spouted ignorant things like "We are better than state X" for whatever obnoxious reason. "We grow the food", "We have the oil", "We make the movies", "We earn the money", "We run the government". "We have the best team". BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Playing one group off another group is divisive politics. We need everyone in this country, even blowhards and dividers, if only to exist as examples.
I've found that my day goes much better, and reading the comments goes much faster, now that I've decided to not feed ANY of the Reich-wing trolls.
And just who do I consider to be the Reich-wing trolls? Just on this thread (in order of their 'appearance'), and based on earlier Reich-wing screech owl rantings, totally devoid of rational analysis, nor containing any facts, they've posted here:
GROG
nova_middle_man
Mad
PeteKent
Jack-be-nimble
Did any of their posts address the hold on two of President Obama's nominees that was placed by some unnamed (there totally gutless) GOOPer?
Sorry I have to ask, but then again, I barely skimmed, if that(in other words, did not read) their posts, therefore I'm not in a position to say what they did or didn't state.
Joe, to be fair, though, we *do* have the best team :-P
Maybe a bit of friendly debate will produce...
Mad Lib?
I decided in a fit of feeling that i couldn't deal with my democratic comrades after Reid's fiasco last night decided to try and reason with some people on the freerepublic. I can't believe that after only 3 comments from me they are filtering out my comments because I dared as an American living in Canada to talk about how health care really is in Canada.
Greg, you live in NYC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotham_Girls_Roller_Derby
> I can't believe that after only 3 comments from me they are filtering out my comments because I dared as an American living in Canada to talk about how health care really is in Canada.
You didn't get the memo? The name "Free Republic" is actually an "ironic joke" in the Orwellian tradition.
Yes, it was only after this that I read the disclaimer on the front page saying they'd filter out any "liberals"...the thing is I'm not a left wing liberal, I agree with them on some of the moral things, but I'm a financial democrat that wants health care and better education and agrees that the democrats are better on the economy. And I actually got a couple of the people over there to second guess themselves..they said they probably didn't like it still but conceded that it wasn't as bad as they first said
Could be the leader of the Republican Party is Big Brother.
> And I actually got a couple of the people over there to second guess themselves..they said they probably didn't like it still but conceded that it wasn't as bad as they first said.
That is the very thing that makes you the danger that requires filtering. Free Republic is a [intentionally] hermetically sealed echo chamber. One could almost say it serves as a small scale model for the problems the GOP is having.
It is good for this place to have other ideas floating around. More well backed and defended ideas would be better of course. :) For example PeterKent occasionally does bring up OK points, mostly though he's serving up turd sandwiches. Paper thin slices of substance bracketing unredeemable crap. :/
Yes I know, I've been a lurker and occasional poster here since about april here, and I do go around to Huffington and the Kos, but I also balance my self to make me realize I don't live in a utopia by going to the freerepublic and occasionally redstate. What I want a site that does have intelligent debate, too often both sides cut off any resistance to them, though the republicans much more often than the democrats, Its much more cordial in Canada :P
Dwight
That really is part of their problem, and part of the liberal (small L) strength. It's easy to believe all kinds of stuff about people with whom one never comes into contact, especially when you're all worked up emotionally.
Some years ago a friend said he had no trouble being a Jew traveling in Egypt because the Egyptians he met had such bizarre notions about Jews that they couldn't imagine that such a pleasant, civilized fellow was one. It was like "Well, you obviously don't have a tail and you aren't eating babies, so you can't be Jewish!"
PK is clearly agitated, as his typing alone suggests. Maybe he has to text furtively to avoid detection. (I have snarkily suggested that he's typing with his forehead. Sorry.) But this site would be pretty boring without some opposition.
It isn't even that there aren't real values on the right. Others (Statler?) have expressed at least a mild nostalgia for Eisenhower R's (like Dwight's dad maybe?) and they have a point. Some sage or other once said that the biggest flaw of each party is the failure to recognize the worth of the principles of the other.
Off-topic a little, it's impossible to dispute the character of Eisenhower himself. Compared to him, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al are total nanodudes.
And Rush is a picodude.
yes i agree that if it weren't such an echo chamber we wouldn't have nearly as many people taking extreme irrational positions
But this site would be pretty boring without some opposition.
That is what this site needs, but you have to put the word intelligent in front of opposition.
Mad, PK, GROK, jack be nimble offer opposition, but no intelligence.
Which of course is why the Republican party is irrelevant and becoming more irrelevant by the day.
The neanderthals have grabbed control and no one in the party has the guts to take it back.
Perhaps, the Libertarian or better yet, the Green party will take the place of the regional party known as the Republican Party and offer intelligent responses and workable alternative solution to the democratic party proposals.
