The Good News On the Stimulus

So the stimulus is law. Whatever its shortcomings, there is a lot of good stuff in the bill. As just one example: my parents were visiting this weekend and the whole time my dad, who works in public health in poor neighborhoods, was receiving promising updates on  his blackberry about just how much potential funding there would be for some of their programs.

On the politics side of the ledger, Ben Smith notes Obama's emphasis on the tax cuts in the bill. I'm not necessarily a fan, though politically it's true that every single Republican member of congress can now be accused of "Voting against the biggest tax cut in history" come next election." Clearly, this hasn't escaped the White House's notice.

Comments (151)

1. One major downside to the stimulus bill is that major economists say it is completely inadequate to address the multi-trillion-dollar economic output gap over the next 2+ years. This means that, in addition to legislation that won't accomplish anything like what is needed - and carries with it the idiocy of tax cuts as a centerpiece at a time in which the US government is essentially broke and struggling to finance trillions in bailout costs - the Obama administration faces the inevitability of being blamed for not rescuing the nation from economic woes.

   The problem appears to be the continued regard both in the Obama administration and within the Democratic party of business-as-usual economic policy - tax cuts for the already wealthy, lobbyist-driven policies in general - as somehow legitimate or of greater priority than actually addressing an economic catastrophe.

   Apparently the Obama administration objected even to the pay caps for incompetent executives who run companies into the ground and need taxpayer bailouts. Seeing to it that the sense of entitlement of failed, incompetent, corrupt executives and wealthy investors to great wealth, no matter what, was not violated was a greater priority than seeing to it social investment was part of the economic recovery.

   Posted by syfriendly at 02/17/2009 @ 4:45pm

2. "it's true that every single Republican member of congress can now be accused of "Voting against the biggest tax cut in history" come next election."

   And what can they say but a lame "It wasn't ENOUGH!"?

   LOL

   Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 4:48pm

3. Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 4:48pm

   heheh!

   Posted by Metteyya at 02/17/2009 @ 4:51pm

4. Laugh all you want. See what happens to the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. I would much rather be a Republican that tells my constituents that I did not vote for the economic genocide of our next generation and the total debasement of the U.S. dollar...than tell them that I did. Obama signed this bill in blood, and everyone who voted for it has it on their hands too.

   Posted by jimmylove at 02/17/2009 @ 5:33pm

5. So, yes the stimulus is inadequate, yet is there not the budget coming up on February 26th? And is not the budget non-filibusterable? (sorry for this word).

   I tell my students to not use wikipedia, but on this occasion I myself did not have time not to:

   Budget bills are governed under special rules called "reconciliation" which do not allow filibusters. Reconciliation once only applied to bills that would reduce the budget deficit, but since 1996 it has been used for all matters related to budget issues.

   So if that is the case, what stops Obama from restructuring spending towards stimulus and then adding more deficit spending? Which Democrat is going to stop him and in any case with 58 in hand he can even lose 7 and still get a budget with a much more stimulative effect.

   Say for example you cut from the nuclear weapons budget a few billion that go into high speed rail, added to the 8 billion already marked by the stimulus. This is just one area where he has already indicated that he will be cutting spending. Say the missile-defense is wiped and the money transfered to more infrastructure. Say the 11 billion on the presidential helicopter goes directly to the NIS of NIH. Small sums individually but significant on their overall impact.

   Just an idea, please comment.

   Posted by dimik72 at 02/17/2009 @ 6:05pm

6. The Standard & Poor's 500 (SPX) index lost almost 38 points, or about 4.6% and also touched its lowest point since Nov. 21st. The Nasdaq composite (COMP) lost 63 points, or about 4.1%. The Nasdaq has performed better than the rest of the market and has held above its bear-market lows.

   Wall Street retreated last week and resumed the selloff Tuesday. All financial markets were closed Monday for Presidents Day.

   "There a continuing concern about the economy, what steps are being taken to right it and how effective those steps are going to be," said Timothy Ghriskey, chief investment officer at Solaris Asset Management.

   Like I said at noon; Yea, the national economic indicators and small business owners sure do have confidence in Obamanation and the Undemocratic congresses ability to handle the U.S.A. economy with their Pork barrel SPENDING bill!

   Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 6:31pm

7. I'm not necessarily a fan, though politically it's true that every single Republican member of congress can now be accused of "Voting against the biggest tax cut in history" come next election." Clearly, this hasn't escaped the White House's notice.

   That would be something if it was true. The fact is that there was no massive tax cut in the bill.

   There is a temporary 2 year withholding relief that does not go to 95% of Americans as the Democrats and the White House like to proclaim.

   you must be a W2 wage earner in order to see this relief. NASE puts the number of self employed in this country at about 25% of the eligible work force.

   Depending on the source, that means about 35-50 million Americans will not see this so-called tax cut.

   So the little $6-14 dollar a week witholding relief that the Dems and Obama are bragging about will not go to 10's of millions of Americans that have been lumped in falsely by the Democrats and Obama.

   And, if the Democrats in California get their way this week, Californians will get a $1400 per family tax increase as they double the car tax, the state gas tax, increase the sales tax and put a surcharge on what is already the highest state income tax.

   So all in all, Democrats including Obama are guilty of their usual lies and distortions.

   This is not a stimulus bill nor is it the biggest tax cut in history.

   Posted by antisocialist at 02/17/2009 @ 6:43pm

8. Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 6:31pm

   and

   Posted by antisocialist at 02/17/2009 @ 6:43pm

   It is allways easier to criticize something than it is to create. That said, if the stimulus bill is so terribly flawed, what would a better option be? Don't tell me tax cuts will fix this mess that is pure fantasy. I am astounded the republicans would rather do nothing while the global economy crashes and let the US head toward a long drawnout depression than to work with democrats to try and fix the mess. I realize that for political purposes, getting Repubs elected in 2010 and 2012 that a terrible economy helps, so they are willing to throw America under the poverbial bus in order to regain political power. It disgusts me.

   Posted by Extraneous at 02/17/2009 @ 7:12pm

9. Rule through fear!

   Posted by abell12ct at 02/17/2009 @ 7:22pm

10. The Republcans all the leftist despise so much really didn't have to do anything except sit and watch Obamanation and the Undemocrats resurrect LBJ's "Great Society" socialistic Pork spending that provides nothing, nada, no economic business and manufactoring stimulus provisions or tax relief for 100s of millions of Americans!

    Your real problem was that SanFran Nan and the Undemocrats of the house totally SHUT OUT the Republicans from ANY and ALL input to their Porkulus spending spree! To make matters WORSE the senate shut them out too! A NO vote is the best indicator of just how bad this bill really is!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 7:27pm

11. I realize that for political purposes, getting Repubs elected in 2010 and 2012 that a terrible economy helps, so they are willing to throw America under the poverbial bus in order to regain political power. It disgusts me.

    Posted by Extraneous at 02/17/2009 @ 7:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You mean like the Democrats, with the help of the media, were rooting against us in Iraq for the same reason? Nooo....never.

    Posted by jimmylove at 02/17/2009 @ 7:48pm

12. The current US government economic stimulation plan is to print up a bunch of new paper money, T-Bills, Bonds, and other similar paper securities for bank deposit to cover checks issued to US contractors to re-build and expand the US contractors to re-build and expand the US infrastructure (Pork Barrel Projects) in order to reduce unemployment. (also cash bonuses to the Wall Street forgers). This money will probably be spent on imported earth-moving machinery, imported materials (Steel, equipment, Pipe & Wire), new imported private airplanes, illegal alien labor, outsourced engineering, outsourced CAD drafting, etc., and the US workers will still be mostly unemployed? Foreign suppliers will accept these freshly printed dollars that they earned in exchange for their products that they manufactured to purchase title to real estate, forests, industries, breweries, hotels, factories, casinos, financial institutions and title to everything else of value that is located in the USA. This is sort-of like selling our body parts to keep from working!!!!! Any Economic Stimulus Spending also needs to prohibit any imported products (even if we no longer manufacture those products) from being purchased with these funds, and also prohibit all outsourcing of the Labor Required. This is probably necessary at this time, even if it will cause massive inflation to the point that it takes a whole day's wages to buy one loaf of bread. This might only be good economically for salesmen of foreign equipment, materials, etc., and other people working in the import/distribution of imported things for our consumption, but the balance of trade will still be sending US dollars overseas to pay for the things that we import.

    Posted by gerald4 at 02/17/2009 @ 7:50pm

13. You mean like the Democrats, with the help of the media, were rooting against us in Iraq for the same reason? Nooo....never.

    Posted by jimmylove at 02/17/2009 @ 7:48pm

    Jimmy boy, you don't get it...try harder!

    Regarding your earlier comment about "blood on their hands." HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Jesus H. Christ on a stick, that was amazing! They actually do have blood on their hands and you don't even understand why... what's that word?...not genius........idiot!

    Posted by ADHD at 02/17/2009 @ 8:24pm

14. funny, i don't feel stimulated......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/17/2009 @ 9:50pm

15. Jimmy, Comanche and friends view spending billions on actual projects here in America, mostly infrastructure and schools, as PORK. (Their caps.) But spending hundreds of billions on wars and military buildups, which contribute nothing, is seen as a good thing.

