I'm so proud of my party right now

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Obama's sweet spending plan just passed. The vote was 244-188 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D960EGQ81&show_article=1). Not a single Pub voted for it. Good for them, it's about damn time.

[skyz]

Obama's sweet spending plan just passed. The vote was 244-188 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D960EGQ81&show_article=1). Not a single Pub voted for it. Good for them, it's about damn time.

you back again

glad you're pleased but he got what he wanted anyway

:p

[secret-steve-crumbles]

you back again

glad you're pleased but he got what he wanted anyway

:pI know. But there's no doubt where the blame can fall this time.

[tokenuser]

I am glad it passed, but if the Pubs (pubes?) weren't going to vote for it, they shouldn't have insisted on all the stuff that Obama negotiated in for them.

So much for bipartisan support for a country in need. When the plan succeeds, I hope the Pubs get crucified over it.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

I am glad it passed, but if the Pubs (pubes?) weren't going to vote for it, they shouldn't have insisted on all the stuff that Obama negotiated in for them.

So much for bipartisan support for a country in need. When the plan succeeds, I hope the Pubs get crucified over it.lol, I like your edit better with your last sentence. Ask Japan how it went for them. Care to elaborate on your "all that stuff." lol.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

819 billion dollars. That's awesome. $813,000,000,000. $335,000,000 for STD prevention! lol

And token, get serious. You will never admit anything a left winger does is wrong. When this fails, you'll just have a reason as to why it failed. You'll somehow twist some way that it was a pub's fault that it didn't work right. How everything was going fine until.... "fill in something about a republican." You'll never admit it was a mistake. Mark my words.

[rabidbadger]

Where did my little pony go? It was here a few minutes ago.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Where did my little pony go? It was here a few minutes ago.Meh, time for "change," right?

[rabidbadger]

I'm just surprised you would "defame" such an American icon of capitalism like that.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

I'm just surprised you would "defame" such an American icon of capitalism like that.Not I that created it. It was between that and this:

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-wtr.gif

[rabidbadger]

but seriously. ... I think this conservative pundit (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17936.html) is on the right track.

money quote:
Historically, Republicans have come back from electoral losses by accepting the fact that Americans mostly like government spending. Rather than make a futile effort to take away something most voters want, Republicans have instead worked to make the welfare state function efficiently, target benefits to those that play by society’s rules and finance those benefits without additional debt.

and I agree with that.

[comhcinc]

You will never admit anything a right winger does is wrong. When this fails, you'll just have a reason as to why it failed. You'll somehow twist some way that it was a dem's fault that it didn't work right. How everything was going fine until.... "fill in something about a democrat." You'll never admit it was a mistake. Mark my words.

but really that is the way a lot of people are isn't it? :D

i do agree with token on this point through the white house and congressional dems made a lot of compromises to the puds on this. as you see they didn't have to make any. it really is underhanded, but to me that isn't the point. the point is the dems need to stop being pussies. they need to quit trying to reach out to puds cause no one really cares. oh they say they care but they don't.

do what you feel is right. don't worry about the repuds and fix shit.

[rabidbadger]

The senate will most probably be different. (http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/01/27/an-early-test-for-obamas-bipartisanship-pledge/)

money quote:

To some extent, this difference reflects the basic, built-in differences between the House and the Senate. Partisan passions tend to run deeper in the House, where members stand for election every two years and, thanks to the computerized wizardry of drawing congressional districts, tend to come from ideologically homogenous districts that provide little reward for reaching across party lines.

The house (both sides) are more "political" in the sense that they represent a very specific, and smaller amoung of citizens who they need to please to get re-elected.