The root of the problem of the Republican Party is they let the worst sort of person to gain power:
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
.....
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.... I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?... I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Barry Goldwater -Perhaps the last intelligent conservative
That first sentence is prophetic.
Oh, and regardless of federal dollars used versus paid, look at how the individual state's perform on their own budgets. California, run primarily by hard left liberals - and don't give me shit about them having a Rep governor as he's as liberal of a Rep as they come - has gone absolutely bankrupt. Care to explain that?
Also, incumbents and super-majorities.
As in, all of the seats are very safe for ideological incumbents of both parties who are unwilling to compromise on tax increases and spending cuts in order to reach the super-majority necessary to pass a CA budget. That's why the pound of flesh that the GOP state rep who voted for the final budget came in the form of a promise to institute a jungle primary system.
Then again, if you were well-informed, you'd know that.
I note that the freerepublic's moderators seem to go to bed around or 12 so after that I don't seem to have trouble posting....but thats enough of that, I'm hoping that reid gets the guts to actually get the omnibus bill through this week...
Zachary,
Go to wikipedia for the article on Free Republic. It probably will send chills down your spine at how lunatic the whole site is.
Grog,
I agree!
Plaid and stripes don't go.
(FWIW Grog is one of our right wing friends who engages in decent debate and should not be spoken of in the same terms as PK or others who offer little but partisan noise. Just because people are disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are trolling. The boards here would be much less interesting if all the posts were basically saying 'Yes Nate/Sean/Andrew [delete as appropriate] I agree)
markymark,
Thanks.
As I scroll down, I always read your comments thoroughly.
BTW, I totally agree with emba. Must be a right winger.
For many years it was evident that General Motors and Chrysler could not sustain. They continued to survive based on the sales of trucks and SUV’s and $4 a gallon gas was the straw that broke the camels back. It is evident that the GOP’s market share has taken a dive and they still are clinging on to the hope that their mainstay product of old will again sell well, I think not.
The GOP is attempting tricks and ploys to attack their competition, unable to come to grips that it is their business practices and product that is defective.
There is little real damage that the GOP can inflict on the agenda that President Obama has set, and no real way for the Republicans to isolate themselves from their failures in the past. It does appear that their uncooperative tactics are hurting the GOP more than the Democrats, and an absence and vacuum in leadership to stop them from making their current bad situation worse.
> Others (Statler?) have expressed at least a mild nostalgia for Eisenhower R's (like Dwight's dad maybe?) and they have a point.
I, in fact, did get my name from Eisenhower (mom's choice). I don't believe my parents have ever voted anything other than NDP and my dad's been on the local Federated Co-op board for at lease a couple decades. Saskatchewan has a very interesting fiscally pragmatic socialist tradition, going back to the prior mentioned Tommy Douglas.
Incidentally, though I have never asked specifics about it, I highly suspect it was Ike's closing of the church-state gap (adding the "In Got We Trust" and other Christian trappings that many don't realize are that new) rather than his stance against segregation that strikes my mother's fancy. His German heritage is probably a factor, too.
Dwight,
I think one of the most unsavoury things that has happened to the GOP in the last what 20 or 30 years is the rejection of moderate opinion. The days of Nelson Rockefeller and Dwight Eisenhower and Robert Michel and Everett Dirksen do seem a world away. It seems like a very narrow definition of what a Republican is is needed to get to run in most places across the country.
I think in some ways the most embarrassing thing is that they haven't figured out that its that very narrow idea of what a Republican is that has narrowed the parties vote. It is interesting to me that the GOP nominated McCain almost because he was the least like a Republican in the Primary field. They seemed to understand that the GOP was unpopular, but not really figure out that just throwing the maverick out there wasn't enough. And they seem to think right now that putting out minority candidates like Steele and Jindal out there is enough. They really haven't figured out that most Americans seem to feel that GOP deregulation and hand washing got us into all the current problems, and as yet the American people haven't heard anything new from the GOP as a solution.
I worry because any government needs good principled opposition, an exchange of ideas. The GOP really isn't adding anything to the pool of ideas circulating at the moment, and that is there problem to fix. Its all very well saying no no no no but eventually you have to figure out whast you would do differently in order to emerge as an alternative party of power. 2 and 4 years really arent that long to start to do that, and no one seems tobe coming up with anything new. Thats why Limbaugh is needed to fill the vacuum.