    Borrowing money for infrastructure projects (which at least have the possibility of a pay back in future) is WASTE. Cutting hundreds of billions from rich people's taxes while borrowing and spending similar amounts on the military (with NO POSSIBILITY of payback) is sound fiscal judgment.

    I respect CA's intelligence, but I don't get this at all.

    Posted by DavidSpero at 02/17/2009 @ 9:51pm

16. You say the good news is that the Stimulus has arrived. The bad is that they will be back and asking for a great deal more. The redistribution of wealth has begun and we the taxpayer are left holding the bag.

    Posted by allday at 02/17/2009 @ 10:32pm

17. This is what happens when a community organizer becomes the welfare King.

    Posted by allday at 02/17/2009 @ 10:39pm

18. This is what happens when a community organizer becomes the welfare King. Posted by allday at 02/17/2009 @ 10:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    what nonsense. just absurd.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/17/2009 @ 10:47pm

19. Posted by allday at 02/17/2009 @ 10:32pm

    Wait a minute, I thought whenever somebody brings up a tax cut primarily aimed at the middle class, YOU guys are the ones who point out that "half the country doesn't pay any income taxes"...

    now you tell us "taxpayers will be left holding the bag"....well, according to you guys that's just the poor, oppressed rich, isn't it???

    Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 10:51pm

20. Good try Mask but you can't hide the facts and time will tell where this Stimulus takes us.

    Posted by allday at 02/17/2009 @ 11:04pm

21. Extraneous: "I realize that for political purposes, getting Repubs elected in 2010 and 2012 that a terrible economy helps, so they are willing to throw America under the poverbial bus in order to regain political power. It disgusts me."

    Somehow I don't believe you were disgusted when you dems were willing to lose a war in order to win political power.

    Posted by pyeatte at 02/18/2009 @ 12:30am

22. Congratulations, Mr. President. You have won a huge victory in your first three weeks in office -- the swift passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

    I hope this is only a first step. There is a gigantic amount of work to be done to repair the damage that the Right-Wing has done to our country over the past eight years. Now you have a big head wind in your sails. Please don't stop. Keep on going. You can get America back on track, and the vast majority of the American people are hoping and praying that you will continue to do exactly that.

    Please visit my Blog: "Conservatives Are America's Real Terrorists" http://conservativesarecommunistss.blogspot.com/

    Posted by CJP at 02/18/2009 @ 01:01am

23. Posted by CJP at 02/18/2009 @ 01:01am

    seems you are a party of one from the scanning of your blog. But what else would you expect from someone who seems so ignorant of history and economics.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 01:06am

24. Aussies would like to see Obama's package succeed for the simple reason that when Americans start buying China's goods again it in turn will buy more of our agricultural products and resources, particularly coal and iron ore. We may even sell a bit more beef to the US.

    Australia with 20 million people has just passed an AU $42 billion stimulus package into law. That equates to about USD$420 billion adjusted for population. The package has similar elements to Obama's package.

    Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last November boasted he had a $10.4 billion stimulus package that would "create up to 75,000 additional jobs over the coming year". The same month he produced another "$15.1 billion package to create 133,000 jobs", and weeks later he gave us a $4.7 billion "nation-building program" to "help create up to 32,000 Australian jobs".

    You guessed it. None of the 240,000 jobs are remotely in sight as unemployment starts a fairly rapid upward movement. In fact the economy is tanking in what appears to be a Rudd stimulus immune fashion. However, with a Keynesian flourish - voila- he produces, out of the hat, his USD$420 billion (equivalent) to show the spendthrift Obama that he is in a good Left-wing tradition. As cause and effect doesn't seem to be in his economic tool kit, that is the only conclusion one can draw.

    If you can get a bookie to take your bets you would make a fortune betting on more substantial short, mid and long term losses accruing from both Obama's and Rudd's largesse with public money on the "never never" repayment principle. Rudd got a bit more real money to splurge from the large surpluses generated by a real conservative government.

    I can't help feeling both these national leaders may, after so much early promise, alas turn out to be duds.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/18/2009 @ 05:59am

25. It is instructive to know that Japan, which is in deep depression, (steel making, which has declined by 40% in the last 12 months is a key indicator of the declining strength of its economy) has been using over the last decade or so and is presently working on an Obama style stimulus package in which capital is transferred from the public to the private sector through cash grants.

    That sort of stimulus has led Japan into the economic mess it is in now. And that despite Japan's high taxes, restrictive immigration (of workers) policy and heavy tariff protection. Japanese people are saying they want jobs, not government handouts and they have voted three PMs out over the last year to indicate their dissatisfaction with Japan's economic policies.

    The judgment of history is it simply does not work and does not produce wealth but merely shuffles "the money" around without creating new wealth. That is not the way real jobs are produced nor is it effective in pulling a national economy out of a slump.

    Deregulation of the markets and genuine, even if imperfect, free trade policies are what produced the tremendous economic growth, and hence jobs, in developed and developing countries over the last 25 years or so. That is the only way ultimately for our interdependent "world economy" to get back on track. The alternatives belong in the tried and failed trash bin.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/18/2009 @ 07:51am

26. were willing to lose a war in order to win political power.----Posted by pyeatte at 02/18/2009 @ 12:30am

    ?!??!? You're ADMITTING that Republicans want the recession to get worse in order to win political power????

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 08:53am

27. Posted by pyeatte at 02/18/2009 @ 12:30am

    Who wanted to lose the war? I think we wanted something other than stay the course. I never thought we should have invaded, but once we were there I wanted us to do what was needed to get out of it. I love how the repubs complain about the cost of the stimulus bill, yeah it is alot. But it dwarfs in comparison to the total cost of the Iraq war. How is it fine to spend trillions in Iraq? and for what? 3 trillion so that GW could have a little pet war to avenge his daddy, that is just fine if you call it something inspiring like "operation Iraqi freedon". But God forbid we spend any money to improve conditions at home, that is just welfare, socialism, etc. Maybe if we name the stimulus package "operation homeland fortification" the republicans can pretend it is a war and get behind it. The hypocrisy just kills me.

    Posted by Extraneous at 02/18/2009 @ 11:47am

28. www.washingtonpost.com /wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

    Posted by Extraneous at 02/18/2009 @ 11:48am

29. Posted by Extraneous at 02/18/2009 @ 11:47am

    Have to remember...these are the same sort of minds that anquish over "$12 million for bike paths in the 'Porkulus' bill"....

    but waved their hands and said "So what? Big deal!" about NINE BILLION dollars lost....just "lost", not even spent....in Iraq.

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 11:53am

30. Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 11:53am

    I hear ya. Still I am astounded how it is ok, to spend trillions killing and destroying lives halfway around the world, in the name of security. But how it is pork/welfare/wasted money, to spend any money domestically. Say for keeping criminals in jail, feeding the children, providing jobs, etc. That is just waste. But spending even more to wage a war that only serves to make us less secure is okie dokie, "the cost of freedom".

    Posted by Extraneous at 02/18/2009 @ 12:15pm

31. We are going to spend billions of dollars, yet cut taxes. This is like using a credit card, making the minimuim payment, and continuing to make more purchases on the card. While tax cuts sound great...what do they mean for the future. Less than a year ago making the world better for future generations was a majority goal for this country, now we are hampering the future by incurring an unacceptable amount of foriegn debt.

    Posted by whistlinwill at 02/18/2009 @ 12:19pm

32. Posted by whistlinwill at 02/18/2009 @ 12:19pm

    Your right. Where have you been the last 8 years? When we went from suprlus to monstrous debt? Spending like a kid in candy store on everything but domestics. Spending money we don't have is bad, I agree. So if we don't spend what would you suggest. Do nothing? Raise taxes?

    Our current foreign debt is somewhere around 11 trillion, and has doubled in the last 8 years. If the stimulus bill does not work, it will be a shame, but at least we will have something to show for it. Better roads, schools, improved energy efficiency, etc. Which will pay dividends into the future. The cost of doing this work now will be cheaper than doing it in the future. And really? Compared to 3 trillion spent in Iraq for nothing, this is cheap.

    Posted by Extraneous at 02/18/2009 @ 12:41pm

33. Compared to 3 trillion spent in Iraq for nothing, this is cheap.

    Posted by Extraneous at 02/18/2009 @ 12:41pm

    What utter BS. We have spent about 1/3 of this Obama spending boondogle on Iraq.

    You have to get out of leftist spin sites and actually go to the facts.

    The CBO puts the added deficit cost of this "Stimulus" at 1.5 trillion; plus the bill itself and you are nearly and 2.5 trillion.

    The Iraq war cost has been approx 650 billion.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 1:24pm

34. This is not the time to preach fiscal responsibility. Moral responsibility is more important. There are millions out of work and losing their homes. It would be wrong for Uncle Sam to look the other way. Trillions are needed and should be provided quickly. Let those that harbor alien ideologies day dream while formerly unemployed workers fill pot holes and paint school room walls. America will rise up again but until it does our work force must be kept busy.

    Posted by melpol at 02/18/2009 @ 1:42pm

35. The Iraq war cost has been approx 650 billion.-----Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 1:24pm

    So if Obama's 1500 billion doesn't kill 4100+ American soldiers and empowers Shiite states like Iraq in the Middle East...

    doesn't he STILL win the cost/benefit analysis?

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 1:46pm

36. Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 1:24pm

    Sorry pal, you the one that needs a purgative, and needs to stop parroting what you find on right wing websites. Your math is not supported by anything the CBO has produced, if so provide a link to this suspect citation please. I at least provided a link to my 3 trillion number.

    Looks to me like the CBO estimates the stimulus bill by 787b over the next 10 years, so I think your smoking crack.

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9989/hr1conference.pdf

    Posted by Extraneous at 02/18/2009 @ 2:13pm

37. The Iraq war cost has been approx 650 billion. Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 1:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    the meter in Iraq is still running.

    and what has been the cost to the Iraqis? almost immeasurable.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/18/2009 @ 3:34pm

38. The Iraqi war has also cost over 4,000 American lives, don't forget. Also, arguably made us less safe (with the resultant anger producing more terrorists). Also cost us international respect (and also support from allies).

    Truth is, it has cost us in oh so many ways, too many to even count.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 3:59pm

39. The CBO estimates that the baseline budget deficit will be just under $1.2 trillion in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30.

    But that masks a number of near-certain expenditures.

    The CBO itself predicts the stimulus package currently in the Senate would boost the deficit by $233 billion this fiscal year. It figures the Troubled Asset Relief Program will add $180 billion. Throw in $120 billion for supplemental costs for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the deficit will be at least $1.7 trillion. That also leaves out a host of possible unknown factors, all of which would worsen the deficit.

    Foremost among them is declining tax revenues. According to one analyst, the CBO is not adequately accounting for the effect the downturn will have on tax receipts.

    "In the last recession (2001) we learned our tax system is very sensitive to income earned by upper-income earners and the financial sector," said J.D. Foster, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "The epicenter of the recession today is in Wall Street. The firms there are normally enormous taxpayers."

    Revenues may be worse by $300 billion to $700 billion than the CBO forecasts, pushing the deficit to $2 trillion to $2.4 trillion.

    http://tinyurl.com/aheuen

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 3:59pm

40. "deficits don't matter" Dick Cheney

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/18/2009 @ 4:07pm

41. Emile,

    Think of the irony. For 8 years, the Republicans spent money like water - now (when we actually DO need to spend money) they turn into "fiscal conservatives"!

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 4:28pm

42. Actually, it is laregly a myth that Republicans are fiscal conservatives - think about it. Reagan? Bush? Hige spenders! Last time we had a balanced budget - a Democrat (Clinton).

    Just where ARE these so-called "fiscal conservatives"?

    Note: this post is deeply indebted to Bill Maher (he basically said what I just said here, the other night on Larry King).

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 4:30pm

43. The Iraq war cost has been approx 650 billion. Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 1:24pm

    You need to get off the right spin sites, because that number doesn't even begin to encompass the cost of the war. The number you are talking about is only the money authorized you aren't including the normal military budget and anything else.

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/hidden.war.costs/index.html

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html

    Those are 3 articles addressing the costs. The NYTimes one is probably the best one.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/18/2009 @ 4:40pm

44. Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 4:30pm

    A "fiscal conservative" is a Republican who's RUNNING for an office.

    Oh and remember, the boom of the 80s was to Reagan's credit because of his mastery of the budget (tax cuts, etc)...

    the deficits were all the Democrats' fault! (Seems the Gipper's powers faded in and out)

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 4:41pm

45. Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 3:59pm

    Why is it under Bush you guys pish-poshed the deficit. Now all of a sudden it's a big deal? Obama isn't even close the deficit Bush gave us after his first 4 years in office and Obama is just responding to conflict. In the first 4 years Bush squandered a 500 Billion dollar surplus and put us into record breaking debt. Why only now do you care? Is it because in fact you don't care about the fate of America but the fate of your party?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/18/2009 @ 4:46pm

46. Mask, truth be told, the Dems WERE complicitous in the Reagan years - after all, they went along to a significant extent - failed to act as the "loyal opposition" etc.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 4:47pm

47. Deregulation of the markets and genuine, even if imperfect, free trade policies are what produced the tremendous economic growth, and hence jobs, in developed and developing countries over the last 25 years or so. That is the only way ultimately for our interdependent "world economy" to get back on track. The alternatives belong in the tried and failed trash bin.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/18/2009 @ 07:51am

    They are also what produced a drop in the living standards of peasants and workers throughout Latin America and Asia - at least in those countries with governemtns that followed the neo-liberal path and either stagnated or lowered the living standards of farmers and workers in wide swaths of Europe and North America.

    However, I'm not a big fan of simply handing out money, either. What should our bourgeois governments do? See my next post for some answers.

    Posted by cka2nd at 02/18/2009 @ 5:10pm

48. You need to get off the right spin sites, because that number doesn't even begin to encompass the cost of the war. The number you are talking about is only the money authorized you aren't including the normal military budget and anything else.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/18/2009 @ 4:40pm

    Your link provides backup for my contention while listing the extremists who use wildly inaccurate projections to substantiate their charges.

    Secondly, what nearly every critic avoids is the fact that a large percentage of the Iraq cost is for military personnel wages which are paid regardless of the war. The normal military budget is not part of the Iraq costs and should not be included.

    your NY Times link

    "Debate aside, there is general consensus that Congress will have allocated slightly more than $600 billion for Iraq operations through the 2008 fiscal year.

    The highest estimates often include projections for future operations, long-term health care and disability costs for veterans, a portion of the regular, annual defense budget, and, in some cases, wider economic effects, including a percentage of higher oil prices and the impact of raising the national debt to cover increased war spending."

    Stiglitz is proof that winning a Nobel doesn't require rational thinking.

    "Even some economists who call themselves fans of Mr. Stiglitz say they think that number is exaggerated; the authors insist their projections are moderate."

    We are not seeing the higher oil prices that Stiglitz forecast would remain because of the war. That is a huge number in their projections.

    The casualty numbers have fallen dramatically, challenging the credibility of their estimates. The casualty numbers now are about at the normal losses experienced yrly in training exercises.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 5:15pm

49. However, I'm not a big fan of simply handing out money, either. What should our bourgeois governments do? See my next post for some answers.

    Posted by cka2nd at 02/18/2009 @ 5:10pm

    1. Get out of the way of workers who want to unionize and fight for better wages and working conditions, the surest way of raising the general standard of living and spurring real economic growth as opposed to one financial bubble (fake, transient and relatively less useful economic growth) after another.

    2. Regulate the financial system. I'd rather have a stock market in the low thousands that actually raises capital for real development than one that is a giant casino focused on churning assets and generating short-term profits and big commissions. Ditto for a system of banks rooted in their localities and regions that know their depositors and borrowers, big and small.

    3. Invest in infrastructure (though not white elephants). Businesses may not like unions, but they do like good rail, road, shipping, electrical, communications, water and public health and yes, even public education systems if they're not allowed to be all about the quarterly report, the annual bonus and the daily stock price.

    4. Enact national heath insurance, whether single-payer or some other publicly regulated system. If a former Wall Street Journal bureau chief with a bum shoulder can do a documentary on the different health care systems in half-a-dozen developed countries, then maybe our government can adapt one or more of those models to the U.S.

    Posted by cka2nd at 02/18/2009 @ 5:18pm

50. Poopies, I forgot one major thing.

    5. Reign in the Central Bankers! Talk about elites. If we need them at all, and there seem to be good arguments from both the left and the right that we don't, we sure as hell don't need them to control things as if they were the burning bush on Mt. Sinai whom we must all obey. Nor do we need them to act as if their only job is to control inflation.

    Posted by cka2nd at 02/18/2009 @ 5:23pm

51. The ideas outlined above are pretty standard Social Democratic ones, i.e., those of a Socialist who is willing to regulate Capitalism instead of trying to overthrow it. Commie, Pinko, Red Trotskyist that I am, I must add that the ruling class of each of our countries will fight even these reforms tooth and nail, as they have in the past. They will resort to coups - military, economic and/or via dirty tricks - as we have seen throughout the Third World and in parts of the First World over the last 60 years (Iran, Chile, Greece, Haiti and, according to some, apparently even Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom).

    I'm not an expert on the subject of the long-term health of capitalism, but the big bourgoisie will resist any and all moves that will lower their rates of profit, with little or no concern for the health of the planet or its inhabitants, humans included. Unless the working class declares independence from the political servants of Capital, conservative, liberal or social democratic alike, I don't see any long-term solution to the continued degradation of the lives and living standards of most of the world's population.

    Posted by cka2nd at 02/18/2009 @ 5:35pm

52. Cz,

    I'm merely a liberal (as opposed to socialist, of even social democrat, or whatever), but you have some interesting ideas there, I must admit.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:43pm

53. "We are not seeing the higher oil prices that Stiglitz forecast would remain because of the war".

    $140 a barrel for oil?

    the cost benefit analysis of the Iraq war is not yet complete. we must figure in the US soldier suicides too.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/18/2009 @ 5:51pm

54. Why is it under Bush you guys pish-poshed the deficit. Now all of a sudden it's a big deal? Obama isn't even close the deficit Bush gave us after his first 4 years in office and Obama is just responding to conflict. In the first 4 years Bush squandered a 500 Billion dollar surplus and put us into record breaking debt. Why only now do you care? Is it because in fact you don't care about the fate of America but the fate of your party?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/18/2009 @ 4:46pm

    I never "pish-poshed" the deficit. I criticized Bush and the Republicans for their out of control domestic spending and also did so on this website.

    A correction though, Bush did not "squander a 500 Billion dollar surplus".

    the surplus was just under 300 billion in 2000 and was just over a 100 billion in 2001.

    But we entered a recession beginning in March of 2000 that caused a serious decline in tax revenues beginning in 2001. That decline was seriously multiplied by the economic hit we took on 9/11. You may recall that Wall Street was closed for a week and that the airlines all were temporarily grounded?

    I recommend among reports, the 2002 report to Congress by the Congressional Research Service

    https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/1533

    That report was updated in 2004 with much more specific detail on the economic impact here and globally.

    http://tinyurl.com/ddla3g

    You say Obama isn't even close to the Bush deficits of the 1st 4 yrs? That is so ignorant as to be laughable. At the 4 yr mark the deficit was just under 400 billion. Obama's 1st economic legislation is dble that (quadruple according to other estimates).

    I think you've been cheated on your education. ask for a refund.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 5:51pm

55. this would be a good time to revisit the cost of Iraq according to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I remember the figure $500 MILLION being tossed around.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/18/2009 @ 5:56pm

56. this would be a good time to revisit the cost of Iraq according to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I remember the figure $500 MILLION being tossed around.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/18/2009 @ 5:56pm

    It was 50-90 billion. And the price has still been cheap compared to not invading Iraq and letting Saddam continue.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 6:00pm

57. I think you've been cheated on your education. ask for a refund. Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 5:51pm

    Basically the consensus of all your arguments. Present flawed facts then insult because you have nothing of real relevance to say. Funny coming from a preacher.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:04pm

58. It was 50-90 billion. And the price has still been cheap compared to not invading Iraq and letting Saddam continue. Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 6:00pm

    Once again you make up facts. You can't even begin to make that statement without something to back it up. Is there an estimated cost had we not invaded? Considering what we know now Saddam was de-fanged so I imagine the cost would have been nothing.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:07pm

59. Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 5:51pm

    Oh and of course everyone feels the ease of lobbing insults when they are behind an anonymous screen name. It's much more difficult to actually ingest ALL facts not JUST the facts that support your case and make a judgment for yourself.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:08pm

60. Didn't they say before the war that, in effect, the war in Iraq would "pay for itself"?

    Question: were they lying? Or, deluding themselves, or what? I know it would be so unusual, so not like them, to have lied!

    Anycase, half a trillion and climbing, for a stupid war that should never have been fought, at a time of great economic trouble. No wonder Bush was just rated something like 38th on the list of Presidents from best to worst.

    What a waste of money, lives, and goodwill (from 9/11).

    It is to weep.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:11pm

61. Not to mention that we could have spent some of those billions and lives on Afghanistan, and if we had done so, it might resemble something other than a basket case by now.

    It is to weep.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:13pm

62. Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:13pm

    Or spent some of that money on our failing economy or many other more worthy causes than another dick measuring contest.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:15pm

63. Cc, in other words, the war was fough for reasons of male ego, in effect? You have a very colorful way of putting it.

    It's funny, I am still trying to figure out exactly WHY we went to war. I have heard all the arguments, all the theories as to why we fought that stupid war, but I still feel, though I have some handle on it, that ultimately, there is no perfect answer.

    Remember Oliver Stone's movie about Nixon? (Maybe that's what it was called, can't remember.) There was a great scene, based on the true incident, where President Nixon went down to the Lincoln Memorial to talk with anti-war protesters. This was in the spring of 1970, in the wake of the Kent State shootings. One of the students looked at him, and said "why can't we get out of Vietnam?" The camera pans to Nixon's face (beautifully played by Anthony Hopkins), and Nixon says nothing for several moments, thewn simply says, "I don't know." I don't know if that's exactly what Nixon really said in real life, but what it suggested, that even the president of the United States could not say, did nopt know, exactly WHY we were in Vietnam, was fascinating and deep.

    I somewhat feel that way about Iraq, that there is no one final definitive answer as to WHY we went in there.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:23pm

64. Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 5:51pm

    Oh and by the way. The stimulus package is going to add a little over 200 billion to the deficit. Which is half of Bush.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:24pm

65. Even the people who who were so strongly FOR the war can't explain it adequately. After all, their justifications have changed/morphed several times over the last 6 years.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:26pm

66. I somewhat feel that way about Iraq, that there is no one final definitive answer as to WHY we went in there. Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:23pm

    Often times because the answers have been proven false. Then it falls to well, how much did the government truly know. Which will never be known.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:26pm

67. A cartoon likening the author of the stimulus bill, perhaps President Barack Obama, with a rabid chimpanzee graced the pages of the New York Post on Wednesday.

    The drawing, from famed cartoonist Sean Delonas, is rife with violent imagery and racial undertones. In it, two befuddled-looking police officers holding guns look over the dead and bleeding chimpanzee that attacked a woman in Stamford, Connecticut.

    "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," reads the caption.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18/ new-york-post-chimp-carto_n_167841.html

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 7:33pm

68. disgusting. this will backfire.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/18/2009 @ 7:47pm

69. the Iraq war was to try to cleanse the stain of the Bush administration's failure of 9/11. they thought it would be easy.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/18/2009 @ 7:50pm

70. Basically the consensus of all your arguments. Present flawed facts then insult because you have nothing of real relevance to say. Funny coming from a preacher.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:04pm

    Oh and by the way. The stimulus package is going to add a little over 200 billion to the deficit. Which is half of Bush.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:24pm

    I've posted all of the actual numbers and even Obama disagrees with you on the numbers.

    "Mr. Obama was not specific about the size of the deficit he expects, beyond his reference to "a trillion-dollar deficit or close to a trillion-dollar deficit" for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. Aides said later that the estimate -- in line with what economists have been anticipating given the economy's rapid deterioration -- did not include the costs of the proposed stimulus package, which could add hundreds of billions of dollars more to the red ink.

    At $1 trillion, the deficit would not only shatter the largest previous shortfall in dollar terms -- $455 billion last year -- but it could also exceed the post-World War II-era record by the measure more meaningful in economic terms, the deficit as a percentage of total economic activity."

    http://tinyurl.com/7uqqym

    And again, you've seen the CBO report. It adds almost 200 billion this year alone to the deficit (more by the estimates of others)

    CBO estimates that enacting the conference agreement for H.R. 1 would increase federal budget deficits by $185 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $399 billion in 2010, by $134 billion in 2011, and by $787 billion over the 2009-2019 period.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 8:28pm

71. Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 8:28pm

    So you were in fact wrong.

    "You say Obama isn't even close to the Bush deficits of the 1st 4 yrs? That is so ignorant as to be laughable. At the 4 yr mark the deficit was just under 400 billion. Obama's 1st economic legislation is dble that (quadruple according to other estimates)."

    We were talking about adding to the deficit. Bush basically added 500 billion dollars if your numbers are correct. He went through 100 billion dollars in surplus and added another 400 billion. Obama's package will add another 200 billion. So it won't double Bushes deficit until 2019 according to you.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/18/2009 @ 9:32pm

72. Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 6:00pm

    I'm sure 4100+ American families are glad they only paid a "cheap price" for your paranoid fantasy, Larry.

    Again, Obama's spending doesn't kill 1000s of GIs for no good reason....he's still way ahead of the curve over Dubya.

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 10:10pm

73. Posted by Extraneous at 02/18/2009 @ 12:41pm

    I am new to blogging so bare with me.

    In response to your question how should we pay for the stimulus?

    I think it is time for the government to start making money instead of taking money. What I propose is alot closer to socialism than any stimulus bill was proposing. The government needs to become actively involved in business. I propose that the U.S. government opens up gas stations that sell fuel. Instead of handing money over to a corporations who could care less about reinvesting profits into America, we could pay the government the same price for fuel as a way to pay for the stimulus. Government profit is a way to reduce the defecit without raising taxes.

    Posted by whistlinwill at 02/18/2009 @ 10:17pm

74. I am new to blogging.....

    I propose that the U.S. government opens up gas stations that sell fuel.....Government profit is a way to reduce the defecit without raising taxes.

    Posted by whistlinwill at 02/18/2009 @ 10:17pm

    Welcome to a Newbie of the Left......Far Left!

    Hope you're not "new" to what's been going on with Hugo Chavez's venture into running gas stations, oil fields......Google it up and see how an `integrated' national oil company does (hint: it can't even afford to pay its vendors on time and some have walked away).....you can also see how PEMEX, that's Mexico's national `integrated' Oil, is doing pumping themselves literally dry

    Posted by Happy at 02/18/2009 @ 11:34pm

75. Fellas, A lot of you know a great deal about finances and politics... much more than I, so I don't even jump in. But there is a lot of flawed data here. And a lot of guessing mixed with wishful thinking.

    Google was invented for a reason. If a question pops up, just google it and get a multitude of links.

    Let's start with the little item of how much Rumsfield said the Iraq war would cost. Bush fell in line and repeated his estimate. I googled it and came up with a 2003 department of defense document. This is what it said. Not me. What the department of defense transcript of a news conference said:

    Q: Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, how much money do you think the Department of Defense would need to pay for a war with Iraq?

    Rumsfeld: Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.

    Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 12:03am

76. you can also see how PEMEX, that's Mexico's national `integrated' Oil, is doing pumping themselves literally dry

    Posted by Happy at 02/18/2009 @ 11:34pm

    look who's talking.

    texas is about as dry as dick cheney's tear ducts.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2009 @ 12:22am

77. Next, at www.nationalpriorities.org is a counter that is tallying the current and growing cost of this war in Iraq. That number as of 30 seconds ago was:

    $598,118,721,033. Compared to $50,000,000,000. Watching the meter run on this site makes you shudder.

    Since there were never any WMD's found, and that was why we went there, we could have saved a shit load of cash at the very least.

    A scanning of various sites says that 12 billion in cash was distributed, never to be seen again. Bundles of shrink wrapped 100 dollar bills were given away, no receipts were given, no accounting for the cash was done. No one knows where it went, only that it's gone.

    These figures, as I said, are a massive departure from some of the figures quoted above. But A LOT MORE THAN ANYONE REALIZES IN GENERAL would be appropriate. then Bush threw 500 billion at the current fiscal problem. On his way out the door. What a piece of work.

    Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 12:23am

78. ficheye

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/

    americas/a-fraud-bigger-than-madoff-1622987.html

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2009 @ 12:35am

79. Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2009 @ 12:35am

    Frosty,

    Holy crap. Did I really need to know all of that, or did we already know it? I'd like to be naive just to endure the pain of the present by being clueless about the past. But that was just a dream.

    It seems that, in the long run, America has excelled in producing some of the greatest criminals of all time, and then all of THEM started schools to produce even more criminals.

    Maybe that's really the basic flaw of a great many Americans: Democrat, Republican or in between, they would be a lot more pissed off about things if, deep down, they didn't really want to be 'One of Them', those ultra wealthy that seem determined to step on our necks. Is that why I play the lottery? Hmm.

    Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 12:59am

80. I am new to blogging so bare with me.

    blogging in the nude?

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 08:31am

81. "They are also what produced a drop in the living standards of peasants and workers throughout Latin America and Asia - at least in those countries with governemtns that followed the neo-liberal path and either stagnated or lowered the living standards of farmers and workers in wide swaths of Europe and North America."

    Posted by cka2nd at 02/18/2009 @ 5:10pm

    Those claims are balanced by the 200 million new jobs produced globally, over the last 25 years as a direct result of market deregulation and various FTAs and general free trade policies. A large portion of those new jobs has helped produce a large middle class in places like China and India. The global economic downturn is forcing some of China's former peasants, who had been enjoying a relatively high standard of living, working in the cities, to return to rural life where they are getting re-acquainted with real poverty.

    There is no economic future for peasants and subsistence farmers in a world, which will need to feed an extra 2 billion people within a few decades. That will require the best agricultural technologies and the most efficient use of scarce soil and water resources.

    Here is a list of claimed benefits for the three NAFTA partners:

    http://tinyurl.com/apxhow

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/19/2009 @ 09:12am

82. Again, Obama's spending doesn't kill 1000s of GIs for no good reason....he's still way ahead of the curve over Dubya.

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 10:10pm

    BS Mask. Again, you demean our troops as you always do.

    I speak with them upon their return, as many Marines as I can. They are proud of serving over there. Unlike you and the other anti-Americans, they believe they have served honorably and for an honorable cause.

    You aren't worthy of kissing their behinds.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 10:44am

83. You aren't worthy of kissing their behinds. Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 10:44am | ignore this person | warn this person

    why should he be? you're taking care of all the ass kissing they will ever need.

    then there is that little thing with record breaking military suicides. must be that they're über proud.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 10:58am

84. then there is that little thing with record breaking military suicides. must be that they're über proud.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 10:58am

    no it's because people like yourself raised up a new generation of pansies (the most polite way I can say it), who lack the moral fortitude of previous generations.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:01am

85. no it's because people like yourself raised up a new generation of pansies (the most polite way I can say it), who lack the moral fortitude of previous generations. Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:01am | ignore this person | warn this person

    why do you hate American troops so much?

    I have ONE son. for you to call him a pansy is despicable, you son of a whore.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 11:07am

86. after WW1 there was a huge increase in troop suicides. they were all of a previous generation or two, you disgusting slime.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 11:08am

87. Posted by Happy at 02/18/2009 @ 11:34pm

    The only reason that oil system collapsed though is because of the collapse of the entire market. It's not BECAUSE it's nationalized. It's really doing no better or worse than the other oil companies. That countries wealth and Hugo Chavez's rule is entirely built on oil and they were doing so well that they were running a huge government surplus even in a socialistic government. So they must have been doing something right until the price of oil collapsed of course. Which put them in the same boat as every private oil company. None of their problems have to do with nationalization it all has to do with collapse of oil world wide.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 11:24am

88. I have ONE son. for you to call him a pansy is despicable, you son of a whore.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 11:07am

    you don't get pork chops from a fruit tree.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:37am

89. go f*ck your mother, you piece of trash.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 11:45am

90. do you f*ck your sons up the *ss, or do they bugger you? you piece of filth.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 11:48am

91. do you f*ck your sons up the *ss, or do they bugger you? you piece of filth.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 11:48am

    I love seeing the true nature of a "pacifist" liberal brought out into the light.

    I guess you owe this enlightened dialogue to your NY college education? Is that how they teach "tolerance and diversity" at your far left universities?

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 12:07pm

92. you don't get pork chops from a fruit tree. Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:37am

    What happened to you and Jesus? I got the idea that you had found some 'peace', at least that's what you said.

    But you seem like another bitter, angry conservative. Jesus is nowhere around in these type of exchanges. And he was a socialist, I might add. Otherwise he would have set up a cart and sold all those loaves and fishes at the sermon on the mount instead of giving them away...

    And, as far as the soldiers are concerned, their mission is that they have a job. and a car. It's pretty obvious that 'patriotism' and the 'american dream' doesn't have anything to do with it any more. I live in a town with a major military base. I see lots of soldiers and have the opportunity to talk to them regularly.

    One thing is clear: they all say hu-ah when they need to to fit in, but as far as why they went to Iraq, and why their friends died - they have no idea. And neither do you. 4100 dead, 59 billion spent, no WMD's, and none of the 911 hijackers was from Iraq. Jesus would be pissed.

    Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 12:14pm

93. What happened to you and Jesus? I got the idea that you had found some 'peace', at least that's what you said.

    But you seem like another bitter, angry conservative. Jesus is nowhere around in these type of exchanges. And he was a socialist, I might add.

    And, as far as the soldiers are concerned, their mission is that they have a job. and a car. It's pretty obvious that 'patriotism' and the 'american dream' doesn't have anything to do with it any more. I live in a town with a major military base. I see lots of soldiers and have the opportunity to talk to them regularly.

    One thing is clear: they all say hu-ah when they need to to fit in, but as far as why they went to Iraq, and why their friends died - they have no idea.

    Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 12:14pm

    I see 1st of all you have a limited knowledge of the Bible.

    Jesus never hesitated to use worse language than I ever do.

    Brood of Vipers Serpents

    Hypocrites (continuously)

    Blind Guides

    White Tombs full of dead man's bones

    Accused of devouring widows' houses

    Full of extortion and self indulgence

    And finally, in verses 33-35

    Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

    as to the soldiers, I don't know whether you are talking to army or marines. I talk to Marines from Camp Pendleton and they believe in their mission and are proud-as I am of them.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 12:21pm

94. I speak with them upon their return, as many Marines as I can. They are proud of serving over there. Unlike you and the other anti-Americans, they believe they have served honorably and for an honorable cause. You aren't worthy of kissing their behinds. Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 10:44am

    See job. I direct you to all that "You hate america" talk.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:05pm

95. Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 12:07pm

    Umm. I think when you insult someone's son you get this kind of response. This has nothing to do with liberal or not liberal LVL. It has to do with you being a condescending and judgmental jerk and insulting someone's family.

    How on earth are you a priest? I didn't know the church let such lowlifes lead it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:09pm

96. I guess your judgmental, low brow and hateful attitude towards others owes to your religion then eh?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:13pm

97. Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 12:21pm

    When I first smelled you out as a Jesus freak it clarified the camouflage that you were using to try to make a point. You have a sickness.

    And as to the bible quotes, I know of all these things. I put the church behind me, however, when I realized that the church could easily justify being a death cult whenever it suited them. Kill the indians. Kill the Inca. Kill the muslims on all 9 crusades. Kill, kill, kill. Then pray about it. That's not spirituality. It's insanity.

    All that killing and the justification for it is basically sick. You can find many quotes in the bible where Jesus seems to say the opposite of the things you quote above. That's why it's a flawed treatise to live by. Too much doublespeak. Do you handle serpents? Sacrifice animals? Ignore the new testament?

    Methinks you are a specious and divisive christian of the most classic sort. Pray, or get a bumper sticker. That's usually the 'christian move' in lieu of actually doing anything constructive. Christians are supposed to give us an earthly example to live by and win converts. I guess you are going to leave that up to someone else.

    "What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?" - Jesus

    You've got some praying to do. Imagine what would happen to any of your 'soldier friends' if they spoke out about the war while they were still in the corps. That's why they never do it until they suffer from PTSD. I feel sad for them to have to fight in a war with no meaning only to come back home to nothing.

    Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 1:15pm

98. LVL, you want to know why soldiers come home now-a-days and don't like the war they fought in. Because unlike the days of World War 2 there is no right and wrong. There is no clear enemy, and few realistic objectives. World War 2 was a purely defensive war. We fought to stop Germany and Japan from taking over the world. What is the last war you remember that was unquestionable amongst the public?

    Every war has been questionable since because before 9/11 we had never been attacked and after 9/11 we went after a country that had nothing to do with it, Iraq. THAT is why these troops are not proud of what they are doing. They are killing innocent people for no conceivable reason, because all of the reasons are politics.

    These people pose no threat to our nation. Unlike the Germans did. That's the problem. When you have a war that is based solely in politics and not in defense you no longer have willing troops. They signed up protect their country. Not to stoke someone's vendetta.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:29pm

99. How on earth are you a priest? I didn't know the church let such lowlifes lead it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:09pm

    No, Priests are Catholic. I am an ordained Protestant minister.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 1:30pm

100. Also on top of that there are many marines who oppose the war as well. I have spoken to some and if you take a gander on google you can find many articles about them. So your theory doesn't hold water.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:36pm

101. No, Priests are Catholic. I am an ordained Protestant minister. Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 1:30pm

     Ahhh. So the Protestant church is ok with low lifes leading it. I get it now.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:38pm

102. Do you handle serpents? Sacrifice animals? Ignore the new testament?

     Methinks you are a specious and divisive christian of the most classic sort. Pray, or get a bumper sticker. That's usually the 'christian move' in lieu of actually doing anything constructive. Christians are supposed to give us an earthly example to live by and win converts. I guess you are going to leave that up to someone else.

     "What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?" - Jesus

     Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 1:15pm

     Don't handle serpents, don't sacrifice animals (see Luke 16:16), read, teach, and follow all of the NT.

     Within our ministry and our home, we weekly:

     feed the hungry

     provide clothing for the needy

     take in homeless people

     get medical care for those in need

     (and that is to all races and ethnicities, legal and illegal)

     send medical, nutritional, food, clothing, and school supplies around the world.

     We can't do it all, but we do what we can. I teach and live out that Matthew 25:34-40 and Isaiah 58:6-7 are required to demonstrate you are truly of Christ, living in and for His Kingdom

     Our ministry in CA, NV, Mexico, Bahamas, neither owns nor rents buildings, except for the churches in the Philippines. We instead meet in homes and use the money to care for needs.

     BTW, I have no bumper stickers. I also wear no jewelry, don't go to malls, don't own a big screen tv, my vehicles are paid for, and I grow most of my own fruits and vegetables.

     Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 1:40pm

103. antisocialist

     Du warst and bist immernoch ein Schwein. aber ohne mich.

     Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 1:45pm

104. BTW, I have no bumper stickers. I also wear no jewelry, don't go to malls, don't own a big screen tv, my vehicles are paid for, and I grow most of my own fruits and vegetables. Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 1:40pm

     Perfect.

     Silly me. Now you can get busy not telling other people offensive things. For an 'ordained minister' you seem to still have plenty of time to be nasty to other people.

     When you make a post like the one above it almost seems like you are a good guy. But the lack of consistency isn't really in keeping with your christian credo. You shouldn't be spending your time here being demeaning to others. You should be witnessing.

     But with all the things you say above I find something very amusing: You are a practicing socialist. Bizarre. You are helping the people you seem to simultaneously revile. Jesus wept!

     Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 1:58pm

105. Oh and LVL. some of the people, Marines included, speaking out against the Iraq war have been in the military for for 10 or 20 years.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 2:06pm

106. "Do you handle serpents?"

     He claims to be a Pentecostal, and some of them do handle poisonous snakes in their rituals.

     Posted by BlackFrancis at 02/19/2009 @ 3:04pm

107. "Do you handle serpents?" He claims to be a Pentecostal, and some of them do handle poisonous snakes in their rituals. Posted by BlackFrancis at 02/19/2009 @ 3:04pm

     As I said in another post, he's a 'self repairing mechanism.' He says whatever he needs to in order to be right.

     Both muslims and christians say they aren't into killing, yet history proves that they live in la-la land on this issue, and I mean only to address the extremists of both factions, not the well meaning and spiritually benign among them.

     One of the ten commandments is 'thou shalt not kill', so you would think that there is a serious disconnect when christians go into the military, or when they are blessed for their actions by ministers of the same persuasion.

     I've had some run in's with religious folk who think that the ten commandments says 'thou shall not lie'. Typical of re-translation practices by christians it only says this in the latin version, but 'thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor' is what the 'world' knows as the 8th or 9th commandment. And even that is weird because there are really about 25 commandments. These guys are the ultimate politicians - revisionist to their core in order to command the mount of righteousness.

     And antisocialist seemed to conveniently gloss over "What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?" - Jesus

     Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 3:40pm

108. "Do you handle serpents?"

     He claims to be a Pentecostal, and some of them do handle poisonous snakes in their rituals.

     Posted by BlackFrancis at 02/19/2009 @ 3:04pm

     Only a very tiny number (in the hundreds) out of 10's of millions of pentecostals handle snakes. They are usually found in the hills of Kentucky or similar locations. Obviously they are on the fringes of Christianity not understanding the context of that passage.

     Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 3:47pm

109. Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 3:40pm

     Amen brother (or sister).

     Posted by BlackFrancis at 02/19/2009 @ 3:55pm

110. Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009

     So, only the hillbilly pentecostals handle venomous snakes. OK.

     I'm a bit jaded when it comes to pentecostals. Admittedly, I only know one personally. He learned that his girlfriend, a good friend of mine, was pregnant and made her move out. He has since taken her to court attempting to get out of paying child support.

     I'm sure there are many decent pentecostals though.

     Posted by BlackFrancis at 02/19/2009 @ 4:04pm

111. And antisocialist seemed to conveniently gloss over "What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?" - Jesus

     Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 3:40pm

     1. The commandment says you shall not murder, not shall not kill. Murder is the deliberate taking of innocent life. The Hebrew is rasah which is premeditated intentional killing/murder rather than the Hebrew harag. Likewise Matt 5:21 uses the grk phoneuo which is intentional murder.

     Each Christian needs to follow his own conscience on military service. To serve is neither prohibited nor encouraged. But Christians are commanded to submit to the ruling authority over them. So a draft for instance would require a Christian to serve unless they can show they are pacifist. And self defense is clearly allowed in the Bible.

     2. I don't know who you ever talked to on the lying issue. I've never encountered that and I'm 60.

     3. Gloss over that verse? Hardly, it is central to all that I teach to believers and witness to non believers. That is why I try my imperfect best to follow Christ through faith and the strength of the Holy Spirit.

     You seem guilty of using the same leaps to assumptions that CCC often makes. He usually assumes a position for me or reads extra words into my posts that are not there.

     I am here primarily not as a pastor , but as a citizen, expressing my rights of free speech as a citizen. Everyone is biased by something or someone who/that affects their opinions. I am no different as a Christian. After studying the Scriptures in English, Greek, and Hebrew for decades, I feel fairly confident that G-d will judge that I have been fairly faithful to all that He commands and asks of me. I will let Him show me my failings and my successes.

     Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 4:08pm

112. Posted by lrjones4 at 02/19/2009 @ 09:12am

     Those claims are balanced by the 200 million new jobs produced globally, over the last 25 years as a direct result of market deregulation and various FTAs and general free trade policies. A large portion of those new jobs has helped produce a large middle class in places like China and India.

     --While driving hundreds of millions of peasants off of the land, throwing millions of workers out of relatively good jobs and forcing both populations to work in 19th Century-style conditions for 19th Century wages, if they can find work at all.

     The global economic downturn is forcing some of China's former peasants, who had been enjoying a relatively high standard of living, working in the cities, to return to rural life where they are getting re-acquainted with real poverty.

     --"A relatively high standard of living" compared to that in the current countryside of either China or India, sure. But compared to life on the old Collective farms in China, or before India's farmers were exposed, unprotected, to the global market? I'm not so sure.

     There is no economic future for peasants and subsistence farmers in a world, which will need to feed an extra 2 billion people within a few decades. That will require the best agricultural technologies and the most efficient use of scarce soil and water resources.

     --I'm not one for romanticizing the subsitence farmer or the family farm, but there are better ways of making farming more efficient and planet-friendly than either Stalin-like collectivization or a Big Agriculture-style takeover.

     Here is a list of claimed benefits for the three NAFTA partners: http://tinyurl.com/apxhow

     --I don't trust a press release from the U.S. Trade Rep, but OK, I've got some homework to do.

     Posted by cka2nd at 02/19/2009 @ 4:16pm

113. You seem guilty of using the same leaps to assumptions that CCC often makes. He usually assumes a position for me or reads extra words into my posts that are not there.

     Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 4:08pm

     Hahahah. Says the person who assume so much about me yet knows less than I know about you. For instance your constant comment about me going to public school or not going to a university. Hypocrite.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 4:24pm

114. Hahahah. Says the person who assume so much about me yet knows less than I know about you. For instance your constant comment about me going to public school or not going to a university. Hypocrite.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 4:24pm

     I have never said you didn't attend a university; and I'm not sure if I said anything about you specifically attending public school.

     But I do correct on a consistent basis statements you make trying to put words attributed to me that I did not make.

     Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 4:42pm

115. You seem guilty of using the same leaps to assumptions that CCC often makes. He usually assumes a position for me or reads extra words into my posts that are not there. From 'antisocialist'

     Oh, please point out those items. I'm curious as to where I was assuming anything or putting words in your mouth. No, I purposely was using generalizations, and not directing them particularly to you, although you were included.

     You have to note, and accept, that by identifying yourself as a christian, and specifically as a pastor, that you will be addressed according to the guidelines and the higher standards that religious folk like yourself are supposed to adhere to. And that 'Christians aren't perfect, they're just forgiven' line is just a load of semantic crapola. I hold christians to a higher standard, since they are supposed to set an example for me. I've got no time for obsessive compulsive sinners who don't really practice what they preach.

     Your last post to me was a return to the 'kinder, gentler' antisocialist. It is true, since I review your posts, that you have taken to name calling and nasty comments as of late... I don't find that very christian. You seemed a lot more fair minded when you first started posting.

     I thought that the 'meek would inherit the earth'.

     By your actions, you are writing yourself out of the will.

     Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 5:25pm

116. livert is a nasty f*ck. all the god talk does not hide this.

     family members are out of bounds here.

     I mentioned record soldier suicides, a legitimate news story.

     that filth answers by blaming ME, and takes a casual swipe at my kid.

     liverty you are a scumbag, your wife is a puta, and your kids have sex with barnyard animals.

     when someone impugns my kid, he becomes my enemy.

     Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 6:01pm

117. and that one is for keeps.

     Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 6:03pm

118. I have never said you didn't attend a university; and I'm not sure if I said anything about you specifically attending public school. But I do correct on a consistent basis statements you make trying to put words attributed to me that I did not make. Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 4:42pm

     You must have a short memory because you have said it multiple times and I have corrected you multiple times.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 6:41pm

119. It is true, since I review your posts, that you have taken to name calling and nasty comments as of late.

     Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 5:25pm

     That's because in his mind that because Jesus called someone a hypocrite once that means it's okay for him to insult someone's son and lob around judgement. He forgets that when Jesus calls someone out it's because he's omnipotent and speaks the truth. Jesus was passing judgement from God. Maybe LVL thinks he's passing judgment from God too.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 6:47pm

120. the satanic preacher is bipolar.

     Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 6:56pm

121. that filth answers by blaming ME, and takes a casual swipe at my kid.

     liverty you are a scumbag, your wife is a puta, and your kids have sex with barnyard animals.

     when someone impugns my kid, he becomes my enemy.

     Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 6:01pm

     Now to correct Emile who is prone to over sensitivity to begin with.

     Here is my comment again. If you note it is not directed at his son specifically.

     no it's because people like yourself raised up a new generation of pansies (the most polite way I can say it), who lack the moral fortitude of previous generations.

     Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:01am

     People like yourself have raised up a generation of pansies. An absolutely true statement that many in the left with the moral relativism and feminization of men have created new generations that lack the moral fortitude and grit necessary to endure the grim reality of war.

     Now if he thought it directed right at him personally, that is a good subject for some personal introspection. A generalization only hurts if there is an element of truth behind it or is an outright lie. Since that isn't an outright lie, I suggest Emile has once again overreacted as he is prone to do.

     Others like Mask can vouch for Emiles hypersensitivity. He has more than once vowed never to grace us with his presence again. We are at times not worthy of his superior intellect and uber literate background (or so he tells us).

     But I will be graceful Emile. If you took that personally despite my not initially intending at as so, and it is not applicable to your family, I give you my humble apologies.

     And I'm sure you regret suggesting that I have an incestuous relationship with my sons; right Emile?

     Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 8:05pm

122. Posted by cka2nd at 02/19/2009

     Was watching, last night, a Q&A session, in which the Aussie Treasurer (centre-left) and the Shadow Treasurer (centre-right) were debating the Australian economy and what sort of stimulus would best work.

     In response to the audience question, "should Australia re-impose tariffs on imports from China, India, the US etc", though they had been at each others throat on the value of the stimulus package, on this one they both loudly protested that they were convinced re-introduction of tariffs would seriously damage Australia's future as a leading trading nation. And both declared the virtues of free trade and were horrified at the "buy American" clauses in Obama's stimulus package. They vowed to bring your trade protectionist leaders to their senses. (to loud cheers from the audience).

     Both claimed that the deregulation and freeing up of markets was responsible for the great prosperity we in the West are enjoying and the enormous growth in the upwardly mobile middle class in countries like China and India, as they follow the West in industrialising.

     That I would suggest is what most national leaders would agree on and that is the future for growing a viable "world economy". An economy that will have to accommodate about another 2 billion citizens by about 2040.

     (The Treasurer was attacked by his counterpart about a green initiative in his governments stimulus package, in which the government would supply "pink batts" and labour to improve the insulation of any house owner "that cared for the environment".

     The treasurer was trumpeting how many Aussies would get jobs making all those "pink batts" until the Shadow Treasurer told the audience the "pink Batts" would be sourced from India at about half the cost of Aussie made ones.)

     Posted by lrjones4 at 02/19/2009 @ 8:19pm

123. Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 8:05pm

     Actually you have no clue about language. It was a directed generalization LVL. You said "People like yourself have raised up a generation of pansies." You basically said YOU have raised a pansy. It wasn't a generalization it was you being condescending and insulting someone. Don't piss on my foot and tell me it's raining LVL. You are being a jerk and there's no other way for you to try to wrap it. Don't act benevolent now.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 8:57pm

124. Posted by lrjones4 at 02/19/2009 @ 8:19pm

     Actually if you read into. Obama didn't want the Buy American provisions. Those were added in against his wants.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 8:59pm

125. required reading:

     "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", Charles Mackay

     originally published in 1841, good chapter on the Tulipomania,the south sea bubble, the Mississippi scheme, the crusades, duels and many others.

     Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 11:46pm

126. larry, larry, larry........

     so much hate..

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/20/2009 @ 12:11am

127. The government has more strings attached than a tampon factory. What the gov't funds they control. It was GOVERNMENT intrusion and GOVERNMENT dictates that brought the economy to a worldwide crashing halt. It was the GOVERNMENT that decided the TARP would set things right. Things look good from here! It was the GOVERNMENT that decided on more TARP. The GOVERNMENT said we need a bailout, now another, a stimulus, and there will be another. I can't wait to see the colossal debacle they make of universal healthcare ( if you want the gov't in charge of your health care there are quicker ways to die). Last time I checked the ethanol experiment is a massive waste of money and corn. Come to find out, ethanol leaves a bigger "carbon footprint" than ethane. Who knew? The gov't is still embroiled in the butter vs. margarine debate. RENEWABLE ENERGY? That should go reeeaal smoooooth. That should save us a lot of money, which'll come in handy, since we'll all be broke paying exorbitantly sky high energy prices for about a DECADE. When it comes to gov't the way to go is small....smaller....smaller.....a little smaller....gone! That's ticket. If you rely on the gov't you are 1.lazy 2.crazy 3. stupid 4. liberal Pick your category.

     Posted by uPay2Play1 at 02/20/2009 @ 01:47am

128. The founding fathers believed that extreme wealth needed to be limited. The revolution was fought to be free from the tyranny of the aristocracy.

     Bring back the Eisenhower taxes. Make the people who have benefited the most from the blood and sweat of the working class, pay their fair share to the system that enables their increase.

     Posted by Wiser19 at 02/20/2009 @ 09:11am

129. If you rely on the private sector you are 1.lazy 2.crazy 3. stupid 4. liberal Pick your category. Posted by uPay2Play1 at 02/20/2009 @ 01:47am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 09:57am

130. 94% top bracket or bust.

     Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 09:58am

131. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 8:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     thank you.

     Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 10:27am

132. Pick your category. Posted by uPay2Play1 at 02/20/2009 @ 01:47am

     Accepted. My category is overpopulation, a new topic, yet one that addresses the subject in a more meaningful way, I believe.

     It's the 500 Lb gorilla that humanity can't seem to get it's mind around because it involves impossible decisions regarding sex and religion.

     That's the endgame for us all. You can't keep on 'growing' forever. Population needs to stabilize. There will never be a system devised that can account for constant changes in the number of people that have needs for food and space. All this 'growth' allowed capitalism to seem like a successful system, which it is not, unless we just speak of those who have all the money.

     Like a giant sunflower, our economy and system of philosophy just kept reaching for the light until it fell over. Now the plant lies there, with it's giant seed head, hoping something or someone will lift it up so it can face the sun again. But the birds will come and pick it clean. It does not matter if you are liberal, conservative, centrist, libertarian... the reality of 'now' will ignore us all and force us into the hinterlands of the unexpected. Everyone is twitching and crying as they resist the inevitabilities of our common plight.

     The stimulus package is just an attempt to right the wrongs of everybody's making. We're all part of the problem. The question is... can we all be part of a solution? Can we regenerate and start anew? Or will we go down slowly, like a cape buffalo, hyenas and jackals snapping at our hindquarters as we bellow and shudder in the sunlight? The answer, I fear, will be one that judges us all harshly.

     Will we act preemptively, or react reflexively? The sun is still shining somewhere, but mighty Casey has struck out.

     Posted by ficheye at 02/20/2009 @ 4:10pm

133. Malthus has been laid to rest.

     Australia and Canada are underpopulated. China has a one child limit. europe has negative population growth.

     colorful writing on your part, though.

     Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 5:03pm

134. Posted by ficheye at 02/20/2009 @ 4:10pm

     Fishy, thanks for that discourse on your beliefs. It is an excellent summary of my own beliefs when I was about 20 years old and freshly indoctrinated by all the fools who cower in academia and government sinecures. In the last 30 years, as I have gained experience in how the actual world works, I have learned how utterly stupid pretty much everything you have laid out is. And I know it's hopeless to try to talk you out of it, some things people just have to learn for themselves. Good luck in your travels.

     Posted by pontificus at 02/20/2009 @ 5:54pm

135. Posted by Christopher Hayes

     The good news on the stimulus as far as I'm concerned is that my physical gold is up 25 percent in about 6 weeks. Obama has not got a fucking clue what he is up to, and the market has reflected it; it's down about 30 percent since he was elected, and every day he lays out his idiotic policies it tanks even more.

     Did anyone get a load of his 'we'll make your mortgage payment for you' scheme? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Bailouts for the most irresponsible spenders in America, paid for by the people who did NOT make foolish financial decisions. And what are the people who are still making their mortgage payments supposed to think? Why pay if you know you won't lose your house?

     Ah, liberal fantasy meets reality. We're only one month into this, and the Jimmy Carter years are coming back with a vengeance.

     Hey Jomamma I bought a Swiss Franc ETF today at your suggestion. I think I'd rather have my money out of American dollars at this point. God this is going to be painful for the country. Sheesh.

     Posted by pontificus at 02/20/2009 @ 6:00pm

136. Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 5:03pm

     Posted by pontificus at 02/20/2009 @ 5:54pm

     Pull the blankets up over your heads. I fully expected to be abused by both the left and the right on this issue. It really bugs people to hear someone say there are too many people. It's also like saying global warming isn't happening because it snowed a lot in America this year. No matter that Iceland lost 26 trillion tons of land ice.

     The world population is the factor, not Canada's or Australia's. It's about resources, water, in Australias case. It's the quality of life, which, to me , includes open spaces, not industrial parks and concrete jungles. But many, in their hopes for a utopia of poker chip housing communities that will take care of everyones needs even though the tiger and polar bear may be gone, see human survival as the paramount objective, and not a world of open space and beautiful nature.

     I would only finalize by saying that I feel the same way that pontificus invariably does. I quote "I know it's hopeless to try to talk you out of it, some things people just have to learn for themselves." That's right.

     I wouldn't call him stupid. That's his way. Ignorant, yes. And Emile has kids, so he thinks that I address him in opposition to his philosophies. That would be incorrect. It sure gets people going though, inferring birth control as a positive thing.

     Posted by ficheye at 02/20/2009 @ 6:13pm

137. Posted by ficheye at 02/20/2009 @ 6:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     relax. I am only offering a divergent view. you are not being abused. and I am not ignorant. I presume you welcome a different point of view.

     Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 6:21pm

138. I beg you to never, ever mention me in the same breath of the pontificator.

     Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 6:24pm

139. also, please do not ascribe views to me, which I have not proposed. in that case you are arguing with yourself.

     I have one son.

     Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 6:44pm

140. fich, since I do not read ponti, I may have misinterpreted your post sorry.

     Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 6:50pm

141. Posted by ficheye at 02/20/2009 @ 6:13pm

     Fishy, your fears are all based on abstract theories of dubious validity and infininitely more dubious provenance. Certain types of manipulative people have been making a living hyping phony end-of-the-world theories (such as the world is overpopulated or heating dramatically) for hundreds of years, and they've always been a) running a scam and b) wrong. Stop believing in prophets of doom, and open your eyes to what's really going on in the world. The truth is, everything is reasonable and technology makes us richer all the time. Your fears are far worse than reality. What you've fallen for is the classic liberal guilt trip that certain segments of society lays on its newest and most privileged members, and also the least experienced and most likely to fall for the same scam over and over again. Stop drinking the koolaid and get out into the world.

     Posted by pontificus at 02/20/2009 @ 7:16pm

142. I beg you to never, ever mention me in the same breath of the pontificator. Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 6:24pm

     And I do apologize. I like your posts. I was referring to only to the pontificator as being ignorant, as well as the other topic references. I don't think Australia could expand very much, however, unless they get into nuclear or coal powered desalinization plants.

     Look at all the big words pontificus looked up for his latest ranting! I know you don't read him, but once he admitted to being here chiefly to try and annoy people I sometimes say things that he will react to. And, predictably, he goes for it. I mean, he posted TWO rants where only one would do. Did I get to him? Check out how he spelled 'infinitely' in his haste to denigrate! What an unhappy fellow.

     Yes ponti, I will stop the nonsense!

     No, ponti, I won't disagree anymore! It's true, you've opened my eyes and now I see!

     "....The truth is everything is reasonable?"

     No, that's a load of crap, ponti, and a generalization that you could drive a truck through, if I had a truck that is! If that were true you'd have no need to vent and wouldn't be here trying to annoy everyone... you'd be happy! Oh, that elusive happiness, hmm?

     Crawl back in your camper and sleep it off! Sterno is bad for you! Myself, I don't like kool-aid! Too much sugar. I don't read books that tell me what to do. I thunk a lot of this stuff up myself (go for it), and I'm welcome to my opinion, thank you, just like you're welcome to yours... but you're so angry! I'll bet you're fun at parties. Until the liquor, that is.

     Hey... have a nice weekend.

     Posted by ficheye at 02/20/2009 @ 9:32pm

143. Rejection of Obamas policies does not make you a racist. Just smart.

     Posted by apoorspic at 02/20/2009 @ 11:32pm

144. Posted by Emile dubois at 02/20/2009 @ 09:11A.M. I've seen your comments. Now I know why antisocialist called you a sissy. You just exposed yourself as an ineffectual need freak. The private sector is where the BIG boys play. The little kiddies stay on the porch. In the the private sector there are winners & losers, cheaters, crooks, and men of honor . It is up to you to determine who's who before you do business. It's easy if your mama let you out the house when you were young. Then you would have gained some insight and introspection. In the private sector you don't need the gov't yo "bail" you out. The bankers (not all bankers), the businesses ( not all businesses) that did are paying the price. They must now regiment themselves to the dictates of the federales. If you were a banker you would have taken a bailout......'cause your an ineffectual need freak, little boy.

     Posted by uPay2Play1 at 02/21/2009 @ 12:52am

145. HA!...borrow money from the Chinese to give welfare away. Sorry, the "redistribution" political giveaway to the non-producers only hurts the very people its supposed to help. Sure, here is a bit of money, etc..but not job. The "rich" will always be "rich"--especially in relative terms. The hardworking, frugal conservative who saves, invests, etc will always be "rich" even in a downturn. Its the poor who have been duped by the cruel message from the left. They are the first laid off, last hired, and saddled with a brick wall of taxes as they make economic headway. The world is killing us, but we can't have a lower capital gains and corporate taxe rate that the PRC or Singapore..thats "unfair"!

     Posted by mike63 at 02/21/2009 @ 03:08am

146. Rejection of Obamas policies does not make you smart . Just racist Posted by apoorspic at 02/20/2009 @ 11:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by emile duBois at 02/21/2009 @ 10:39am

147. Actually you have no clue about language. It was a directed generalization LVL. You said "People like yourself have raised up a generation of pansies." You basically said YOU have raised a pansy. It wasn't a generalization it was you being condescending and insulting someone. Don't piss on my foot and tell me it's raining LVL. You are being a jerk and there's no other way for you to try to wrap it. Don't act benevolent now.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 8:57pm

     CCC,

     You are perhaps the worst on this blog to ever comprehend what people are communicating. If one starts with your smug "only young people have the true insights and solutions" tripe that you constantly throw out; add to the fact that you seldom actually read what people have said before forming an opinion;

     et folie à deux; we have an elitist know it all-why maybe you are Emile's son! (lol)

     Posted by antisocialist at 02/21/2009 @ 3:02pm

148. i'm a pansy and proud!

     pansies unite!

     make the world a cheaper and safer place!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 5:48pm

149. Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 5:48pm

     "i'm a pansy and proud!"

     Actually you're just jobless and proud of it. So proud, in fact, that you demand more of what you 'deserve' for doing exactly nothing.

     Posted by pontificus at 02/22/2009 @ 2:45pm

150. Actually you're just jobless and proud of it. So proud, in fact, that you demand more of what you 'deserve' for doing exactly nothing.

     Posted by pontificus at 02/22/2009 @ 2:45pm | ignore this person

     Damn those homemakers!!!

     Posted by k330k at 02/23/2009 @ 07:21am

151. jobless?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2009 @ 11:53pm