[skyz]

whatever

with all these huge numbers being thrown around i don't understand why i don't get to go shopping

i sense some fundamental injustice in that

i think i should somehow get a macbook air or pro out of it

i mean what is 2 K out of a T

[secret-steve-crumbles]

i do agree with token on this point through the white house and congressional dems made a lot of compromises to the puds on this. as you see they didn't have to make any. it really is underhanded, but to me that isn't the point. the point is the dems need to stop being pussies. they need to quit trying to reach out to puds cause no one really cares. oh they say they care but they don't.They aren't. There was no comprimisis in this bill. I know you and token "say" their were "without actually managing to say what they were," but the pubs have both publicly said that their compromises mysteriously disappeared from the bills, and another pub was quoted as saying how their input was totally ignored, yet Token boastfully says: "So much for bipartisanship!" That's what the Dems are good at, convincing people to blame others for their problems. Sort of like Pelosi saying the Dems had ZERO to do with the housing collapse and people buying it.

However, this time, there is no where to point the finger.

I hope you're right com and they do stop "reaching out." I hope they make it very obvious they aren't "reaching out" any more. Then people will see what it's like with full democratic reign.

"Obama vowed to change Washington and usher in a new post-partisan era. The the mood music and optics were pitch perfect as he trekked up to the Hill. Republicans praised his gesture, welcomed his sincere demeanour and appreciated his willingness to listen.

Problem was, he wanted only to listen and did not want to act on what Republicans said. When he was asked if he would re-structure the package to include more tax cuts, he reportedly responded: "Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part."

He apparently added: " I understand that and I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself."

That's fine. No doubt Obama will indeed get beaten up on Fox News. But his failure to get even the squishiest moderate Republican - including the 11 entertained in the White House by Rahm Emanuel last night - to back him is not merely a big score for Rep Eric Cantor, Republican Whip, and the rest of the GOP leadership.

It also shows that it is not just Fox, the loony Right or Rush Limbaugh - or however else you might want to characterise the opposition in order to marginalise it - who had grave misgivings about the content of the bill.

The Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill badly miscalculated by treating the bill as a victor's charter. Not that it seemed to bother Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who grinned from ear to ear as she announced the result of the vote."

HAhahaha, keep on grinnin.

[tokenuser]

That's what the Dems are good at, convincing people to blame others for their problems.Oh so true, but they are only playing catchup with the pubs who need no convincing to blame someone else - its been in their nature from the start.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Damn, this economic crisis is like fucking Christmas for the Democrats. From the party and President who ran on values such as: "No pork!" they sure let that shit go pretty fast in the name of economic stimulus!


$400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing.
$1.5 billion (with a “B”) for a “carbon-capturing contest”
$200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles. (thanks Mr. Gore, how's the snow by the way?)
The Coast Guard wants more than $572 million for “Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements” They claim these funds will create 1,235 new jobs. Crunch the numbers and this brings the cost of “creating” each job to a staggering $460,000+
“$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration.”

[yssman]

Its highly ironic, at least in my opinion, that you go on and on about how the Democrats are apparently wasting our money and yet you neglect to mention how the Republicans who were at the helm allowed the banking collapse to come through, and subsequently blew through more than $350 Billion by propping them back up... Much of that being otherwise untraceable.

Like it or not, the Democrats won. They don't need our Republican support for anything, and guess what, more power to them. They fully understand that whats at stake places them in a very narrow position. On the one hand, it can be absolutely disastrous and possibly knock them back out of power in four years. Or, it can be massively successful, and (as Limbaugh pointed out) place them into a seat of power than can last for as much as three decades.

The trick here for we Republicans is going to be gracefully critiquing the suggestions for action, and consequently, giving out ideas that work...

...Guess what, takes breaks for the top don't work. At all. EVER

Hey, guess what the non-partisan Moody's Money figured out?

http://endtheecho.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/mz_012208_1t.gif

Holy cow! Government spending actually helps to increase the GDP! NO WAI!

====

Seriously. I may be a "lefty" Republican, but unless we want to be completely shut out of the political process for the next generation, we'll need to stop our bellyaching and WORK with the Obama administration to get things done, or we're going to be out on our asses in no time.

I don't like stimulus programs. Do we have any other better ideas, you know, that might actually work?

[rabidbadger]

Its highly ironic, at least in my opinion, that you go on and on about how the Democrats are apparently wasting our money and yet you neglect to mention how the Republicans who were at the helm allowed the banking collapse to come through, and subsequently blew through more than $350 Billion by propping them back up... Much of that being otherwise untraceable.

Like it or not, the Democrats won. They don't need our Republican support for anything, and guess what, more power to them. They fully understand that whats at stake places them in a very narrow position. On the one hand, it can be absolutely disastrous and possibly knock them back out of power in four years. Or, it can be massively successful, and (as Limbaugh pointed out) place them into a seat of power than can last for as much as three decades.

The trick here for we Republicans is going to be gracefully critiquing the suggestions for action, and consequently, giving out ideas that work...

...Guess what, takes breaks for the top don't work. At all. EVER

Hey, guess what the non-partisan Moody's Money figured out?

http://endtheecho.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/mz_012208_1t.gif

Holy cow! Government spending actually helps to increase the GDP! NO WAI!

====

Seriously. I may be a "lefty" Republican, but unless we want to be completely shut out of the political process for the next generation, we'll need to stop our bellyaching and WORK with the Obama administration to get things done, or we're going to be out on our asses in no time.

I don't like stimulus programs. Do we have any other better ideas, you know, that might actually work?


I like the way you think for the same reason I like Andrew Sullivan. You see the issues, and want to find solutions, instead of "someone else" who just wants to play the victim and cast blame, blame on the NEW guy, but NOT on the guys who got us in this mess.

[yssman]

Unfortunately, it seems like pragmatism is something that has alluded our government for the time being. I get the feeling that Obama is trying to move back down that path, but the Republicans are so caught up in the fact that they lost... Not to mention the fact that no one in the party knows whos in carge... that they can't see past their own toes. Similarly, the Democrats, who have been beaten up for the better part of a decade, now have the ball... and they want to run with it... but they're being sloppy about it as well.

To be honest, I'm frusterated with both sides. I think the Democrats have a good message, we have to begin to focus on the demand side to get things fixed right now. However, I think the Republicans are partially right in suggesting that too much demand side relief will lead down the wrong path.

We've gotta find the sensible middle road, but most-unfortunately, its leading towards a period of time where we're going to have to spend billions to attempt to get something done.

Something scary that I heard yesterday?

We need to spend $2.2 TN to get the infrastructure stuff up to code, alone. Notgonnahappen.

[rabidbadger]

It's a historical fact that Democrat control has been more economically successful (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php) than Rebublican ones. Rebublicans are all about theory, Democrats deal with realitly. (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/03/opinion/oe-kinsley3)

[secret-steve-crumbles]

It's a historical fact that Democrat control has been more economically successful (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php) than Rebublican ones. Rebublicans are all about theory, Democrats deal with realitly. (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/03/opinion/oe-kinsley3)lol, yea, reality. Nice charts, they show no real information. My favorite part is how you credit Clinton with the great economy.

[rabidbadger]

oh, those times with good economy, low unemployment, and no secret war budget (and no fake war) that wasn't included in the budget? Those horrendous evil times?

[rabidbadger]

My turn to call your bluff. You didn't read the article, just looked at the pretty pictures. Take out your crayons and connect the dots. All your crayons are now blue. Surprise!

[secret-steve-crumbles]

oh, those times with good economy, low unemploymentUh, you think unemployment is bad right now? Since 1980, unemployment has been where it's at a total of 16 times. The Democrats want you to believe the sky is falling "now" because they can finally spend all this fucking money like they love to do so much. You Democrats act like Clinton was the greatest thing that ever happened to our economy as proof that Democrats as so much better. I already showed you proof that Clinton spent money so much faster than it was coming in to make your head spin, but if you recall, those facts "confused you" and you were asking if someone could explain it to you.

The problem with your Clinton situation is you aren't looking at everything as a whole. What happened during Clinton's reign? The dot com boom. There wasn't anything that could stop that, even Clinton's increase in taxes. Here's the question you need to ask yourself, how much better would the economy have been under him if the taxes were lower.

Another problem you don't realize is that the economy isn't this fluid. It doesn't just change on a whim. Usually the economy starts to change at the end of a presidents reign. You don't honestly think the economy is going to be better the tomorrow when you wake up because Obama is going to fix it that quick, right? Of course not. You can't have it both ways.

Let's say Obama does fix the economy and it takes 3.9 years to start swinging it back. Then let's say he loses the next election in 4 years. Are you going to credit the next President for fixing the economy?

Of course not. Hence me saying your graphs aren't showing everything. Time for you to get out those crayons and put on your thinking hat while you're at it.

[skyz]

oh, those times with good economy, low unemployment, and no secret war budget (and no fake war) that wasn't included in the budget? Those horrendous evil times?

don't forget the surplus

big distance from where are are deficit and deficit spending to surplus

anyone want to chart that graph

republican or democrat

how are we going to get from here to there


red blue or violet !

[secret-steve-crumbles]

don't forget the surplusDon't forget to read my post directly above yours already explaining it!

[yssman]

Well, lets talk about Clinton for a moment...

For a Democrat, at least when it came to economic situations, he was actually pretty conservative. He still signed off on NAFTA, he still gave MFN status to China, and it goes on and on. Whether or not you agreed with all of his stances on certain politicall issues, he did a lot of good things for the economy that kept things in check... Things that Bush reversed, and consequently, offset the economy.

Again, I point back at the chart on page two...

Tax cuts that are too top-heavy and, of course, waging a war with an "infinity" price tag do not bode well for the economy, no matter who is in charge. Take a look back at what happened in Vietnam under both Democrats and Republicans, and we see a similarly eerie situation unfolding; As the world stands up, American power (both militarily and economically) declines significantly.

...Only difference is that we don't have the Communists to fight anymore, and I think the idea of supply side economics has had its teeth kicked in for the moment...

We Republicans will have our day again in the future, but until we decide to GROW THE HELL UP, act like adults, and work with the Democrats, we're likely to lose more seats in the House and Senate until the enxt generation of Bush-raised voters come of age. That is still a very long time away.

[bigshotprof]

Uh, you think unemployment is bad right now? Since 1980, unemployment has been where it's at a total of 16 times.

Yes, I think unemployment is bad right now. Several experts, including some who aren't card-carrying-left-wing-fringe-pinko-democrats will tell you that the unemployment statistic has been so watered down over the past few years that it doesn't have much value anymore. It started with Reagan's all too common willingness to hide problems by redefining them. Early in his term, Reagan added troops in the military to the employment rolls (they hadn't been counted before) which shaved a few percentage points off the unemployment stat over night. These days, the unemployment statistic is skewed by a couple of major facts--first, it only counts people who are still actively looking for work. The people who have given up or gone off the official grid aren't counted as unemployed. They are just "disappeared." Second, when Reagan took office "household income" was generally defined as one wage earner. Now household income generally constitutes two workers--usually two full time workers. The relevance is that chronic, serious underemployment of primary wage earners and households is drastically lower than eight years ago, without influencing the unemployment stat.

If you check the employment statistics and household earning instead of the unemployment statistics it paints a much bleaker picture.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Yes, I think unemployment is bad right now. Several experts, including some who aren't card-carrying-left-wing-fringe-pinko-democrats will tell you that the unemployment statistic has been so watered down over the past few years that it doesn't have much value anymore. It started with Reagan's all too common willingness to hide problems by redefining them. Early in his term, Reagan added troops in the military to the employment rolls (they hadn't been counted before) which shaved a few percentage points off the unemployment stat over night. These days, the unemployment statistic is skewed by a couple of major facts--first, it only counts people who are still actively looking for work. The people who have given up or gone off the official grid aren't counted as unemployed. They are just "disappeared." Second, when Reagan took office "household income" was generally defined as one wage earner. Now household income generally constitutes two workers--usually two full time workers. The relevance is that chronic, serious underemployment of primary wage earners and households is drastically lower than eight years ago, without influencing the unemployment stat.

If you check the employment statistics and household earning instead of the unemployment statistics it paints a much bleaker picture.Congratulations, you managed to miss my point again. It's been this bad 16 times in the last 20+ years. We've never dumped this kind of money to fix it before. The Democrats are good at convincing the sky is falling. Hell, look at how many people believe in Global Cooling, shit I mean Global Warming, damnit, I mean Climate Change, shit, I mean The Climate Crisis (sheesh, there, that one is pretty hard to argue, let's stick with calling it that now.)

[bigshotprof]

Congratulations, you managed to miss my point again. It's been this bad 16 times in the last 20+ years. We've never dumped this kind of money to fix it before. The Democrats are good at convincing the sky is falling. Hell, look at how many people believe in Global Cooling, shit I mean Global Warming, damnit, I mean Climate Change, shit, I mean The Climate Crisis (sheesh, there, that one is pretty hard to argue, let's stick with calling it that now.)

No. Your point is it has been this bad 16 times before, and mine is that you are wrong. it has not been this bad before, and even when the number of people out of work would have shown up an a chart at the same place the underlying dynamics were completely different. How climate change is relevant except as a diversion is beyond me.

[tokenuser]

No. Your point is it has been this bad 16 times before, and mine is that you are wrong. it has not been this bad before, and even when the number of people out of work would have shown up an a chart at the same place the underlying dynamics were completely different. How climate change is relevant except as a diversion is beyond me.Grumbles is a Republican. It means that his view of the world is very much focused on the here and now in his backyard.

The Climate Change argument is one he like to point to because he has been shown a list of 1000 scientists that think it is wrong ... while ignoring the 10000 that show that it is right, because the 1000 believe support his viewpoint in the argument. Why? Because it is a record cold winter ... ignoring the fat that it is a record hot summer elsewhere in the world.

He has done it before with respect to minimum wages as well, because in his job they had to bump the wage being offered FOR A PROFESSIONAL POSITION to get it filled, as being an example of how market based economies are good for salaries, so that person doesn't get forced to be paid a mandated minimum wage. I wonder how much the cleaner at his company makes ... but I am guessing Crumbles wouldn't even notice him.

Its the Republican way (generalising) to make an argument by distracting from the facts presented by using irrelevant examples.

[rabidbadger]

Grumbles is a Republican. It means that his view of the world is very much focused on the here and now in his backyard.

The Climate Change argument is one he like to point to because he has been shown a list of 1000 scientists that think it is wrong ... while ignoring the 10000 that show that it is right, because the 1000 believe support his viewpoint in the argument. Why? Because it is a record cold winter ... ignoring the fat that it is a record hot summer elsewhere in the world.

He has done it before with respect to minimum wages as well, because in his job they had to bump the wage being offered FOR A PROFESSIONAL POSITION to get it filled, as being an example of how market based economies are good for salaries, so that person doesn't get forced to be paid a mandated minimum wage. I wonder how much the cleaner at his company makes ... but I am guessing Crumbles wouldn't even notice him.

Its the Republican way (generalising) to make an argument by distracting from the facts presented by using irrelevant examples.


I love you (and Prof) so much right now.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

He has done it before with respect to minimum wages as well, because in his job they had to bump the wage being offered FOR A PROFESSIONAL POSITION to get it filled, as being an example of how market based economies are good for salaries, so that person doesn't get forced to be paid a mandated minimum wage.Do you ever read what I say, or do you just pride yourself in being an idiot?

No, you're right, I'm not saying that I'm a full cross section, I was just providing an example of my point. It wasn't meant as a trump card to every situation.

Try to read before you insult. It won't make you look like such a douche.

No. Your point is it has been this bad 16 times before, and mine is that you are wrong. it has not been this bad before, and even when the number of people out of work would have shown up an a chart at the same place the underlying dynamics were completely different. How climate change is relevant except as a diversion is beyond me.Right, I got your point. Again, I'm saying you're wrong. Your argument is ALMOST as good as token's when he said:

"...all that other stuff."

Yet he insults my arguments. Amazing.

I love you (and Prof) so much right now.*quivers*

[bigshotprof]

*quivers*

Don't feel left out Crumbles. Give us a Kiss!

[yssman]

Grumbles is a Republican. It means that his view of the world is very much focused on the here and now in his backyard... Its the Republican way (generalising) to make an argument by distracting from the facts presented by using irrelevant examples.

Be careful how you group Republicans, now!

Keep in mind that we're having our own little civil war here in the GOP. Crumbles, at least from what I can tell, would likely associate with what I'd call the portion of the party that defines "whats wrong with us." People like Limbaugh, Rove, Palin, Chambliss, McConnell, etc. that continue to wrap themselves in the American flag all while clinging tightly to their twisted view of the Constitution and somehow manage to coat it all in some mess of a religious context.

In my opinion, getting Steele to head the GOP is a good sign of things to come. He is a relative moderate, and is of the mindset that can push the GOP forward to success by middling our positions. I certainly consider myself a fairly moderate (to left) Republican, someone who continues to maintain the preferences of small government, low taxes, and the general "stay out of people's business" nature that defined the party for the better half of the century. People like Ehlers, Hagel, Specter (my favorite), Lugar, and the pre-2006 McCain come to mind as whats "right" with the GOP.

Pragmatism, unfortunately, is a trait that neocons can't grab a hold of.

[tokenuser]

Be careful how you group Republicans, now!

Keep in mind that we're having our own little civil war here in the GOPThats why I said it was generalising :)

If the RNC can't get their act together, I see the GOP splitting into a small group of moderates and a larger group of religious neocons right. If there was a moderate party, I suspect a lot of fiscally conservative Dems would also move to that side of the fence, and the US would have itself a three party political system.

You can be fiscally conservative, and socially liberal - but the way the parties are drawn in the US at the moment, those appear mutually exclusive.
Back in Australia, I voted Democrat (the Australian Democrat Party). They were a moderate group that would never have a majority, but also stopped the Liberals (our conservative party) and the Labour Party (our liberal party ... confused ??) from having the majority. It was a powerful party, because they held the balance of power. Unfortunately, it is now all but gone.

[bigshotprof]

Be careful how you group Republicans, now!

Keep in mind that we're having our own little civil war here in the GOP. Crumbles, at least from what I can tell, would likely associate with what I'd call the portion of the party that defines "whats wrong with us." People like Limbaugh, Rove, Palin, Chambliss, McConnell, etc. that continue to wrap themselves in the American flag all while clinging tightly to their twisted view of the Constitution and somehow manage to coat it all in some mess of a religious context.

In my opinion, getting Steele to head the GOP is a good sign of things to come. He is a relative moderate, and is of the mindset that can push the GOP forward to success by middling our positions. I certainly consider myself a fairly moderate (to left) Republican, someone who continues to maintain the preferences of small government, low taxes, and the general "stay out of people's business" nature that defined the party for the better half of the century. People like Ehlers, Hagel, Specter (my favorite), Lugar, and the pre-2006 McCain come to mind as whats "right" with the GOP.

Pragmatism, unfortunately, is a trait that neocons can't grab a hold of.

In poll results I heard last night over 55% percent of Republicans think the party needs to better represent the Sarah Palin wing. If the GOP fractures, I'll bet a lot of "stay out of peoples' business" Dems would congregate around your position.

[yssman]

...And thats what scares the hell out of me. Are Republicans that stupid to attempt to move in that direction when that is the exact reason why so many jumped off the bandwagon to begin with? I mean sure, that may work to bring out some voters in southern states, and perhaps a few of the conservative-leaning northern states... But where the votes count, on the east and west coasts, as well as the old industrial mid-west... That won't fly. Ever.

I think one of the things the Republican party needs to figure out is what part of the party better represents a realistic picture of governance. Moving the party further to the right does not capture the middle groups of voters needed to win elections.

Republicans have to fine tune their message as one of a conservative ideology in opposition to what the Democrats may suggest, but overall, if they remain too far to the right (ie, Hyper-Reaganism), they won't continue to exist. That would be most-unfortunate.