Dwight,
Ike didn't have a stance against segregation. He called Earl Warren's nomination as CJ of SCOTUS his biggest mistake, and did little on a federal level to begin the process of desegregation, except when the rule of law oblidged him to. (There are some who suggest that Ike's was one of the loudest voices against desegregating the army post WW2)
I should say his willingness to follow rule of law in the matter. :) No, in the end he didn't have the will to pick up the matter and push it like the Kennedy Whitehouse did. But at least he didn't, as far as I understand, abandon his duty to allow subversion of the federal government and law to his own personal whims.
Overall, 56% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance so far while 43% disapprove.
That 56/43 split is the worst for Obama since the inauguration. Pollster.com’s average has Obama dipping below 60% for the first time since taking office today as well.
What a bunch of hypocrites among youse leftists! You were all for obstruction when the Republicans had control of congress.
Now the crocodile tears when it's sauce for the gander. Why on earth would Republicans want to give up one of their few weapons available?
Rudy
When did I ever say I was against the obstruction tactics of any minority party? Or is that just an ad hominum attack directed at no one in particular?
New Thread
ytownMetz said...
Overall, 56% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance so far while 43% disapprove.
Since another GOOPer idiot is posting poll numbers without providing links so the information can be verified, I have to presume the numbers they posted are being pulled from the poster's nether regions.
Just to be sure, I've done some checking on some recent polls that have asked whether Americans approve or disapprove of the job President Obama has done so far:
Gallup for 3/7/2009
Approve 62%
Disapprove 26%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
NBC/Wall Street Journal for 3/3/2009
Approve 68% (47% very positive)
Disapprove 19% (10% very negative)
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/090303_NBC-WSJ_poll.pdf (Question 6, on page 5)
Newsweek for 3/6/2009
Approve 58%
Disapprove 26%
72% of Americans polled by Newsweek say that they have a favorable opinion of President Obama.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/188002?from=rss
Rasmussen Reports for 3/7/2009 only reports on strong approval (39%) and strong disapproval (31%), so that nut job of a poller can be thrown out. What's even more indicative of a bad poll is that Rasmussen's 'stong disapproval' is higher than any other poll's total disapproval.
Dwight-
One flaw in Ike's political career:he chickned out against McCarthy,never criticizing him publicly,only privately.
I won't hold it against you. :-)
Republicans appear to be engaged in an active effort to make the Administration's life more difficult, apparently in a tit-for-tat over Democratic holds during the Bush administration.
Hey, if the Republicant's want to play "tit-for-tat" games, I say let's join them. We can do to them what they did to us for 6 long years. We can completely shut them out of the political process. Works for me.
Obama is too passive, and if he fails to defend his policies and call out the obstructionists, he deserves to fail.
Hockeynerd
People were saying stuff like that to Obama all through the campaign. Not that you don't have a point, but he's only been in office since Jan. 20.
hockeynerd said...
[Actually nothing.]
Fee Fie Foe Fum
I smell the blood of a 'concern troll'.
Let me ask the guy who wrote this a question: were you this indignant about Democrats and Liberals that were hoping that Bush failed? Where was the indignation about Harry Reid saying the war is lost, even when we were winning in Iraq? The smell of hypocrisy is in the air!
Justin, I do not recall Al Franken or any liberal pundits or politicians (I use Al Franken as I see him as kind of a foil to Rush Limbaugh, at least when he was on Air America) stating they hoped president Bush failed. And I do not recall anyone stating they hoped he failed in Iraq. No, instead, democrats called for withdrawal from Iraq and ending of the war AFTER several years of U.S. occupation had proved, at least to them, that a continued presence there was a detriment to our Republic. That you cannot tell the difference between the two situations is telling. If you can provide a link or some kind of proof of your claim that Democrats were calling for Bush's failure or specifically failure in Iraq then I will consider your point.
Petekent says:
"I heard a commentator say the other day that Shrub's were actually higher at this point in his term. Could that be? Maybe they meant the father?"
I see it's easier to propagate an untruth than it is to check it. Neither Bush enjoyed approval ratings this high in their first 100 days. Ignorant RW trolls are lazy trolls.
看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,廣告,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,燒肉,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,住宿,民宿,飯店,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,关键词排名,网络营销,網路行銷,關鍵字排名,关键词排名,网络营销,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,網頁設計,網站設計,網頁設計,網站設計,网页设计,网站设计,网站设计,网页设计
帶著簡單的行囊,來花蓮旅遊走走,順便體驗一下各種花蓮民宿帶給你的不同感受,品嚐道地花蓮美食的特別花蓮小吃風味,也可以騎著單車來品味花蓮 ,呼吸著新鮮的花蓮空氣,所以來花蓮住宿就帶著輕鬆的心情吧!!花蓮黃頁擁有各種不同風格的花蓮民宿,歡迎您來花蓮旅遊放鬆心情體驗美麗的花蓮民宿!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment